It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

142 Corporations + Fed. Gov. Cancel Right-Wing Advertising, not Left-Wing

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If that is a bad definition its not my point any way. The point was that service was canceled to right-wing media only, which is inappropriate and threatening behavior. I don't want corporations getting into politics at all. So I will have my personal ban on going to a number of those stores like Kohl's because I don't like corporations supporting censorship.

I define ban as "prohibiting, canceling, or avoiding a market offering for reasons of offensive behavior". I would classify a boycott as a type of ban. For example if someone told me "we at XYZ corporation banned us from going to Target for paper because its a rip-off" I would say that is a fair use of the word "ban". The cited source said something like "offensive content" as the reason for the cancellation. Is it the best word to use? No, so I edited it out. But I think its a perfectly fair word to use and does describe what happened. Hopefully thats the last I'll have to explain about that.




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Those corporations PAY for the ads that are played. They "the corporations" as customers have a right and responsibility to spend their money wisely on behalf of their companies. Sponsoring shows that reflect badly on them or reach a smaller demographic is unwise so they no longer wish to be associated or spend money with those shows.

It isn't a ban it is marketing.
edit on 24-9-2016 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Ok. So "right wing" media has lost all advertisers.
Bummers.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


And regardless of how big government gets its never big enough for them, and the US is now almost more communist/socialist than any other system.

What a flat out lie. False. The US is one of the LEAST socialist of the advanced western countries.

That's all the farther I'm going to read....the first part was you griping about not getting to hear enough right-wing ads for your taste. If you are unable to comprehend that privatizing everything will mean YOU will get left out in the cold, then you are not paying attention, or your heels are too dug in to be able to see the truth. Is it over your head?

I certainly hope someone else has already advised you of the error of your thinking. I'm too tired. Sick and tired. Of right-wing BS.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


"The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity."


Uhhhh.....because.....

Those guys are asshat blowhard idiots who incite people to make trouble and refuse service to gays or others they don't like. Like Trump.
You weren't aware of that?
Maybe those companies aren't interested in having people who listen to Beck, Hannity, and Savage shopping at their stores. Maybe they'd rather sell their hardware and deliver the mail for people who don't refuse to tow the cars of ill young women who are Bernie fans. Or people who are happy to bake cakes for a same-sex couple....or a muslim or mixed-race couple...or a trans-sexual's 35th birthday. Maybe they'd rather have the money of caring, sincere, genuine people than people who are too closed-minded to keep up.

I wouldn't want their business either. So I can't blame them for not advertising to them. Do you expect the bakeries who won't bake cakes for gays to buy advertising on liberal stations like MSNBC? No?

The companies get to decide who they want to advertise to.




Welp, guess I haven't run out of anything to say after all! ACK!!
edit on 9/24/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: wayforward


And regardless of how big government gets its never big enough for them, and the US is now almost more communist/socialist than any other system.

What a flat out lie. False. The US is one of the LEAST socialist of the advanced western countries.

That's all the farther I'm going to read....the first part was you griping about not getting to hear enough right-wing ads for your taste. If you are unable to comprehend that privatizing everything will mean YOU will get left out in the cold, then you are not paying attention, or your heels are too dug in to be able to see the truth. Is it over your head?

I certainly hope someone else has already advised you of the error of your thinking. I'm too tired. Sick and tired. Of right-wing BS.

You're so sick and tired of right-wing BS that you support corporations doing censorship of the right. Okay, well perhaps they should have censorship in all areas of life that the government controls to keep out that evil right-wing thinking? If censorship is good, lets have more of it.

This is total guesswork on your part and in no way based on evidence. You don't have evidence I want to see right-wing ads or that I have ever watched Hannity. That isn't even the topic and why focus on my irrelevant desires? Not the topic. The burden of proof is on the positive not the negative. You have no evidence government programs ever helped anyone with anything and the reason for this is government has nothing to do with what works in real life. Or, there would be studies BEFORE government took over a service. Like did they do a study to find out if Social Security would help anyone, or does help anyone? Does it help people to take away 16% of people's money and give it back decades later at 0% interest? Hmmm, there has never been a study on that because the point is control and authority, not helping people. They just put a public post office without any thoughts as to whether that actually works better than allowing private post offices instead, no? So its up to the corporations to prove their value, not up to privatizing interests to that their concept works. That said, it has been show privatizing can work in schools.

I'm DUG IN as you put it, where all of the evidence is. The evidence. I did my own economic studies willing to accept socialism if it works. If I did my own study of the data crunching it my own way and found socialism resulted in economic hell. I offered liberals on ATS to study the data with me and they declined because they don't care. I do. What I found was that the most capitalist places in the world were the most successful in ending poverty and helping most people. Sorry if I'm so dug into the facts, but your right there is not much hope for me because of all the EVIDENCE I would need in the other direction that contradicts my position. Why is New Hampshire such a great place. Its the "Live Free or Die" state. Thats why. I welcome libertarians to move there with me because it is better than other places in many ways. Visit socialist places, then visit libertarian places.

So if you read this, you'll know I'm not actually on the right wing and like Hannity about as much as Cooper and other lefties. Not at all.
edit on 24-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

You are being ridiculous. THE CORPORATIONS ARE CHOOSING NOT TO ADVERTISE to those people.

Deal with it.
Companies who buy ads get to choose what programs they want to be associated with. If Home Depot doesn't want Glenn Beck listeners buying their hammers (because who knows what a crazy Trump guy might do with a Home Depot hammer at a rally!) then they don't have to invite Beck listeners to shop there.

Does it mean they can't shop there? Nope. They can still shop there, and buy a hammer. But Home Depot would prefer to not be responsible for SOLICITING their shopping. That way, Home Depot isn't going to be accused of knowingly and deliberately selling those hammers to those KKK guys.

I don't blame them a bit.
If I don't want to sell my stuff to skin-heads, I don't buy ads in "Skin-heads Illustrated: Racist-Tattoo Edition".
edit on 9/24/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: wayforward

You are being ridiculous. THE CORPORATIONS ARE CHOOSING NOT TO ADVERTISE to those people.

Deal with it.
Companies who buy ads get to choose what programs they want to be associated with. If Home Depot doesn't want Glenn Beck listeners buying their hammers (because who knows what a crazy Trump guy might do with a Home Depot hammer at a rally!) then they don't have to invite Beck listeners to shop there.

Does it mean they can't shop there? Nope. They can still shop there, and buy a hammer. But Home Depot would prefer to not be responsible for SOLICITING their shopping. That way, Home Depot isn't going to be accused of knowingly and deliberately selling those hammers to those KKK guys.

I don't blame them a bit.
If I don't want to sell my stuff to skin-heads, I don't buy ads in "Skin-heads Illustrated: Special Racist-Tattoo Edition".
Censorship is a threat to everyone, so its not ridiculous. Corporations are merely smaller versions of government and in fact corporations do have corporate charters that place them under the government. Corporations are government entities, not private entities. Corporations are called public companies. Public-owned. This is why I find corporate censorship to be just as threatening as government censorship. Of course the largest corporation is the USA and so far as I know is chartered in England with royals, though I could be wrong on that point.

Also, getting corporations out of politics is not ridiculous at all. Corporations in politics is fascism.

And the way I deal with this is the same way everyone should deal with companies that misbehave, by shopping at a better company. So I'll be dealing with this just as you have commanded me to do. I hate what some people have to say but I may defend their right to say it to my death. Personally I find left-wing media just as offensive as the right-wing because both seem to advocate unwarranted violence just as much.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Left-wing policies do not advocate violence. They advocate doing business with everyone. Letting everyone all come and live here and get along. They don't hate people of other races. They welcome other religions. They are happy to sell cakes or pizzas to people who'd like to buy their cakes and pizzas.

There is nothing to call "offensive" in the educated left-wing venue - it is simply common sense, the evolution of society that has to happen alongside the evolution of our technology, our trading practices, our communication, our communication facilities.......

If you don't hear ads for Home Depot, you aren't likely to shop there. They'd prefer you don't. It's a win-win.
Stay away from each other.

Home Depot doesn't want to sell anything to anyone who might use their products to hurt someone else......if they don't advertise to those people, then no one can blame Home Depot for selling hammers or industrial chemicals, or nails or barbed wire, or whatever else to people who listen to Glenn Beck, or promote Donald Trump, or are otherwise considered "volatile" and suffer from Intermittent Explosive Disorder who might get it in their heads to misuse them to create an Improvised Explosive Device and blow off some marathoners' legs. Or terrorize some other people with a dumpster bomb.

A match made in hell. Nutjobs with chemicals and hardware. IED love.

Now that I think about it, if I were the legal adviser to Home Depot, I would say: "Whatever you do, don't advertise hammers or fertilizers or nails to anyone who listens to Beck or Hannity, or thinks Obama is a muslim, and is going to vote for Trump."

IED is a real thing in psych clinics and hospitals and households all over the place. IED is also a real thing that kills people travelling in war-torn areas. People with IED build things like IEDs to hurt other people.

edit on 9/24/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
If your a tax cheat right wing media advertisers will hook you up!



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


Censorship is a threat to everyone, so its not ridiculous. Corporations are merely smaller versions of government and in fact corporations do have corporate charters that place them under the government.



WHAT?!

CENSORSHIP is not what you are talking about, dude. THE COMPANIES asked to not have their PAID-FOR ADS played to an audience they don't want to have shopping there!

OMG. The companies buy ads from whichever outlets are popular with the customers they want. They get to choose who they want to show ads to. Maybe it's opera-ticket buyers. Maybe it's football fans. If they aren't interested in deliberately "inviting" gay-haters or skinheads, they don't have to invite them!

Okay - this is my last effort to help you understand:

The companies asked that their ads NOT BE PLAYED during particular hours or particular shows. They preferred that Beck listeners don't hear their ads.

There is not one damn thing wrong with that. It is not censorship, it is CAPITALISM at work! It is CONSUMERISM!

I think you have a lot of homework to do.....and that you perhaps don't understand the more detailed infrastructure of advertising. You see, people place ads in shows and publications in order to attract customers. They pay for those ads. That's how the station or site or publication makes money.

If an ad salesman goes to Home Depot and says, "We have some spots available during Glenn Beck", the Home Depot advertising guy is perfectly free to say, "No thanks. We don't want to run on Beck's show. What else have you got?"

That is not censorship, dude. That is shopping. That is deciding not to buy a cake from the people who won't make cakes for gays.

Have a great weekend. I told you earlier....I'm tired. And I'm sick and tired of this fruitless effort to help you all understand.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
There are certain conspiracy theorists who have suggested that the democratic party has infiltrated American media in an attempt of some sort of "soft coup".

Really makes me wonder.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


major corporations including the US Post Office, the US Army, all national hardware retail shops (Home Depot, Ace Hardware, etc etc) except perhaps for Sears, and many others have opted to cancel ads on select right-wing media


This was part of your opening sentence.

Those entities


have opted to cancel ads on select right-wing media



HAVE CHOSEN TO NOT HAVE THEIR ADS ON RIGHT-WING MEDIA.


OMFG. Do you REALLY not understand that?

That is not censorship.



edit on 9/24/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You can't blame the media outlets for the majority of radio talk show are right wing. The progressives had their own talk radio, Radio America. It failed due to two reasons. The first was extremely low ratings the second was the that their money "disappeared". Some say it was foolishly spent. Others say it was embezzled by the Board of Directors of Radio America.
The only left wing/progressive radio out there is PBS and there is no way that can go bankrupt, everytime they come close the Federal Government just ups PBS's operating budget and grants.
So it is not the media preventing progressive talk shows. It is the corrupt nature of progressives and the fact that the majority of the USA doesn't agree with them, nor does the majority of the American people want to listen to the progressive talking heads.
Even the left leaning MSM is taking a hit. A recent poll shows that only 36% of Americans believe the MSM tells them the truth.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

These corporations decided it was against their interests to air commercials during the broadcasts of certain talking heads.

Why do you want to restrict their freedom of choice?
Why do you hate the free market?
edit on 13Sun, 25 Sep 2016 13:55:40 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago9 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: wayforward


major corporations including the US Post Office, the US Army, all national hardware retail shops (Home Depot, Ace Hardware, etc etc) except perhaps for Sears, and many others have opted to cancel ads on select right-wing media


This was part of your opening sentence.

Those entities


have opted to cancel ads on select right-wing media



HAVE CHOSEN TO NOT HAVE THEIR ADS ON RIGHT-WING MEDIA.


OMFG. Do you REALLY not understand that?

That is not censorship.


Of course I don't understand that. My definition of censorship comes from the dictionary. Here is what Wikipedia says censorship is:

Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]
Why do you suppose the leftist successfully lobbied their corporate allies to have the ads canceled? Because they wanted speech they disfavor to stop being expressed. No? So, canceling ads for the express reason that disfavored speech is considered politically incorrect as determined by corporations is censorship. Do you REALLY not understand that?
edit on 25-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward
Doesn't free speech mean that the advertisers can choose who they want to run their ads?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: wayforward


Censorship is a threat to everyone, so its not ridiculous. Corporations are merely smaller versions of government and in fact corporations do have corporate charters that place them under the government.



WHAT?!
What I mean by that is what Wikipedia says about corporations: "A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration." So "WHAT?!" I mean is a corporation is a government entity. That is all, and I think that makes it much more objectionable to me that corporations are buying ads on the left-wing media (MSNBC) and not finding their speech objectionable, while at the same time canceling ads on right-wing media (FOX) while finding their speech objectionable.

If the right-wing demanded MSNBC advertisers all cancel their ads on MSNBC, and advertisers then canceled their ads on MSNBC due to speech the right "finds offensive", would that be right-wing censorship of the left? Yes or no please.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

Please provide evidence that "the left wing" demanded that advertisers not want their product represented by Rush.

Your source:

Previously, ThinkProgress has reported that 50 companies requested their advertising be pulled from the Rush Limbaugh show following his sexist attacks on Sandra Fluke.

thinkprogress.org...
edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm more interested in which advertisers are canceling ads on Hannity and the other right-wing show. In any case, this website was a one of the leading advocates in getting advertisers to cancel their ads on Rush:
www.topplebush.com...
So to me, it looks like it was the left exploiting a wrongful remark to fill their mission... they don't care if Rush is out there talking bad about people... only if he is talking bad about lefties in my estimation, because it was not until Rush attacked someone on the left that the the left moved to get him off the air by canceling his ads.

Tactics the left employs as defined by left-wing hero Saul Alinsky:
“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

So, this shows me that about half the focus of the left is on tearing down enemies rather than simply gathering evidence and facts though the scientific method that their systems work in any way shape or form (hint: they don't). I like evidence. I don't don't like emotional circular reasoning and sob soap stories as my politics. I don't like attacking people either like the left does (though the extreme right does too) but it seems the vast majority of the left does this and I do believe its because of books like the one cited here.
edit on 25-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join