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: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: wayforward




I'm more interested in which advertisers are canceling ads on Hannity and the other right-wing show.

Isn't there a list?
But why? So you can boycott them?
Feel free to do so.
edit on 9/26/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That is exactly why I want to know... so I can chose where I shop better to avoid the more political corporations. I posted this in hopes other people would have more information. It seems like the source may or may not be pulling things out their glory hole on canceling Hannity and Beck advertising.

Shopping at places that behave appropriately is the way forward.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


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?


No!

Those companies, who are buying ads, CHOSE TO WITHDRAW their paid-for ads from those programs. WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THIS?????

Omg.

Not everything is a conspiracy. These companies said "no thank you" to having their ads play during certain programs...>HOW IS THAT "CENSORSHIP" except on the part of the COMPANIES PAYING FOR THE ADS??!!!

Correct. It is 'discernment' on the part of the advertisers.

Just like I might have an ad about oil and gas.....I can CHOOSE where that ad goes.....






omg I'm spending way too much energy on trying to help the dimwits......



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

edit on 9/26/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
nm


edit on 9/26/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward



Shopping at places that behave appropriately is the way forward.

Please,

DEFINE "behave appropriately."

Right now.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: wayforward



Shopping at places that behave appropriately is the way forward.

Please,

DEFINE "behave appropriately."

Right now.
Okay behave appropriately:
1) Non-aggression principle
2) Minimize ecological footprint
3) Participate in community building

As to randomly cutting someone off from ads because they said something offensive, I find that insane when our world has real problems or than naughty words like "prostitute". While a neighbor was a supervisor at Wal-Mart in the pet department they wanting him to knowingly let a bunch of their fish die simply because it was cheaper that way to get them stocked. So while you might get a warm fuzzy feeling about Wal-Mart cutting off someone's ads over a naughty word I'm thinking about how they are the ones deserving to be cut off from the ability to advertise.

I am shifting towards shopping local... giving business to local farms, shifting towards self-sufficiency so as to cut off business from the large corporations. I think this is helpful. I don't think trying to punish people's naughty words is helpful.
edit on 27-9-2016 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: wayforward


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?


No!

Those companies, who are buying ads, CHOSE TO WITHDRAW their paid-for ads from those programs. WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THIS?????

Omg.

Not everything is a conspiracy. These companies said "no thank you" to having their ads play during certain programs...>HOW IS THAT "CENSORSHIP" except on the part of the COMPANIES PAYING FOR THE ADS??!!!

Correct. It is 'discernment' on the part of the advertisers.

Just like I might have an ad about oil and gas.....I can CHOOSE where that ad goes.....






omg I'm spending way too much energy on trying to help the dimwits......

I'm not sure why you think I disagree with you on that point. Yes, the companies chose to pull the ads, and that was a choice they made. Agreed. So step 1, left-wing groups asked the right wing media ads to be canceled. Step 2, the advertising agencies complied and canceled them. I'm not sure why you think I disagree on that point. The left-wing chose to ask right-wing media adverting to be canceled, and it was canceled.

However, I don't see any conspiracy. This was no conspiracy. Left-wing websites were entirely open in saying they wanted Rush off the air.

Wikipedia describes censorship as:

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.


I think pulling ads over offensive speech is censorship, whereas you don't. Right? I look at Wikipedia's definition of censorship as being in favor of my assertion that pulling ads over speech is censorship, even though it is a choice corporations can make. Just like bleeping out words or putting a black box over female nipples is a choice people make that has nothing to do with law in many cases.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


Yes, the companies chose to pull the ads, and that was a choice they made. Agreed. So step 1, left-wing groups asked the right wing media ads to be canceled. Step 2, the advertising agencies complied and canceled them. I'm not sure why you think I disagree on that point. The left-wing chose to ask right-wing media adverting to be canceled, and it was canceled.


PRECISELY!!! Yet you tried to call it "CENSORSHIP"



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward


So while you might get a warm fuzzy feeling about Wal-Mart cutting off someone's ads over a naughty word I'm thinking about how they are the ones deserving to be cut off from the ability to advertise.


What the FARK dot com are you talking about?!!!!




I am shifting towards shopping local... giving business to local farms, shifting towards self-sufficiency so as to cut off business from the large corporations. I think this is helpful. I don't think trying to punish people's naughty words is helpful.


ok. That's GREAT!! You should be doing that anyway, rather than trying to deconstruct the concept of advertising.......

make up your mind. It is "censorship" for Walmart to refuse advertisers, or it is "censorship" for advertisers to retract their ads?

Dude, you are so muddled. So very, very muddled. But I can tell that you're trying. So - there's that.

That's good. Thank you for at least trying to stretch beyond your previous horizons.
Sincerely,
BW
edit on 9/27/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward



I think pulling ads over offensive speech is censorship, whereas you don't.



Oohhhh!! So, you think that advertisers should NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to cancel their ads because some asshat on that show has a loud and rude mouth? Well, news flash. YOU ARE KNOWN BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP.

That is not censorship. You are talking about pretending that someone you loathe is your friend in public. I don't do that.

Smart people don't do that.


Nope. No. Advertisers get to CHOOSE WHICH SHOWS they run ads on. They get to CHOOSE to advertise in Nat Geo rather than People Magazine.

They GET TO DECIDE WHO THEY WANT FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS.

So, if that's how you want to look at it, then yes ---- the advertisers are "censoring" who gets to play their ads. How that is offensive to you is beyond me...........

Like I said: Skinheads Illustrated: Racist Tattoo Edition.

They can print whatever the hell they want. NO ONE is making them stop printing it. But people who buy ads are CHOOSING not to buy ads from them!!!

REALLY? IS IT HARD????


edit on 9/27/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join