Squeaky Wheel News

[rabid1st]

I recently heard back from my congressperson about a petition I signed to change our attitude toward big business. I really want us to take governing decisions back into our own hands. So, I have something in common with the Tea Party. Where we part ways is over the issues at hand. I don't feel that immigrants or constitutional rights are the problem in this country today. I feel the problem is that we are not focusing our wealth and power on the common good. And the Tea Party would have us believe that if we only gave more money to the rich...we would be happier and well cared for. This idea breaks down for me, when I consider how much money we have already given the wealthy. It's not like we are suggesting we START tax breaks...it is CONTINUING tax breaks for them. So, they've had these tax breaks all along...and we still ended up in the economic basement. How would continuing to spare them a tax burden make things better?

Anyway...I am also pretty much fed to the back teeth with Glenn Beck and his crazy ranting and hate-mongering. That rally on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wouldn't have been so offensive if he hadn't been the sort of man who calls President Obama a racist, in hopes of stirring up racial division. So, I've decided to join the boycott of Fox. Actually, I had already decided to boycott Fox shows in the new season. Very hard for me as I love House MD. But I think I've had enough of Rupert Murdoch and company.

Here is the link if you want to join me in squeaking...

http://www.democrats.com/boycott-fox-news-advertisers?

You don't have to be a Democrat to join the boycott, just be sick of the propaganda journalism. Also, most of Glenn Beck's sponsors are not going to care if I boycott them, as I never used their services. But Eggland's Best eggs are going to feel the pain of losing my 3 dollars a week...by God! :grin:

Comments

[xlostangelx.livejournal.com]

I find it utterly fascinating how much attention people give to hating Glenn Beck which just gives him more attention, more power and more importance. I don't know about other people, but when I see a crazy lunatic ranting and raving in a public space I ignore him. Sure he keeps ranting and raving but as soon as someone tries to argue with the nutcase a crowd gathers and his rantings all of a sudden become valid as opposed to just some psycho's nonsensical rambling.

To be honest, the presence of Fox news makes me feel more secure because it means we still have a free press where any crazy person can have a voice. I may not like what they say (then again I don't like any news station as they are all biased, lying pieces of shit), but I like that they exist. The reality of only one point of view in the press is perhaps one of the most frightening things I can imagine - in my opinion of course.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

This is sort of the same attitude I've had toward Glenn Beck, truthfully. I don't ever listen to him, except when Jon Stewart features him. But recently, I've wondered if my passive stand on loons is making them feel they are right about everything.

To my way of thinking, a boycott of funding isn't quite the same as shutting down a free voice. For example, I was appalled about Laura S and her rant about "marrying outside of your race." But I didn't call for her to be fired. She's a lousy psychiatrist in my opinion, and I certainly wouldn't back her show...but I think she might have people who do back her and that's fine.

All I'm saying is that Fox TV is not for me. I think that they lure me in with quality programming and I help to fund their agenda to destroy the country. I've simply decided that I'm done giving them funding and done funding their backers.

I mean, I don't send money to the Klan...or to the NRA...though I certainly respect their right to freely assemble and rant and even to push their agendas. I don't doubt that Fox will find plenty of people who will be happy to fund Glenn and their agenda to divide people and prey on fears, but I don't think I should offer them my support.

Rae

[xlostangelx.livejournal.com]

Except money is speech - something the Supreme Court has reiterated over and over, which is important legally but also states the reality of the world. The only free speech you have is to be the loon in the park. If you want to reach an audience, you need money so I have to disagree with you. The purpose of a boycott of companies that advertise on Fox is an attempt to shut them up and shut them down. It is wrong when the right wing try to get TV shows to drop "controversial" story lines by threatening advertisers and I think it is wrong here. Turn off your TV, but don't try to take away from other people their ability to watch something - as repulsive as you think that something is.

And there is a big difference between not sending money directly to support the Klan, NRA or FOX and not buying Pepsi because they advertise on FOX. There is also a difference between yourself choosing not to buy those products and campaigning the advertisers to drop their advertising on a particular network. The first action is a personal decision on how to spend your money. The second is a threat to try to make another actor behave in a away that will achieve a goal that the actor doesn't care two shits about but might be afraid of losing money. The second is a way to impose your point of view on others by way of economic threat.

It is amazing that no matter who gets in power - the "good" guys or the "bad" guys - there is always an attempt to shut up the opposing point of view, which I suppose just goes to show that power is in fact the corrupting force and not anybody's ideas. Whoever is in power will stop at nothing to stay there and the biggest threat to power is an opposing point of view.

I guess I just find that website utterly offensive because it is an attack on free speech and press. I understand boycotting a network (and don't find that offensive at all) - I mean I boycotted MTV for years because they hired Carson Daly and only stopped the boycott when I realized I would never watch anything on MTV anyway. But the purpose of that site is to prey on people's fear and to breed hatred. We have started demonizing our neighbors and thinking of them as less than human just because they don't share our same opinions. It is not just one side that does that. I don't like this America. It makes me sad.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Obviously, you have strong feelings on this issue and we are probably going to disagree about the offense here.

But...If money is speech, then that would mean that Glenn Beck has far more power behind his speech than I do. He has the right to demonize me and my views on a grand scale, partially because I help fund him to do it. I however do not have any equal time to get my views across. I could fund another big name...say Keith Olbermann. But by that argument, that money is speech, then boycotts are simply a way to level the playing field on freedom of speech.

I mean, Glenn and I are not equals. I might take my signage down to Fox studios and march up and down with it, but Glenn has a well funded broadcast forum to get his message across. All I am doing is refusing to support him in that goal by denying him my 3 dollars a week to an advertiser. It is true that if we could bring down every advertiser, he would go off the air...but I think instead, we are just having a bit of an impact on the arena.

I'm telling the business interests that decide our fate...with the money and therefore the power...exactly what I would like them to support. It is an end run around democracy, yes. But one that we have little choice but to do, given the system is heavily weighted toward big money interests.

It isn't just that Glenn Beck doesn't agree with me as an individual. If he and I were in a pub somewhere and we were discussing the issues...and he didn't agree with me on them...well that's fine and dandy. Or if Glenn and I were debating issues in an open forum with no political agendas behind the forum (for example...on a network that wasn't funding a particular political party and another political movement that I find objectionable), then, of course, I could have no objection to him saying whatever he likes. But I have no real sway in our political discourse, because I have very little money to buy my slice of the nations attention. My speech just isn't as valuable as his. All I have is my 3 dollars for eggs, a slingshot against the Goliath.

[xfphile.livejournal.com]

So, just out of curiosity, if the network in question was funding a political party and/or political movement you *didn't* find objectionable, would this conversation still have come about?

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, I really am curious. It seems a lot like the recent Target insanity, in which the GLAAD (or whichever group; it's soooo not my thing, so I don't pay attention to the individual stuff) party/affiliation/group took offense because a corporation made a mid-sized donation -- which the federal government HAS DECLARED LEGAL AND PERMISSIBLE -- to a political candidate who supports goals contrary to GLAAD and opposes things they want.

Apparantly, no politician in the history of the world has ever done this before, so the corporation must be boycotted and made to pay an equal amount of money to a candidate of the GLAAD people's choosing. And, from the initial reports (it's gone quiet for the moment), a large number of people think this is acceptable. I'm outraged on so many different levels, I lost count. But. I digress.

Back to the subject: I can't help but see some parallels here, though I freely concede it's my personal opinion. You don't like something said or done, politically, on a specific network -- fair enough -- but if it were the other way around, would you still say anything?

I agree with xlostangelx -- it's an attack on free speech and it isn't right. I don't like this new America either, and I pray to God that we come to our senses and back to Him before it's too late.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

This just goes to show you shouldn't post about politics or religion. It just gets everyone stirred up about stuff.

But as I've started, I might as well answer you. I absolutely do not believe in corporate funding of political parties or candidates. And I completely disagree with the recent Supreme Court decision that gave them the right that Target has taken such advantage of in the event you mentioned. So, yes, I would be offended by any major contribution by a so called news network to a specific political cause. Fox has a political agenda, that is quite clearly not in line with my well being. And I personally don't feel it is in line with the well being of the country either.

Would I put Fox out of business if I could? No! But I would certainly not mind letting them know that I disagree with their policies. And I think an effective way to let them know that a lot of people object to their policies is via a boycott. That's not stopping their free speech. Even this boycott was very successful and lots of like-minded people were to join up and carry through on the threat to stop buying eggs, that isn't really stopping their free speech. The constitution does not guarantee anyone a public forum funded by advertising dollars. I am under no obligation to support Fox in broadcasting things I do not like, anymore than you are required to watch American Idol. And if you tell all of your friends to stop watching, well, that is still everyone's individual decision. Free will is sort of what this country, and God, are all about.

On the other hand...

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

...with a lighter slant...I just came upon Stephen Fry discussing the Apple IPod 4 kerfuffling...

The hooplah that surrounds the release of a new Apple product is enough to make many otherwise calm and balanced adults froth and jigger. That some froth with excited happiness and others with outraged contempt is almost irrelevant, it is the intensity of the response that is so fascinating. For the angry frothers all are fair game for their fury – the newspapers, the blogosphere, the BBC and most certainly people like me for acting, in their eyes, as slavish Apple PR operatives. The enthusiastic frothers don’t really mind, they just want to get their hands on what they perceive as hugely desirable objects that make them happy. The two sides will never agree, the whole thing has become an ideological stand-off: the anti-Apple side has too much pride invested in their point of view to be able to unbend, while Apple lovers have too much money invested in their toys to back down.

...and feel I wouldn't want to be an unbendy apple frother.

Rae

Re: On the other hand...

[xlostangelx.livejournal.com]

I would not want to be an unbendy apple frother either though I guess I am the unbendy anti-apple person as I refuse to buy Apple products beyond my iPod.

You are right the playing field is not equal. I just don't think the way to even the playing field is to take away from someone else. I'd rather we use ingenuity to create ways to bring a voice to those who have none. As much as I bitch and moan and act like a sullen jerk off on my blog, I am actually a very optimistic and positive person, which is hard to be in an increasingly negative, cynical country. For me personally, I would much rather do something positive, but I am a bit pollyanna as well, something I think I hide pretty well on my blog. I really do just want the world to be puppies and daffodils.

[(Anonymous)]

Given that Obama is a racist, I can't hate Beck -- though he does have the tact and sensitivity of Ron Weasley (or possibly a troll, although a troll can be trained).