Liberals doing their part to support free speech
 

Liberals Going After Fox Advertisers

Jul 27 04:08 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer


NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.

Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.

Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.

Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.

"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.

He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.

MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.

"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Trying to boycott a right-wing media empire is not trying to limit free speech.

Though it will have the effect of encouraging the right-wingers to shop there among its advertisers in greater numbers, specifically to show the idiots up.

Remember that liberals -- now aren't.

I remember when this company started...I'm sure Heinz isn't losing any sleep over them.

Ultimately, advertisers will choose the best target for their budget dollars regardless of what the political persuasion of the host happens to be.

It's definitely not censorship though to attempt to persuade advertisers not to advertise. More like a waste of time and effort I'd say.

Well its moveon.org....

I find it interesting that moveon.org is specifically targeting Fox. Perhaps if they wwnt after the clearly liberal leaning news outlets as well as the clearly conservative ones it would be worthwhil or at least make the seem impartial. To me it looks like they don't want any point of view they don't agree with to be heard.

Here's a quandry ... if Planned Parenthood, NOW, and all the manufacturers of environmentally friendly (hype) hybrid cars were advertising on FoxNews, does that mean they'd boycott them, too?

They're doing it in retaliation for O'Reilly attacking YearlyKos, and comparing DailyKos to Nazis and the KKK.

And it's not a boycott, as such.

To bad O'Reilly is right.

Among others.

Right....only if you mean right leaning. He's just plain wrong in every sense of the word.

That man is a scourge and a total embarrassment to news outlets who truly do try to fairly report the news. There is a special place in hell for him and for others who would lie so blatantly.

Without taking sides here, I'm very interested to know who you think the "news outlets who truly do try to fairly report the news" are.

Beyond that, O'Reilly makes it clear that his show is Commentary, not News.

I know that's confusing to a lot of people, given that O'Reilly was once a reporter. Think of it as being analogous to Madonna having once been a virgin.

Your only, and a big one, mistake is that O'Reilly is a news reporter. He is not. He is a news commentator. He comments about the news and his take on the news. If you don't agree with him great, no big deal, don't read or listen to what he has to say. Soros is the only embarrassment in the news now days.

That was great...:D

that he wants you to take as news. Rush, Hannity, etc. are guilty of the same thing. Most commentators of any political stripe seem to be that way..."My thoughts on the subject are the last word on the subject." They want you to buy in to their schtick to keep them on the air or in print more easily. I prefer to listen to them for purely entertainment value. :D

Really? Wow! I thought Alberto Gonzales was making a pretty good ass of himself recently...but it's only Soros? Really?! Fuck...where the hell have I been? I haven't heard his name in a while, except for some conservative folks that grumble about him.

*listens for Soros...hears crickets and faint murmurs*

Oh...forgot...drive-by media conspiracy...media controlled by Soros and moveon.org...etc. etc. Newsmax is our friend...FoxNews...ommm...

:D

It still is not news. Some people tune in to laugh at the talking heads or some tune in to laugh at their punching bags and how stupid they look defending a losing position. Either way it is not news. Like you say entertainment for some, thought provoking for others. If you don't like it or don't agree don't watch.

No commercial ones. You would have to look at independent sources and those are usually better in some aspects but worse in others, mainly unbiasedness.

I don't think there is any truly "unbiased" news source...it's all about perception in the end. Pray to God that He gave you some good sense.

Even the so called independent news sources are individuals on the ground trying to make a living getting the next big scoop. It is like a hunt where they are all trying to hunt the same thing but no one really knows what that is, yet. So what is their motivation? An attempt to bring the news to the world during the next big sensationalized crisis or the attempt to make a buck?

I know a few independent sites that aren't that bad and only ask for donations. Some do it for the money, some do it because they are fed up with commercial.

The point I was trying to make is that even AP reporters are in competition to make a living and these so called independent news agencies are not always so independent. I just read it all, right, left, middle, weird, and try to make some sense of it. Good luck.

Well independent sources is such a big group you can't categorize them into one single stereotype. It is like comparing commercial to independent music. Of course some underground bands want to make the big bucks, but others do it for the music and experience. The same will apply to independent sources.

Well, there's your credibility gone.

I wasn't really comparing them, I was just talking about the original sources for all news and the motivation of the guy on the ground.

WOW, now there is an opinion I was worried about.

Likewise, I'm sure. Can you find something O'Reilly said about DailyKos that was actually true?

Sorry to derail this topic but I would like to see O'Reilly go on a debate where a buzzer would go off everytime he raised his voice, lied, deceived (taking part of a quote out of context for example), or used an argument flaw (stickman, ad hominem, etc). That would be interesting.

The problem is that he can make stuff up much faster than he can be fact checked.

Any news source; look for maximum facts and minimum interpretation of the situation. Then corroborate the facts.

Here are some of the things O'Reilly said about DailyKos.

So, wait, this is all about some sticks and stones crap?

Puh-leeez

Grow up.

This from a man who couldn't tell the difference between a loofah and falafel.:smack:

At least liberals know how to do phone sex.:D

Now that would be an important aspect of anyones diet. Or he could have been yanking your collective chains. :handball:

According to the deposition, he was pretty much yanking his own chain, if you know what I mean.:vomit:

There's something to be proud of :eyebrow:

O'Reilly is another Rush Limbaugh - so what. . . change the channel - I do.

Na, he was pressuring Jetblue to own up to its attachment to the left and Soros by attacking thier sponsoring of some tickets to a Kos sponsored convention.

Soros helped finance and launch Jetblue. O'Reilly found a chink in the armor and exploited it. Soros was on JB board, new people came in, now he is off, some say the new guy, the one interviewed by the O'Reillly show, want him back. They sure could use his money. Last month Soros sold a bunch of the JB stock.

Kos is a left leaning web site, no doubt. It is all showmanship IMHO.

Sticks and stones are all a website or a talk show can do. What else could it have been about?

The left wing extremists trying to limit free speech by their opposition? Just thinkin out loud...

How?

A boycott is not limiting free speech. It is free speech.

HM & Clod I'm just thinkin here, not really takin a side, I haven't thought that much about it, but...

Depends on what their intent was -If they are trying to remove financial support for the station, thereby removing it, then they are limiting Fox's free speech.
On the other hand if they are just trying to make a statement - what exactly is that statement and why choose this means to make it. If they are unhappy with a particular host, ie: O'Reilly, why not just target that particular host.

Perhaps they will only be happy when all that is on the radio or TV is what THEY want it to be, or their point of view - That is NOT free speech.
Again this is to me like the guy who bitched about the music on a particular radio station - JUST CHANGE THE STATION.

How? Was O'Reilly attempting to limit Yearly Kos' free speech when he tried to get JetBlue to stop sponsoring them?

That is the free market, not limiting free speech. The free market will naturally limit free speech for commercial media because no one will buy or watch the unpopular news sources.

Yes he was - and so are they, I don't like either. Neither one was right!

But how is free speech being limited?

It's not, nothing to see here... move along.

Until how many hours after birth?

Anyway, I don't need DailyKos to tell me to boycott the station, and that alone is why the boycott will fail.

(it's not a boycott)

What a load of horse shit. Kos is a well established Left-wing-nut organization that attracts attacks like the smell to a pile....

So what? Does that justify censoring them or any other voice you disagree with? Fascists do that... people that actually believe in truth, justice and the American way, do not.

[pedant] so, if one doesn't believe in truth justice and the American way one is a fascist? [/pedant]

Only for Americans, ya Limey smartass.

*grins* understood.

How is your post a response to mine? There doesn't seem to be a connection.

... then one cannot be a super hero.

LoL. Funny.

And now we have the Left wing Government of SF weighing in...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/statica...icle57096.html