home

Newt: "Business" Should Boycott Media That Does Not Toe Their Line

Via Paul Rosenberg, this is an interesting call for class warfare from Newt Gingrich:

Mr. Gingrich said today that there were "socialists" on many newspaper editorial boards, and he suggested that businesses reconsider advertising in papers that oppose their views. "I think it's perfectly legitimate in a free society for people to decide where they'll put their money and their impact," he said in an interview on the Fox television network.

I happen to think it is perfectly legitimate too. I think it would be absolutely imbecilic for corporations to do this -- they would be inviting themselves to be targets of retaliatory boycotts. In short, they will not do it imo. They'll try to influence politics in more traditional ways (by contributing, through individuals and lobbyists of course, to political canmpaigns.) But I would find it rather hypocritical of the Right to not denounce Gingrich's statements in light of their constant cries of "censorship" from the Left. I expect that I will hear crickets from the Right on this.

Speaking for me only

< The Limits To The Post Partisan Unity Schtick | "Normal People" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Newt Is Behind the Times... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by santarita on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    Hasn't he noticed that businesses are cutting back on advertising in the print media?  Hasn't he noticed that print newspapers are in trouble?  Doesn't he think that what he is calling for businesses to do, they've been doing all along?  

    Sounds like a another variation... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:44:01 PM EST
    ...on the whole idiotic "going Galt" talking point to me.

    Surely somewhere there's a nice little island for them to move to.  That would sure teach the dirty sociocomminazi liberals.


    I agree (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    It is perfectly legitimate.  However, it would be stupid for business - we don't even have to go to boycotts - can you imagine, for example General Motors deciding not to advertise in the LA Times because they  they may not agree with their opinions (especially of American cars)?

    What cry of "censorship" do you mean? (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    Levine's post linked to makes no mention of censorship.  One comment incorrectly alleges censorship, but it's from a pseudonymous nobody and quickly corrected by another commenter.

    I linked to the post (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    and comment thread to point out an issue where "censorship" was very much a Right wing battle cry.

    I take it you are not familiar with the "Path to 9/11" controversy.

    I suggest that google will help you on that. I feel comfortable that the rest of TL readers are actually familiar with the controversy.

    Parent

    Except that... (none / 0) (#6)
    by bocajeff on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    you are conflating the ideas behind an entertainment piece masquerading as historical fact and, you know, with actual opinions of a paper.

    The only reason I can see for your post is to pick on Newt. Fair enough. But your analogy doesn't really work. Good try though.

    Parent

    Conflating wha? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    Are you arguing that it is not "censorship" when it is "actual opinions in a paper" but it is when it is "an entertainment piece masquerading as historical fact?"

    My gawd, I think you actually put the Right and Gingrich in a worse light than I do.

    After all, I agreed with Gingrich that what he proposed would be "legitimate."

    Parent

    Nothing but more hot air and grandstanding (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    which is apparently the minimum expected from every commentator who appears regularly on Fox -- adhearing more and more to the talk radio template of what passes for analysis.

    The cold, slimey pond dweller dosnt mean it and knows no one would follow his advice if he did.

    All they've got left after the travesty of the last eight years are these kind of moronic "base stirring" ralling crys signifying nothing.

    Parent

    I loved it (none / 0) (#27)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:05:01 AM EST
    when Ms. TL appeared on Fox.  I guess you didn't.

    Parent
    Actually I fell asleep (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    thinking about it for weeks.

    The same way you do with Hannity.

    Parent

    It Worked Once (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    But that was during different times and for a narrow issue. Not going to happen today, that is for sure.  If anything Newt is trying to take credit for newspapers declining ad revenue.

    Stinks of neoMcCarthyism to me.

    . . . and we should all . . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by Doc Rock on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    . . . boycott companies that strong arm media to push class warfare agenda items!

    I imagine that would happen (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:02:53 PM EST
    should any company be so foolish.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    there's tons of examples of that kind of thing!

    Im suprised you didnt provide any.

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#11)
    by dualdiagnosis on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    How would they would be inviting themselves to be targets of retaliatory boycotts?

    If they decide not to advertise in a paper, how would anyone know why they didn't?

    Newt's Ego (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    The point would be someone knowing WHY no? Or do you see some other point to it?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by dualdiagnosis on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    Ad budgets are kept pretty close to the vest. There would be no reason to make a decision to pull ad money public.

    If they choose not to support sources they disagree with, I don't see any issue.

    Parent

    How likely is it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:53:32 PM EST
    that a secret boycott would change anyone's behavior?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:49:30 PM EST
    That's hilarious.

    Parent
    Problem (none / 0) (#14)
    by Radix on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 03:31:28 PM EST
    Currently businesses are scrambling for every dollar they can get. Given this fact and considering business' only guiding principal is to make profit. I highly doubt they will be taking Newt's advice, at this time.

    boycotts? (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 04:42:47 PM EST
      Boycotts seem mainly to be the fodder of extortionists of the Jesse Jackson ilk and those who want to boycott Rush's advertisers. They don't even work among those folks.  I don't think they'll work for Newt.


    Boycotts are like voting by other means (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    a perfectly legitimate, honest way for citizens to make themselves heard. It has nothing to do with "extorting" SpongeRush Fatpants or "the Jesse Jackson ilk".

    Parent
    The real story here (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:00:04 PM EST
    is that one of the alleged leading minds of the Right cant come up with anything substantial or constructive to contribute to the discussion and so decides to fall back on the never-out-of-style, knuckle-dragging, "I have here in my hand a list.." red baiting.

    But then, where's the evidence that this oppurtunistic sh*theel has ever had an original thought about anything?

    Parent

    All they've got left (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 14, 2009 at 06:14:30 PM EST
    is faux-hysteria about "socialism", fetus farms and praying to Lord Jesus Obama gets a b.j from someone other than Michelle.

    Parent
    So it's official now (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:07:05 AM EST
    Accusations of Liberal are out and accusations of Socialism are in.

    Anyone care to bet on how long it will take for Communist to replace Socialist?

    And.  Can we now call ourselves Liberals again?

    As if "socialist" (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    weren't right wing code for communist.

    They've been milking that b.s for all it's worth since the late forties, and they're still irretrievably, monumentally FOS.

    Parent

    This is the part of the conversation (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    where Jim used to jump in with his long defense of Tailgunner Joe; I almost miss it. Almost.

    Parent
    I have in my hand (none / 0) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:19:46 AM EST
    a list ...

    Having lived through the period I'm happy he's apparently paying no attention.

    Parent

    i agree with mr. gingrich as well. (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 03:03:01 AM EST
    therefore, i suggest any business, that doesn't like the way fox operates its "news" division, not spend good advertising monies on fox.

    seems fair enough to me, since we all "know" that there are fascists in the fox newsroom.

    out of idle curiousity, when did mr. gingrich become a seer, that he can read other people's minds, and just know what their political leanings are?