is it ok to boycott advertisers

[paulk]

if the station they're advertising on does something you don't like?


There's a thread in LBN where this is suggested as a legitimate way to get back at a tv station for not airing a Cindy Sheehan ad.

I objected, but apparently I'm in the minority. This just seems wrong to me. I don't advertise on tv, but I have advertised in local newspapers - it just seems crazy to take out your objections on the advertiser.

Do the people in this forum have any thoughts on this? Is this a legitimate political tactic?

[TayTay]

1. I would use it sparingly

It worked last year when the LibBlogs got together and forced that Right Wing TV station to not air the slander film on Kerry in October.

But it should only be used on small businesses very, very sparingly and for really just cause. You could put someone out of business who just innocently got caught in a firestorm they knew nothing about.

[paulk]

2. it's the sort of thing Bill O'Reilly does

says a poster on that other thread - and then goes on to support the idea - because it's "effective".

It's one thing to target a particular company for it's right wing activities - or advertisers of a particular show - but even then advertisers don't always have control over where their ads get aired. But to call for a blnket boycott? How is a boycotter to even know what the politics of a particular company are? Or the politics of the employees who might be hurt by the boycott?

It's punishing someone for something someone else has done. It's morally reprehensible.

[karynnj]

3. I agree - it is a powerfull tool

Last year's use was fair because it was BEFORE the fact. The advertisers were told if the station aired the slander film (which should have been banned on ethical grounds) and they continued to advertise, they would be boycotted. By staying with Sinclair they were partially paying for the slander - so it was fair. The real point was to make airing the film so costly to Sinclair they would not do it.