"I wish you the best of luck convincing Coors to withhold ad expenditures because you dislike the way CBS edits their interviews."

That is not at all what I meant; sorry if I was unclear. I'll try again:

I meant that if enough CBS misinformation were exposed to viewers, many viewers will become less interested in watching CBS for news and commentary. A smaller number of viewers would affect the bottom line of advertisers whose ads air during the news and commentary times.

So it's possible that those who advertise with CBS might pressure CBS to tone it down if they think the viewers (their potential customers) are about to jump ship due to consistent misinformation. Or if enough viewers leave CBS, I gues the advertisers will just follow the viewers to more trusty sources of information and commentary.

Flight from the MSM could translate into a big income problem for CBS ahd others who peddle unbalanced news and commentary.

Posted at July 24, 2008 9:35 AM in response to CBS Violates the Airwaves - Do Something

Your only possibility of having an impact on any entity the size of CBS is through their advertisers. But since these, too, are primarily conservative corporate behemoths, your options pretty much boil down to like it or not like it.

I agree that the advertisers are key to impacting CBS. However, I don't think it matters that much if the advertisers are conservative behemoths, because first and foremost, they have their bottom line to worry about.

A group once educated consumers about the wasteful slaughter of Dolphins by those fishing for Tuna. Then a little boycott took hold in many places. Voila! Most of our Tuna became dolphin safe. (bush has diligently tried to undo that also, but last I heard, he was unsuccessful)

Will send a note of protest after this, raider99, so thanks for the notice and links.

Posted at July 23, 2008 11:03 PM in response to CBS Violates the Airwaves - Do Something

oops. quotes for the first paragraph.

Posted at July 20, 2008 1:04 PM in response to I understand why they are doing it

I really do still like the overall political marketing potential of a moderate version of the separation of church and state thingie, and I think a lot of fellow Americans cynical about politics right and left might agree with me on that front.

Agreed. Moderation would be wise--especially when mixing religion and government.

Once Republicans effectively established themselves as the party of Christians, the Democrats really had no choice but to do something. Maybe there is a way for Democrats to reach out to the most religious Americans and also show that the separation of church and state is in the best interest of their own religious freedom. Governments entangled with religion just pollute and manipulate religion to further their own agenda and keep the masses in line. Obvious... but so many don't see that. I guess the problem is that the leaders of the most fervent religions often work hand in hand with the government in a way that followers fail to recognize.

Posted at July 20, 2008 1:04 PM in response to I understand why they are doing it

Orlando,

Thanks so much for the explanation; I think I better understand how some others view this.

As for the parallel you set out, isn't saying I'm not an asshole, some of my best friends are nice, more like saying I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are non-racists.

If it's common for racists to dishonestly say "some of my best friends are black," then I wonder if when someone is wrongly accused of racism, there night also be a tendency to head strait to personal experience that could lead to the very same (but sincere)statement. So then some racists and non-racists could be hard to distinguish.

As for my initial comment to jthomas, I can't see how a long-term marriage to someone of another race (which is hard evidence, in my view, that someone is not a racist) could be compared to a racist dishonestly using a line about having black friends.

Posted at July 19, 2008 11:13 PM in response to Lou Dobbs for New Jersey Governor

No, haven't heard anything about that, Aunt Sam.

Posted at July 19, 2008 9:02 PM in response to SCAAMD Weekend Reading Part II (Shorter than part 1!)

If you are correct that Dobbs uses his show to stoke fear about the immigrants rather than to document the effects of our not knowing who is coming and going in our country, then i think he's being irresponsible.

That falls squarely into the "some of my best friends are black" defense.

Though I've heard that repeated many times before, I've never known what the problem is with that "defense," as you call it. So please fill me in on what I'm missing here. Racists have no friends from the group they choose to generalize about and vilify, do they? Do you think that at least in some cases, those who reject the "I have black friends defense" are just set on discrediting someone who is not a racist.

What else is someone to do but to refer to their own personal conduct and life if their personal character is attacked and they are unjustly accused of racism? What would you be most likely to think about If I said you are are a racist with respect to people of asian descent? Would you think about your own feelings and conduct?

This view has always mystified me, so if you have anything to add to my understanding, it's welcome.

Posted at July 19, 2008 8:59 PM in response to Lou Dobbs for New Jersey Governor

Sorry, I just don't buy that Dobbs is xenophobic. i don't watch much TV, but I do know that his wife is a Mexican-American and he's done work to alleviate poverty. I think he's just a guy who feels very passionately about the way immigration has been handled in the US.

Posted at July 19, 2008 7:55 PM in response to Lou Dobbs for New Jersey Governor

Interesting. If better informed, perhaps those in FOX's niche will realize that it is in their best interest to receive unbiased news and have their personal and political beliefs affirmed elsewhere.

Posted at July 19, 2008 6:33 PM in response to SCAAMD Weekend Reading Part II (Shorter than part 1!)

You're welcome. I'm happy to add what i can to any effort for more balanced news coverage.

Posted at July 19, 2008 4:56 PM in response to SCAAMD Weekend Reading Part II (Shorter than part 1!)