Pajamas Media

Roger L. Simon: Speech Police On Parade

Is the Internet the enemy of free speech? After hearing the likes of Kos and HuffPost support the campaign to encourage companies to pull advertising on Fox News, PJM's CEO Roger L. Simon wonders why pioneers of the political Internet are working so assiduously to cut off their own lifeline -- advertisers who are willing to sponsor contentious and opinionated media.

July 30, 2007 - by Roger L Simon

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Sometimes I think the Internet - that place where everybody’s cat has a blog - is the enemy of free speech.

Yes, I know that’s an exaggeration and on the surface the reverse would seem to be true, but when I read the following report from AP television writer David Bauder, “First Amendment steam” started coming out of my ears:

“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.”

Whoa! Let’s put it simply: attacking sponsorship is at base a sneaky way of suppressing free speech and essentially anti-democratic and reactionary. Brave New Films? Brave New World is more like it. Gilliam’s company’s name echoing Huxley’s dystopia seems like some kind of unconscious admission of a creepy truth.

The last couple of weeks I came down on Bill O’Reilly for his attack on JetBlue and Kos, but frankly this is worse. MoveOn and Kos’s tactics smack of thought control out of a very old playbook.

Of course, inherent in this approach is that they must be afraid their own views cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise, why try to suppress the other? Why not just present your argument instead of freezing out your opponent by threatening his advertisers, via a database, no less? I’m no psychic but I doubt this massive attack on the “other’s” ability to express his views is remotely what the Founding Fathers meant by free speech.

I suppose the assumption behind this venal activity is that the “other” is all-powerful and therefore the ends justify the means, as the saying goes. But MoveOn has deep pockets of its own and is quite capable of putting forth its own side of any issue.

And it’s not just MoveOn and Kos who are in the speech police game here, as Ken Wheaton notes in AdvertisingAge:

“Funnier still is that MoveOn, until now, has been unable to get much media coverage — unless one counts The Huffington Post [bold mine] and DailyKos as the sort of media that’s going to move the masses. Both of those, by the way, are part of this little coalition of speech police, so that’s kind of like getting recognized by your parents for a job well done.”

Unfortunately, it’s more than that. Although both of these sites do specialize in preaching to the choir, they are large and influential on the Internet. But the Internet does not yet have the power and influence of mainstream media, especially television. The power of the Internet will only increase as its economic viability - advertising revenue - grows. What Kos and the HuffPo are doing is ultimately discouraging advertising on the Internet and elsewhere where strong opinions are voiced by picking on places they think unfit. The result of this “speech police” behavior will be that all political sites will suffer, as advertisers become gun shy.

Effectively, in the long run, Kos and the HuffPo are working against themselves. And for what? To put Fox News out of business? Fat chance! I am surprised particularly that Arianna Huffington would do something so unsophisticated. Although I disagree with many of her views, she is a shrewd businesswoman (and ubiquitous on the air besides). I hope she hasn’t joined the “speech police” and it is just zealots posting on her site who are responsible. I would be curious to hear her take on this.

Although we all know there are limits to free speech - fire in a crowded theatre and all that - a vigorous debate is the price we have to pay for democracy. Often, we don’t like what we hear or who is saying it. Speaking personally, sometimes it can give me a migraine or worse. But when it comes to signing up with the speech police on any side, as the wise Samuel Goldwyn once said, “Include me out!”

47 Comments

Patrick Carroll:

The unspoken Kos motto: “Power to the people who shout ‘Power to the people!’”

Jul 30, 2007 - 6:22 am Neo:

I wonder just how Kos and HuffnPuff will measure success.

While both may weld some power in politics where the need for on-the-ground supporters by politicians helps them, in the commercial world they mean nothing.

Jul 30, 2007 - 6:51 am bubba:

I think advertisers would be smart if they simply adopted a policy right now of threatening to pull advertising dollars from any website threatening them with a “boycott” for advertising on other websites.

Just pre-empt this assault on free speech by making those who disdain a diversity of opinions and open debate responsible for their own actions.

Jul 30, 2007 - 6:56 am Dryfuss:

One doesn’t need chemicals to poison freedom, it needs weak minds that follow like sheep. The
principle of advertising is to allow one to read,
try and choose, no one in our country has the right to deny this right,no one.
Those that try this way of mind control, will never succeed, as our taste of freedom is so strong and long established. The internet is todays means for all of us to voice & read, we must never allow the opportunity to be taken away. “ADVERTISING” gives us this “FREEDOM”,
so KOS, before you continue casting stones, stop threatening the sponsers that pay the bill’s.

Jul 30, 2007 - 8:26 am Bmoon:

So much for self-righteous wailings about “tolerance” and “diversity.” There are much more serious instances of the left calling for suppresion of views that differ from theirs. The thought mutations currently active are seriously straining the limits of our vocabulary. The link between socialism and fascism have always been clear. But should we jettison the word “liberal” or try to return it to its original intent? The latter seems too daunting right now.

Jul 30, 2007 - 8:28 am kourosh:

To enhance your knowledge of other culture and languages, I am obligated to forward these information. The word “KOS” is a real word and has a real meaning in the Persian language (Farsi). It literally means “The Women’s Private Part.” Now, in Farsi the nonsense ideas similar to those written in those LeftOver Marxists blogs are referred to as “KosSher” and people who are forwarding these ideas are called “KosKhol”(a bit crazy).

Jul 30, 2007 - 8:34 am LarryD:

Bmoon, the “liberals” are re-branding themselves as “progressives”, because too many people started thinking of “liberal” as a negative label. Which, of course, defeated their whole purpose in swiping the liberal label in the first place.

So we may indeed get the word back, one day.

Jul 30, 2007 - 9:44 am T-web:

This relates to one of my hobby horses regarding the left side of the blogosphere: their overuse of ostracism as a politcal & social tool.

Trying to cast a person (or company) out of polite society is a radical tactic, but it’s not always wrong. The way the left uses this tactic, though, is troubling. They regularly use it, or threaten to use it, against people who disagree on purely political matters.

But if you try to cast out someone who disagrees on something like social security reform, for example, what social sanction is left for those who truly should be shunned by society, like neo-Nazi’s and NAMBLA members? The left turns to ostracism so much that the tactic could loose its power. That would be a bad thing.

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:27 am Pat Berry:

“Of course, inherent in this approach is that they must be afraid their own views cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise, why try to suppress the other? Why not just present your argument instead of freezing out your opponent by threatening his advertisers, via a database, no less?”

The “marketplace of ideas” approach is based on the notion that citizens are capable of evaluating competing ideas and deciding for themselves which idea is the best.

The “suppress all views except my own” approach is based on the notion that citizens are sheep, incapable of thinking for themselves, and will believe whatever they are told. Hence, the only way to prevent them from being brainwashed by your political opponents is to silence those opponents, ensuring that the only view that the people hear is yours.

This is why the Left is so enraged by the very existence of Fox News. It isn’t enough for them (the Left) to control most of the news outlets in the world; the Left must control them all. Otherwise, there is still a chance that people will hear a contrary view and be seduced by it. That cannot be allowed.

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:34 am zenpig:

As the tools(Durbin, Kerry, Feinstein,etc.) of the far Left begin to fail in bringing back legislized codes directly opposed to the concept of free speech in the silly name “Fairness Doctrine” we see Kos and the like once again pretending to do the people bidding in their place. Pressuring advertisers is a far more desireable outcome when the spectre of government endorsed censorship looms so really I personally see this whole new campaign against Fox as the result of the Leftards failure to legislate their inability to hear opposing views. This is just another one of those silly adventures in failure.

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:42 am Major John:

Markos and Arianna - so I guess we can forego “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”, eh?

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:43 am Ben:

I’m a conservative, but I don’t have a problem with what Kos & Co. are doing. Sure, there is something unseemly about trying to shut down a news outlet, but it’s certainly within their rights to try if that’s what they want to do. Boycotting a company for its financial support of something you don’t like is just as much a legitimate use of free speech as publicly arguing for your favored positions.

Obviously, most people feel that there should be cultural bounds on this kind of thing, but where those lines are is inherently subjective. It’s up to the public to decide whether or not the Kossacks have crossed the line of proper decorum and whether or not their behavior makes them hypocrites.

This argument reminds me of the leftoids who call conservatives fascists for refusing to buy Dixie Chicks CDs. “It’s not fair to take away their livelihood!!” Sure it is. Freedom of speech does not make speech free. If you can’t handle the blowback for speaking out, keep your mouth shut.

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:46 am matt a:

Fox brought this on themselves. If you live in a glass house (i.e. make money from advertising) don’t throw stones (don’t attack the advertisers of another entity, political or otherwise). The most public face of the “fair and balanced” Fox news (Bill O’Reilly) went after a political organization’s sponsors. What did FOX think was going to happen? DailyKos and Moveon.org are grass root organizations, not corporations with stockholders. What’s the diff? stockholders are (generally) motivated by profit which can be viewed objectively, while those in organizations like DailyKos and Moveon are motivated by idealogy and is very personal.

BTW, where is the outcry about conservatives using this tactic against “liberals”? Radio personalities (like Howard Stern) are constantly having their sponsors “contacted” by those threatening boycots.

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:51 am Seerak:

Economic boycott of this sort of thing is, in principle, actually *protected* by the First Amendment; it’s part of freedom of association. It’s no different from say, me telling a friend of mine that I won’t have anything to do with him anymore until he ceases to patronize a restaurant that won’t serve Jews. I am free to say that, he is free to comply or ignore it.

That distinction — checking for physical or legal coercion — is absolutely key to evaluating whether something is a threat to the First Amendment (which IMO codifies freedom of thought, commnication and association).

It doesn’t mean that MoveOn’s action is any less contemptible, for the reasons explained here; it’s a confession that MoveOn and its ilk do not believe that they have a real chance in a fair ideological fight. After all, this same impulse is behind their attempt to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, which actually IS a threat to Amendment 1.

But you have to be careful with this stuff; don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. Lmpw the difference between private, free action, and the censoring power of legal and physical coercion. Economic boycott is an instance of the first, an exercise of free association. That it is an ineffectual and revealing one, in this case, is just another reason to love freedom

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:52 am JKRibera:

I agree that the HuffPo and Kos seem to be workign against themselves by suppressing advertising. But that’s what makes an ideologue, isn’t it? And it’s what makes them so boring.

Jul 30, 2007 - 10:58 am ny nick:

Kos and the people who support the site have gone to school. They learned their tactics from watching the wingnuts in talk radio. They have learned by watching FoxNews. What we’re seeing is natural. It’s the end result of a system that doesn’t separate fact from fiction and where news is reported with a strong political bias aimed at a particular segment of the population. In otherwords, when I was a child, news organizations tried to educate and inform their viewers on the events of the day. Not anymore. Fox changed all that.
News is no longer objective. There are some people who will believe anything they hear as long as they hear it on Foxnews. On the other hand, there are also people who refuse to believe anything they hear if it appears on Fox. Kos is an attempt to do for liberals what Fox has done for conservatives. The righties shouldn’t be surprised at the tactic of going after advertisers. The right has been using this same tactic for years. Mr. Simon says that what kos is doing is somehow worse than what Bill O’Reilly did when he shamed JetBlue into removing their logo from the YearlyKos site. Why? Because the for the Roger Simons of the world, excesses and mistakes made by the people he supports and agrees with can be forgiven or even defended. The same conduct should never be tolerated by those with whom he disagrees.

Jul 30, 2007 - 11:03 am Ben:

ny nick,

If you really believe that all in the media world was unbiased sweetness and light before evil Fox came around, you really need to put down the crack pipe. To whatever extent Fox is biased to the right, it is simply a reaction to the lefty bias of the rest of the MSM. Wake up.

Jul 30, 2007 - 11:09 am ny nick:

Neo writes:

“I wonder just how Kos and HuffnPuff will measure success.

While both may weld some power in politics where the need for on-the-ground supporters by politicians helps them, in the commercial world they mean nothing.”

Interesting. I wonder if Neo is aware that many rightwing publications, from “The Weekly Standard”, the “NY Post”,the “NY Sun” to our very own “Pajamas Media” are far from profitable. They stay afloat because someone with some money either believes they will be profitable someday or because they want to support a certain point of view and are willing to spend dollars to do it.

If it’s okay for Richard Mellon Scaife, why isn’t it okay for George Soros?

Jul 30, 2007 - 11:15 am ny nick:

Ben,

No, I don’t believe that the world was perfect before Foxs. Just that the world has changed forever after their success. 40 years ago, there were three networks, not the hundreds of choices we have now. News at these networks was considered a public service, not a profit center. All of that changed long before Fox arrived. Fox merely took advantage of the new rules and figured out it was easier and more profitable to play to an audience bias than trying to compete with CNN or the others. Fox signaled in not so subtle ways that this was a place that conservatives could come and get news they would like. That was a brilliant strategy. It worked beyond anyones expectations. That success will spawn something similar on the left be it Kos or something else down the line.

Jul 30, 2007 - 11:27 am SteveG:

ny nick,

In all fairness to other views, your observation that tv news broadcasts did not have strong political bias before Fox came along is extremely subjective and while a good personal argument for yourself is not very persuasive. I personally think that Fox is one of the least biased organizations but I also come from the perspective of hardly seeing CBS and like as non-biased in the 70’s and 80’s. “Conservatism” for decades has been on the outside looking in when it comes to MSM and what was presented as “straight” news during those times was simply unquestioned Leftism by the sheeple. You are right in that nothing like Fox existed beforehand….and now we see the reaction of the Left to “viewpoints” which beforehand the likes of Rather controlled.

Now, I agree that the attempt to go after advertisers is a legitimate form of expression in itself. There is no real comparrison between the individual attempts by a Fox personality or two and what those crazy Kos kids are up to now and even pretending this is a “modern-day”/new phenomenon is ignoring the use of such tactics in the past. Still, again, it beats the attempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which, btw, I’d wager would have the same support from the same people. When it comes to silencing a point of view I think once a person agrees with such a thing all barriers disappear to how it happens.

Jul 30, 2007 - 11:28 am bubarooni:

ny nick

‘In otherwords, when I was a child, news organizations tried to educate and inform their viewers on the events of the day. Not anymore. Fox changed all that.

News is no longer objective’

maybe you meant ‘otherworlds’. regardless, you are dating yourself. the news hasn’t been reported dispassiontely and bias free ever.

Jul 30, 2007 - 11:37 am Assistant Village Idiot:

ny nick. Your impression of where the center of political dialogue is may be skewed left by your age and location. Consider the possibility that Fox News is actually close to the center and relatively objective. If that one fact is even close to true, then your entire argument, which seems to be based on your impressions, is in shambles.

Just because journalists claim an ideal of professional detachment does not mean that even approximate even-handedness has ever been true.

Jul 30, 2007 - 11:59 am ny nick:

Look, it’s not by accident that fox found an audience. Was there bias in the news prior to the arrival of fox? Certainly. Was it as wide spread or as malicious as some on the right would have us believe? No.
But, we are where we are now. There is no going back. People will increasing get their news from someplace that generally has a bias favoring a point of view they argee with. Is that neccessarily a good thing? Probably not. It means we will talk past each other. My only point was that Kos is a reaction to Fox and the legions of conservative blogs. That does not mean Fox wasn’t a reaction to something else.

Jul 30, 2007 - 12:00 pm Ben:

ny nick,

So Fox tips their news coverage for profit (according to you), and everyone else does it for ideology. Who really cares what the motivations are?

As for the splintered news market and how awful it is, ever noticed how many newspapers are still called “The [Town Name] Democrat”? There’s a reason for that — in the days of multiple newspapers in every town, each paper had a stated viewpoint (much as in Britain today). Somehow, the Republic survived. The only difference today is that most of the conservative outlets are gone, and the libs claim to be unbiased. It’s a crock.

Oh, and Kos already has a news outlet — It’s called NPR.

Jul 30, 2007 - 12:01 pm Dennis:

I think that FOX should publish the names of any sponsor that succumbs to this kind of pressure so that we can boycott them.

Jul 30, 2007 - 12:26 pm ny nick:

A.V.I,

“Consider the possibility that Fox News is actually close to the center and relatively objective.”

They’re not. The center has shifted. Experience is a great teacher. The country gave the Right an opportunity. Republicans controlled both houses of congress and the executive for four years but the results were not impressive.
Cronyism, incompetence and dishonesty were the overwhelming themes. The middle abandoned Republicans in very large numbers in the last election and from any measure you want to use, money raised, interest level, registrations, the Democrats are outpacing Republicans again in this election cycle. The center won’t hold without results and the Right is very big on talk, not so good on results.

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:03 pm Andrew X:

RE: ny nick -

“in otherwords, when I was a child, news organizations tried to educate and inform their viewers on the events of the day. Not anymore. Fox changed all that.”

I would second that your blaming of Fox is in itself “reported with a strong political bias.”

I give you Howard Fineman, no ditto-head he by a long shot…

“Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the (American Mainstream Media Party) AMMP was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS’s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first president to resign.

The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6813945/

—-

Fox is largely a result of, not the cause of, the phenomena you speak of.

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:05 pm JKRibera:

Ny nick: “The center won’t hold without results and the Right is very big on talk, not so good on results.”

Same has obviously been true of the Left in recent years… the current Congress is a disaster. Both sides have been held hostage by their extremes, which is some of the point of this original post, I believe.

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:12 pm Mike_K:

“The most public face of the “fair and balanced” Fox news (Bill O’Reilly) went after a political organization’s sponsors. What did FOX think was going to happen?”

The Daily Kos campaign predated O’Reilly’s canpaign and the Lowes chain capitulated in Januray with a creepy letter posted on Kos that apologized for sponsoring O’Reilly. His campaign against Jet Blue followed and, I suspect, was retaliation. Lowes just built a huge new store in Tucson, a city with a very large retired veteran population. They will start to hear from those vets soon. It’s a dumb move on their part but maybe they want to be the “progressive” big box store. I would think that homeowners are less represented in the lefty world but they are free to do their marketing as they see fit. Fortunately, there is a big Home Depot in Tucson. I suspect there will be more of this.

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:27 pm joseph hill:

In a capitalist democracy, money trumps all else–witness four current race for the White House. Thus when a station is perceiv ed to be hoplessly unfair on the public airways, money pressures are a useful tool to apply. You can call it stifling free speech but that “speech” strikes many as hopelessly biased and so the urge to pressure sponsors.

The blogs? well they tell us over and over that they and not the old fashioned tv and newspapers are what counts. Why then suddeny so much attention from the conservatives about a commercial site?

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:32 pm ken in sc:

I read that a survey of Fox News employees showed that 80% of them donated money to Democratic candidates. I think they are more fair and balanced. The same survey said that CNN was 90 % and MSNBC 95%.

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:37 pm Daa:

When CNN first started broadcasting, it was a welcome relief from the 3 networks. I was very happy to be able to view the news thru a more detailed, factual prism. Then once CNN got going the prism changed and became even more opinion driven than the 3 Networks. Now Fox is using a prism similar to the old CNN. However, if Fox were to change, as CNN did, it would not matter so much because I now have the internet to research the news myself. Very liberating

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:44 pm Ben:

ny nick,

“Cronyism, incompetence and dishonesty were the overwhelming themes… The center won’t hold without results and the Right is very big on talk, not so good on results.”

Yes, and the current Congress is so popular, productive, and ethical. Sheesh.

“The middle abandoned Republicans in very large numbers in the last election and from any measure you want to use, money raised, interest level, registrations, the Democrats are outpacing Republicans again in this election cycle.”

Both the GOP base and moderates are extremely disillusioned with Republicans who are soft on illegal immigration and big on pork-barrel spending, and the President sucks on both issues. True conservatives (such as Sen. Coburn) are doing just fine. As soon as the GOP leadership gets its head out of the sand, the party will be fine, too.

Jul 30, 2007 - 1:57 pm pBlakeney:

Fox News has “news” shows and “opinion” shows, just like a newspaper reports news stories and also has an opinion page. O’Reilly and some others on Fox are commentators, while someone like Shepherd Smith is a news anchor. Rarely will you ever see Shep skew the news — he reports it with objectivity. O’Reilly, on the other hand, is clearly identified as an opinion commentator, so he can interject his opinions as he sees fit. Why doesn’t anybody seem to recognize the difference? I can tell when news is being reported and when commentary/opinion is being offered. Those who can’t surely are sheep. When Fox reports news, they do it objectively, and when they offer opinion, it is skewed to the conservative. What’s the problem? Are you going to tell me the MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann isn’t skewed to the left? He’s a commentator as well.

Of course, the argument that follows is that Fox chooses only news that fits their idealogy. I’m not sure if that’s true, but if it is, who cares? Once again, don’t the “liberal” news organizations do the same?

Jul 30, 2007 - 2:07 pm 1charlie2:

Unsaid, it appears, is that (as I understand it) Blowhard O’Reilly (yeah, I kinda dislike him) attacked JetBlue NOT for advertising on DailyKos, but for sponsoring (in the form of a donation) the YearlyKos convention.

If that’s the case, a boycott made even more sense if one objects to Kos — why spend your money on a firm that you know will give some measure of its profits to an organization whose goals are antithetical to you ?

If you’re a devout Catholic, and MyCompany, Inc advertised that we just donated 2% of our profits to building a new abortion clinic, I really don’t expect your business.

At this point, you’re divesting, as it were, which was all the rage among campus liberals in the ’80’s . (Sorry, the fact that none of those twits had ever been to South Africa and still built cutesy “ShantyTowns” on campus really bugged me somehow)

I really don’t care who boycotts whom. And I really wouldn’t miss the blowhard if his show were dropped tomorrow — I don’t watch it. He’s a demagogue (which is what he is paid to be).

But comparing advertisers to direct corporate sponsors is a bit of a stretch.

As a shareholder, I (mostly) want my investment dollar spent on advertising in the most effective places, as long as they aren’t sponsoring terrorism or pedophilia. While I really despise CNN, I don’t care if a firm I own stock in advertises there. Political bias (of which I think many newsies have plenty) is not sufficient reason to re-assign ad accounts. Malfeasance, maybe . . . But bias ? You must be kidding.

Just another hyperreaction to those who don’t agree. . .

Jul 30, 2007 - 2:46 pm John Moore:

pBlakeney,
You are right that FOX (mostly) delineates its opinion from news. Unfortunately, the rest of the MSM most certainly does not. That is one big reason that Fox has an audience - too many people heard “news” that the knew to be propaganda or opinion.
I grew up listening (as a hobby) to Radio Moscow and Radio Havana, and studying the propaganda. It was around 1980 that Radio Moscow became at least as credible as CBS (both sides moved - RM became much smarter and CBS became much more biased).
As many other conservatives, I felt *knew* that I was hearing a big lie. The MSM propaganda did not add up.
Talk radio provided the first big crack in this monolithic wall of opinion dressed as news. It was opinion sold as opinion, and it developed sources and information and put them out.
Fox and blogs now also serve that function. Want to know what is really going on in Iraq - read right here at PJM and you’ll get a different perspective than the pro-defeat MSM puts out.

Oh, and for the record, O’Reilly is neither a conservative nor anyone I favor. He’s a loudmouth toad who cares only for his own ego.

Jul 30, 2007 - 9:17 pm StrangeLove:

They have the right to free speech and so do you. Contact Home Depot at:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=View_Directory&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

and tell them how you feel about advertising on Fox. I’m betting the pro-advertising forces are greater than the anti-advertising forces.

Jul 31, 2007 - 7:28 am Dennis F:

Encouraging advertisers to stop doing business with an entity whose opinions you oppose it not censorship nor suppression of speech. It is using one’s influence in the marketplace to further one’s own views. This tactic is similar to what we conservatives did when the Dixie Chicks made their reprehensible remark about the President. We did not attempt to censor them nor suppress their right to express their opinion. We did, however, exercise our right to express disapproval in a way that caused economic consequences for them. They squealed “censorship” when none existed. Let’s don’t make the same claim here. If MoveOn et al can in fact persuade advertisers to neglect the millions of Fox viewers, other advertisers will fill the void. And if that happens, we should be vigilant to reward those who do — and punish those who do MoveOn’s bidding.

Jul 31, 2007 - 7:43 am sufimarie:

For Kos to fight back is justified and in-line with what Kos is- they are an openly political organization designed to take action such as this. On the other hand for Fox, a self-proclaimed ‘fair and balanced’ news source on public airwaves, to launch an attack (based on falsehood,) shows that the O’Reilly Factor is decidedly slanted in its representation of news. O’Reilly compared the Kos to violent parties. He bases this judgement on commments made at the site. How do we know he himself didn’t put them there? There are many factors as to why Fox is illegitimate. It is not hard to find sound information about their peddling of a neo-con agenda. The people that expose Fox are not commies nor are they out to undermine the “white, Christian, male power structure” that O’Reilly so aptly created as his own reality. Fox is unhinged and it needs to be exposed for the neo-con tool that it is. I cheer the organization of the netroots!

Jul 31, 2007 - 8:48 am ny nick:

Ben writes:

“Both the GOP base and moderates are extremely disillusioned with Republicans who are soft on illegal immigration and big on pork-barrel spending, and the President sucks on both issues. True conservatives (such as Sen. Coburn) are doing just fine. As soon as the GOP leadership gets its head out of the sand, the party will be fine, too.”

That’s my point. In order to win, you will need to not only bring back enthusiasm within your own party but also bring in independents. Independents have abandoned Republicans in very, very large numbers.

First of all, we’ve had a democratic congressional majority for less than a year and it’s a thin majority at that. There is polling that indicates that congress is unpopular for sure but why are they unpopular? Mainly because they haven’t ended the war.
Besides, polling generically for congress, as the Republicans and their corporate media enablers used to tell us all the time, does not translate into individual races. Republicans will be defending a lot more contested races this election than Democrats will. Why do you think that’s so? Also, if every Republican was cut from the same cloth as Sen. Coburn your party wouldn’t be in the shape it is now. Unfortunately for you and the country, they’re not. From the blind loyalty, no questions asked policies of the last congress to Dennis Hastert’s cover up of the Mark Foley scandal, the average Republican Senator or Congressman is going to have a lot of explaining to do. Most will hold on. Some definitely won’t. The bed has been made and you guys are going to have to lay in it for a while.

Jul 31, 2007 - 3:01 pm Ignatov:

If a million Americans agree to spend their time complaining to advertisers about a certain issue, I think that’s true free speech. Contrast that with O’Reilly shouting at JetBlue from his bully pulpit.

Aug 1, 2007 - 7:35 pm Diplomad:

I agee with Ben. Debate is over.

Aug 2, 2007 - 10:48 am viagra cheap:

cheap@viagra.com

Sep 9, 2007 - 10:09 pm viagra cheap:

cheap@viagra.com

Sep 9, 2007 - 10:09 pm online viagra:

cheap@viagra.com

Sep 23, 2007 - 9:29 pm purchase viagra:

cheap@viagra.com

Sep 26, 2007 - 5:05 am purchase viagra:

cheap@viagra.com