From Nate Silver to Cenk Uygur, other observers outside the conservative continuum have voiced their opposition to the boycott. “Let the audience make that decision,” said Uygur. Siding with Shafer, Silver argued, “The logical endpoint of deeming advertisers to have endorsed the political messages of the shows they run ads on is that only milquetoast both-sidesism with a pro-corporate bent will be advertising-supported, if any political content is ad-supported at all.”
The boycott is effectively asking corporations to function as the gatekeepers of our political dialogue, and financially intimidate the media out of expressing ideas they decide are objectionable. That’s a very dangerous way to approach advertising, which is what keeps journalists working in this environment. It should also be said that the left is constantly narrowing the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable speech, so if corporations cave on Carlson, we could be in for a never-ending series of boycotts that basically aim to push anyone to the right of Rachel Maddow off the air.
Inviting corporations to seize more control over political speech in the media is a bad idea, full stop, whether it’s the left or the right being targeted. If you want Tucker Carlson off the air, seek out methods of protest that don’t involve empowering corporations over the press.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member