A better question would be why were any respectable/reputable companies buying ad time on Ingraham's show in the first place?
-
-
-
and another question, why hasn't .
@Arbys responded to our queries??????????
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Let's see, boycotts are a Supreme Court protected right and a proven part of how people without power actually get some, so I'm going to go with....yes.
-
Guy on ad-supported TV network may not support ad boycotts. Film at 11.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can’t talk about the answer without addressing the problem. Bigotry and divisiveness are filling the airwaves. How did that happen and why should advertisers feel obliged to support it?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Hannity, Ingraham, Pirro & Carlson spew lies & venom daily to destroy lives & careers of people they disagree with. Consumers don't have cameras & microphones so our only recourse to gain audience are product boycotts. It's consumer advocacy, totally fair.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"Instead of boycotts, shouldn't speech be responded with speech?" "Boycotts are speech." "I didn't mean that kind of speech."
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Pissing many of us off with your “both sides” trumpism and now this “it’s worrisome” crap Brian. Nothing gives a person the right to a TV show. And advertisers are a reflection of their customers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As ordinary citizens, without a TV show or other platform, exactly how else do you suggest we protest hateful speech and actions by those with a regular platform? We don't want to do this. It's exhausting. But it works. We know it works bc people like you try to shame us for it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes it makes advertisers accountable.. it's called social responsibility.. immoral and unethical behavior gets punished on the bottom line..
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When you have a press more invested in a “both sides” game rather than calling out lies and bad acts, then boycotting is by far the best recourse. It would be nice if said media didn’t also circle the wagons when bad behavior is called out by the public, but nah.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes! If you are doing your job with intgrity and being truthful, why would you worry about ad boycott?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What the hell is going on with some of your takes lately
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Right” is so subjective. It certainly seems to be the most effective.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Brian, it seems you are unsure how to report on the Ingraham boycotts. It’s simple: each time we spend money we pick a side. we won’t spend money with corporations that don’t support their values. Calling out is a civic duty.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If they produce the desired results, than yes...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't know if they are the right answer, but they are certainly effective. Seven years we got Glenn Beck off the air through an ad boycott. Original Coke formula change was a disaster after a consumer boycott. Right answer? That may be a moot point.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.