Tweet
Put people before profit in media as well as banking. (photo: eigi via Flickr)
Following the shooting of Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford there have been thousands of stories asking, “What does it mean?” As my readers know, I’ve been concerned about violent rhetoric and what it can lead to for years.
The next question that gets asked is, “What can we do about it?” Here are my thoughts and suggestions based on how I successfully fought violent rhetoric on right-wing talk radio.
First, two questions:
• What are the positive financial rewards to the people and corporations who use violent rhetoric?
• What could be the negative financial consequences of violent rhetoric to these same people and corporations?
When I focused on violent rhetoric at right-wing talk radio I wanted to ensure there were negative financial consequences for this kind of rhetoric. Historically right-wing radio only received positive financial rewards typically in the form of higher ad rates and salaries based on higher ratings. We live in a corporate world where the financial bottom-line results drive attitudes and actions. Right now a CFO or CEO can safely say, “I don’t care what he says, as long as he makes money.” . . .
Make Violent Rhetoric Less Profitable
Sadly, violent rhetoric is not only tolerated in corporate America, it is often rewarded financially. My idea was to make calling for the death of liberals, Muslims, journalists and Democrats less profitable to the corporation, thereby reducing the return to the shareholders.
The corporate world sees that they can make money on violence in movies, tv, books and video games. Right now they often make money from the radio and TV hosts who call for violence directed an individuals and groups.
One of the reasons that I took this defunding route was that even when I posted the actual comments of the radio hosts calling for the death of Muslims, liberals, journalists and Democrats some people on the left would push back on what they thought of as an attempt to limit what anyone said under the theory that you should never limit anyone’s free speech.
People would sometimes even incorrectly say, “You can not limit Melanie Morgan’s First Amendment right to say, “Hang ‘em” (Which is what she said about reporters from the New York Times writing stories about the financial tracking program of suspected terrorists. Note she did NOT say, “if tried and convicted and found guilty by a jury of their peers.” Morgan just went straight to “Hang ‘em”. )
I like to remind people, I’m not the government. It is the government who are not suppose to be “prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” of the hosts (although interestingly We the People, via the FCC, have decided that profanity and obscenity need to be limited on broadcast radio). Secondly, corporations can provide guidelines and rules for their employees and vendors as a condition of their employment. For example, the guidelines from Citadel Broadcasting’s Code of Ethics.
From Citadel Broadcastings Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
When Melanie Morgan said, “We’ve got a bull’s-eye painted on [Pelosi's] big, wide laughing eyes.” She didn’t get fined by anyone. It was also not a firing offense. She was supported and defended by her management.
(Note: She did NOT say she wanted to assassinate Pelosi. She simply used the terminology of someone who is setting up a contract kill. Any talk of it as “just a metaphor” would be a lot easier to swallow if it wasn’t for the non-metaphorical conversations she had with other people where she talked about hanging people or hog-tying them and setting them on fire. Audio link)
KSFO/ABC/Disney/Citadel, as employers, can tell their hosts not to talk about killing people on the air as a condition of their employment, just like they can tell them not to swear. Management doesn’t like swearing because swearing earns them fines up to $500,000. However saying:
“We’ll trace you back, run you down and kill you like a mad dog.” (audio link)
–Lee Rodgers about a Ron Paul supporter
Had no instant effect on Lee Rodgers’ finances. Rodgers eventually was fired. Part of the reason was he wasn’t generating as much revenue via advertising as he had in the past — before my advertiser alerts.
This appeal to corporations to enforce their own guidelines on violent rhetoric won’t work for everyone. Sara Palin is nobody’s employee anymore. She can’t be fired. What kind of financial consequences did she face for her bulls-eye targets or other violent rhetoric? Is it current standard practice for people in the media or politics to pay a financial price for this kind of talk? No.
A few question about the future following the Gifford shooting:
- º Will fewer corporations or individuals buy tickets to a fund raiser of someone who engages in violent rhetoric?
Note: Sarah Palin will be speaking at Lubbock Christian School’s annual fundraiser on Jan. 24. What if this Christian school decided that using someone who engages in violent rhetoric isn’t the best way to raise money? Considering the shooting of Omaha principal and vice-Principal last week, Mark Breaux, Lubbock Christian Elementary Principal, or Glen Smith, the Secondary Principal, might wonder about the appropriateness of Palin. Here are their email addresses and phone number if you want to ask them. - º Could an organization fine someone for their violent rhetoric?
The NFL fined Indianapolis Colts linebacker Gary Brackett $35,000 on Friday for his blind-side hit on Tennessee Titans long snapper Ken Amato during last Sunday’s regular-season finale.
Gifford’s Republican opponent Jesse Kelly used the ad, “Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly. Could the RNC fine him or his ad agency $35,000 for that? - º Will people be barred from talk shows for their violent rhetoric?
What if suggesting that a Iraqi be tortured by cutting off his finger and then his penis became a career limiting move, instead of a career enhancer? You might have a right to say it, but you have no right to get rich on radio or TV doing it. - º Will producers say, “We can’t book X because he uses violent rhetoric”? We know guests are rarely challenged in real time by supportive hosts. Could after the fact emails to producers suggest violent rhetoric as a criteria for not booking someone in the future, just like swearing or being obscene?
Marcy Wheeler said the word blowjob on MSNBC and wasn’t invited back. Some MSNBC producer made that decision. The same standard doesn’t apply to violent rhetoric–yet.
My friends at Color of Change and Angelo Carusone of Stopbeck.com used the same techniques that I did on KSFO to reduce the number of advertisers on the Glenn Beck show. Now he has nothing but house ads and Goldline ads. Over 300 advertisers refuse to advertise on the Glenn Beck show. This technique could be used on all people like Beck. After all, it’s “the market” at work.
If we are to have an impact on violent rhetoric we need to make it financially toxic to corporations.
When violent rhetoric becomes a money loser, corporations can fire people for failing to produce positive quarterly results. Eventually both Morgan and Rodgers were fired by Citadel Broadcasting. The firings were blamed on financial problems. They would not have been fired if they were still generating revenue at the same rate before they lost 32 advertisers. You do not get rid of high-revenue producing shows following a bankruptcy. Another benefit to this approach is that, Melanie Morgan or Lee Rodgers couldn’t become martyrs to “free speech”. Morgan and Rodgers simply were assets that became liabilities.
When we show corporations that employing people who use violent rhetoric is a money losing endeavor, they will act in their own financial interests and ask people to modify their speech, or, if they refuse, fire them.
–Cross posted to Spocko’s Brain
36 Comments
tweeted and recommended — thank you for all your hard work in trying to stop the hate speech spocko
It’s not just rhetoric, it’s the culture. Violent software, violent hardware, endless wars, and perhaps, most of all,are those endless wars and endless processions of enemies to be cut down in defense of Corporate profit extraction.
The question arises, however, what to make of a quote such as this:
“So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we’ll be called a democracy.” ? — Roger Nash Baldwin
Violence sells, and always has (see, eg, medieval hellsmouth shows). It’d be exceptionally difficult to overturn something that seems almost fundamental to humanity.
I’d say the quote is nonsensical. We’re a democracy as long as people vote. We’re a democracy that Roger Nash Baldwin likes if we have people willing to fight for their rights.
“We’re a democracy as long as people vote.”
That you can say that with a straight face, in view of Diebold, and the 2000 Supremes’ selection of Bush, is (quizzically raises eyebrow).
Framing things in economic terms always makes sense to me. If you want to have an effect, you strike at the revenue streams. Organized campaigns to boycotting ads for the hate-speech mongers is the first thing that comes to mind. The tactic was pretty effective with regard to Beck’s show. IMO, the only reason Murdoch is keeping that dogshit sideshow on the air is that it’s a good lead-in for subsequent programming. In other words, it’s a loss-leader. Hence, striking at ads on shows that border the Beck time slot might do some damage.
Just an example. The same tactic would apply for radio, as well. Perhaps it’s a futile effort, but if we do nothing, we can be 100% sure that nothing will happen. Squeeze the revenue and it will get their attention.
What on earth makes you believe such crap as that violence is fundamental to humanity?!
Thanks, Spocko. Violence on air is intended to attract a certain crowd, which is massively unstable and needs reassurance. Making that element pay its own way, support its own tastes, would also seem appropriate. Withdrawing our support through letting sponsors know it’s beneath us, and objectionable most especially as we see it making an unpleasant atmosphere for our families, is definitely in all of our best interests.
Because virtually every culture enjoys violence.
Tune out the MSM completely, I have.
Spocko, I love you
probably one of the few practical remedies available, outlined here.
This does indeed work for most entities. There are those like the Moonie Times, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the American Spectator that are subsidized by their right-wing owners as loss leaders, but most propaganda transmitters are in it for the money.
seems to be something wrong with your site.
Spocko, really late to this post but you RULE!
Yes, we talked about this corporate biz a few weeks back. Tom has an excellent post up regarding public spending for their private profits. This is from what I can see is the ONLY way to deter them. Money is the way, the only way because they have no concerns for anything other than $$$$.
Violent language is verbal crack cocaine. Selling it is a great business. Only unlike crack, it’s legal.
Recommended to the consideration of the entire FDL community (and all other sentient beings, as well).
Thank you, spocko.
DW
You should read the Declaration of Independence, jpe12. It defines governments (and the laws they make) as subordinate to fundamental human rights.
Voting is a necessary expression of democracy, but it is not democracy. The Soviet Union showed that you could have plenty of voting without any freedom at all.
What makes democracy is a citizenry engaged in the life of the community. Whether they elect people by voting or by examining the entrails of an animal is less important than the fact that citizens understand what the basic human rights are, and that they are actively engaged in protecting them.
Don’t know how I missed this yesterday…I was waiting for spocko to post about this very topic.
Great work as usual. Recommended.
Spocko, while I agree with you in principle, I wonder about the practice. People like you and me who abhor violence have already stopped listening to the major purveyors of violence.
The campaign needs to be directed toward those friends and family who are still drinking the swill. And not as a nag, but as a question. For example: “If you really believe in Jesus, why are you so attracted to violence? If He were here, would He spend six hours a day playing Grand Theft Auto? If not Him, why you?”
That particular question works better Christian to Christian, but a non-believer can challenge a Christian just as effectively by asking if purveying violence is how they are spreading the gospel.
And I am sure that there are other questions that friends and family members would find just as uncomfortable. Boxing. Hockey. Death porn. War porn. It’s everywhere.
Violence is a means of gaining power and wielding control over others.
As such, it’s often used by the ruling class/PTB to manipulate the masses or certain sections of the masses.
I wouldn’t say that cultures ENJOY violence, but I’d readily agree that cultures USE violence, and have, for as long as humans have existed.
Small quibble but HUGE difference in one word.
My understanding is, and I think Spocko himself has said this, is that advertisers simply said don’t put our money on Glenn’s show.
The money was simply moved to another show on the same network . . . same audience, same intended impact from the ads and the dollars spent on the ads.
So, to SOME extent, the impact of targeting ONE host or show simply moves money to a show of the same ilk, albeit perhaps a softer version of the ilk.
But hey, at THIS point in our lives, ANY impact on it all is better than none.
A hearty well done Spocko and those who targeted Beck!
Great read Spocko, once again . . . and rcc’d, once again of course.
Thanks.
Are you missing the fact that FOX and hate-talk radio are the advertising for the major corporations who generally prefer Republicans, but knew that McCain didn’t have a chance, so they settled for four years of Obama, because he was pliable enough for their purpose, and they selected and groomed him in 2006?
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17981/
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17984/
The big GOP donors, like Koch (Tea Party),, Mellon Scaife (religion), Olin (judiciary*) et. al. invest millions of dollars in ‘non-profit’, ‘bipartisan’ ‘think tanks’ to churn out the propaganda that they then transmit through GOP-supporting media outlets. Why would these same media outlets, some of which have lost up to a billion dollars already, cancel a program, or fire anyone from their stable of propaganda transmitters if they are successfully fomenting the violence that the MIC wants?
Shaming advertisers of consumer products from donating their dollars to these media is well and good. But the dynamic you portray misses the fact that the media are less about profit for the media arms of the corporations which own them, but rather as the advertising arms for the military and security contractors who seek to profit off of the fear, vitriol and violence they encourage.
* http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/08/william-black-theoclassical-law-and-economics-makes-the-law-an-ass.html
Bingo!!
Kudos for the post, Spocko, but I have to agree with parsnip. That said, I totally support targeting advertisers for the likes of Beck; it’s at least something that can be done.
But my concern is adequately summed up by parsnip. We’re dealing with something much larger and more insidious than just companies who advertise on Glenn Beck’s show (or not). The PTB clearly rule the media as a means of pumping out their propoganda to ensure their goals/aims are met.
It IS about making money, but even that is secondary to dominance, power and control. How to deal with that notion is the big question.
Otherwise, this violent language will continue because it “works” for the PTB. They could care less if some proles – whether their politicians, judges or otherwise – get killed. It’s all just collateral damage, as far as they’re concerned. Any means is justified in their world-view.
Thank you for pointing that out. I don’t know what the problem is.
I’ll work on it fixing it.
We used to say, ‘We can’t boil the Ocean.” I can’t change the world overnight, I’m quite aware of what the Koch’s and the Scaifes have been doing for decades. I’m focusing on one aspect of this issue.
What I have done is look for what are the vulnerabilities of one huge powerful group, corporations that want to make a profit. I want to use their own desires to achieve my goal of reducing violent rhetoric on radio and TV. I read the media companies SEC filings and their prospectuses. They say, ‘We make our money from advertising revenue.” Therefore I looked at what would reduce that revenue, contacting the advertisers and saying, “Your brand is being damaged by this violent rhetoric, or this race baiting or this bigotry.”
The loss of revenue can then be traced back to the host who lost the advertisers.
Now, of course this doesn’t work in all cases. If a company doesn’t care about profit and is willing to throw millions down the drain to change the culture you need a different approach. But many companies DO care about making money. And their investors need to be told, if you want greater profits you should fire these hosts.
If your management is willing to subsidize the host and lose millions of dollars a year, you might want to question the soundness of your management, they don’t seem to be providing the kind of return on investment that you expect.
I will save for a later post how to deal with the think tanks, but this was only one post and it was already too long. You might want to read my post directed to the largest institutional investor of NewsCorp. Cato Stonex
http://my.firedoglake.com/spocko/2010/10/12/cato-stonex-tell-newscorp-beck-needs-to-generate-or-hes-out/
I have other suggested plans for the Koch Bros and Pete Peterson. I’ll detail them in the weeks and months to come.
What you’ve done to dissuade advertisers from Beck’s show is fantastic.
Truth is, that the only leverage we have is to boycott their capitalism and build our own local economies based on mutual aid. And that is all we will be left with, once they’ve decided there’s nothing left to extract from us, and have moved entirely to Asia.
As long as Wall Street is propped up, and youth volunteer for the military, nothing will change. They don’t care.
As someone commented elsewhere, we have to try to help our neighbors wean themselves from the violent media.
I think you’re the one who’s missing the point a bit. I believe that Spocko is well aware that right wing media is largely propaganda driven. What he is attacking is the presumption that people like Rupert Murdock are just “savvy businessmen” and not just oligarchs colluding with other oligarchs to serve up steaming buckets of self serving ideology.
While it is true that we’ve crossed a Rubicon some time ago where it could be said that American media puts out what it does because “it sells,” the presumption that Murdoch, et al, are operating within a “marketplace of ideas” is an illusion that they would like to maintain. Spocko has said that he once tried to ask Murdoch at a shareholder’s meeting how he planned to make up for Beck’s declining revenues. A businessman should have a credible answer to questions like that. If he does not he reveals a lack of credibility in front of his shareholders.
The point is that corporations, media moguls, the military, even kings and dictators are sensitive about their public image. It’s not about shaming them into acting better. We all know that doesn’t work. It’s about dismantling the illusions upon which all power structures depend. Spocko’s approach is to use a set of assumptions that are shared within the business community and that the broad public more or less also accepts, and use it to expose “business leaders” as the frauds they are.
“So, what you’re telling us, Mr. Murdoch, is that you don’t really care about maximizing shareholder profits? Did I hear you right?”
Thanks Wilvick. You articulated my use of the business communities assumptions better than I did. I wish I had been able to get a reply out to Murdoch’s response, but they cut off the line before I could reply. But it did lead to my next planned action. When Murdoch misleads the people with lies on Fox there are no sanctions. When he doesn’t provide clear info on the financials he moves into violating SEC laws, specifically Sarbane-Oxley Act of 2002. The CEO is supposed to know what is happening inside his company and when he signs off on it he is responsible under the law. If later it is shown he misrepresented the financials to the shareholders he can be fined and or prisoned.
The SEC will not pick this up on their own, but we need to point it out to them and demand that they investigate. Ironically it will put us on the side of NewsCorp shareholders, but also on the side of the law.
Can we find who funds the racist groups and Tea Baggers and boycott them?
Why can’t the victims familes sue the rich guys who pay Sarah, Jesse Kelly, and the racist group whose newsletter the shooter read?
If we have to change the law to make this happen then lets change it but what needs changing?
TCU. Good question. The group that fund the Tea Party movement is Koch Industries. They mostly have energy and oil companies that don’t interface with the public much. However there are ways that we might be able to ensure that they don’t have as much money to find tea party groups as before.
I know from research that the Koch Brother companies have plants that have many serious OSHA violation. They also have had serious EPA violations. The violations have often been glossed over. One thing we can do is insist that these violations are taken seriously and that they pay all the fines that they are due.
Each group that is out to destroy our safety net, or rile up hate and racism have weaknesses. Some are financial, some are technical some are in their personnel. To ignore these weaknesses is to ignore an opportunity.
No, Murdoch doesn’t care about the shareholders. The shareholders are rubes to be fleeced. Just as the bank shareholders, and all other shareholders are being fleeced, by the corporate executives, and by stock market pump and dump.
You’re a bit behind in recognizing just how terribly far we’ve gone, in the past ten years, toward true corporatism. They let their masks slip constantly. They aren’t even trying to hide it all that well any longer. Only those who fail to navigate the internet are unaware that the government has been entirely usurped, where it matters.
They got away with running their candidate as a faux progressive, but the heading of the country has not changed, yet it has accelerated.
Besides, shame doesn’t exist for the ‘business leaders’. ‘Exposing’ them to their peers is a joke.
I really appreciate what you’ve done, Spocko, in this regard and wholeheartedly support your efforts. I look forward to what you have in mind for the Koch Bros & Pete Peterson. Whatever we can do is worth trying, that’s for sure. Doing nothing is not an option. Thanks again.
I agree, parsnip. The shareholders are pretty much immaterial at this point. That didn’t used to be the case as much. My father taught himself how to invest in the stock market going back to the 1960s when it wasn’t the giant Ponzi scheme that it is now. I also started investing in the late 1960s when it was a time where the shareholders did hold some sway.
I’ve actually participated in a number of shareholder initiatives with various companies that were voted in, which forced some changes in how corporations were run.
These days most publically traded corporations are so huge that the “small people” shareholders hold little to no sway, no matter what. We all witnessed the take-over on the Boards all the same people in the “good old boys & girls” network, and watched as CEO salaries rose to insanely ridiculous levels based on the very false notion that all CEO’s “had” to be paid obscene salaries, or you could “attrack” the “best” candidates. What a load of crap. but rightwingers, like my dad, listened to Rush Limbaugh, drank the Kool Aid, and got brainwashed into believing that this was true.
These corporations are now just criminal dynasties, and while I have absolutely no evidence and little knowledge, I feel it’s getting more and more like the Russian oligarchy model, which *read* is very corrupt and run like the mob.
Thinking that business people have to show “real” profits anymore is a mug’s game. These people do what it takes to get whatever it is they want, they all cook the books, and if they’re busted, some low-level lackey catches the flack. Investers had better beware because all we’re good for is for fleecing. The reason why bank accounts and CDs no longer pay anything approaching a “real” interest rate is an bald attempt to force the sheep into the wildly still-overvalued Wall Street market.
All their peers know what’s going on because they’re all “in on the game” and doing the same d*mn thing.