Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:49 pmBut it does have something to do with her opinions. That's in fact why companies advertise with certain shows, they want their product associated with the image of the show.
I've been telling you that I know that's the case in the sense of the companies that have to consider it, but it's the case only due to fear of public perception and not the reality of who a product like coke is more likely to be bought if advertised to. And it's a catch 22, the perception of association is only there because more and more companies are setting the precedent for that to be what's perceived.
As a product, it doesn't stand anywhere. Coke is a flippin' drink. It has, and always will have nothing to do with politics, or the opinions of a conservative commentator. Conservatives need to sip some fizzy, too.
Under freedom, a company has the right to stop advertising with a show that it no longer feels is a good image for its product.
They're not pulling out because they genuinely believe the image is relevant to the sale of their product though, the desire for them to pull out is there because of an association that's being artificially created by a group of people. And as I keep saying, that's a very bad precedent to set for the future, because it's just not correct. There are genuine connections to be made between an advertisement and its advertiser, but the connection should be related to a concern of profit and relevancy that isn't societal pressure. For example, a birth control ad being aired on a catholic television show isn't likely to appeal to many of the people watching.
Just like under the principles of freedom customers have the right to stop buying a product when a company supports a political position they dislike.
The reason why people stop funding companies that have made a political statement they disagree by refusing to buy their products, is because there definitely is a strong case to be made that the purchaser of that product is much more directly funding the interests that purchaser is against. He almost becomes responsible, in a way. The exact moral equivalence to this in this scenario is not to get
other people to stop funding Laura Ingraham, but stop funding her
yourself by choosing to just not watch her show.