Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I didn't say it was illegitimate. Note the difference between this and the grapes boycott. That was to get farmers to change their policies. This was to prevent consumers from seeing a view of Reagan with which the boycotters differed. You can like Reagan, and still think that we would all be better off if you didn't have to buy Showtime to have the opportunity to see this miniseries. (This latter point is the one that sgtclub is unable to get through his thick skull.)
|
Oh, so grapes and television are
really completely different, but shouting down a speaker in front of his guests who are already present and asking the speaker's host not to host the speaker are
pretty close?
Or have you moved away from this mischaracterization yet? The analogy with the shout-down isn't enough. I need to see reasons why we should accept it as valid. And you have not presented any.
As noted, in the shout-down, the guests are already there. They were invited. The speaker, audience and host have made investments of their time and/or money.
In this, CBS appears to believe they are
saving money by not airing the program. And the audience hasn't lost a dime or a moment. The speaker? Well, I presume they all got paid.
Smells again like the hideous moral equivalency arguments here.
Threaded Mode