Here we go again.

Tucker Carlson Faces Advertising Boycott Over Immigration Comments

Advertisers including Ancestry.com and IHOP have pulled spots from ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’

By Benjamin Mullin
Updated Dec. 19, 2018 7:58 a.m. ET
Advertisers continued to pull commercials from Fox News program “Tucker Carlson Tonight” after the show’s host said on-air that certain immigrants were making the U.S. “dirtier and more divided.”

TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. AMTD +1.20% , Ancestry.com and IHOP on Tuesday said they had pulled their ad spots from the show, one of several news-and-commentary programs that anchors Fox News’ prime-time lineup.

They followed several other advertisers, including the personal-finance site NerdWallet, that had removed spots from the show since Mr. Carlson’s remarks last Thursday.


“We stand for welcoming folks from all backgrounds and beliefs into our restaurants and continually evaluate ad placements to ensure they align with our values,” an IHOP spokeswoman said in an email. “In this case, we will no longer be advertising on this show.”

The controversy began after the show featured a segment about a group of migrants from Central America encamped in the Mexico border city of Tijuana. Mr. Carlson compared the caravan’s effect on Tijuana to the consequences of illegal migration in the U.S., concluding the segment by saying that “unregulated” immigration made America “poorer and dirtier and more divided.” He reiterated that point of view on his show Monday night.

Fox News said it supports Mr. Carlson and blamed advocacy groups like Media Matters and Sleeping Giants for pressuring advertisers to back out of the show in an effort to censor speech. “We cannot and will not allow voices like Tucker Carlson to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts,” the network said.

Advertisers boycotting Mr. Carlson’s show have moved their ads to other shows on the network, and no revenue has been lost as a result of the boycott, according to a Fox News spokeswoman. Several advertisers have kept their ads on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal parent News Corp NWSA +0.67% and Fox News parent 21st Century Fox Inc. FOX +0.06% share common ownership.

Laura Ingraham, who hosts the Fox News show “The Ingraham Angle,” has also weathered an advertiser backlash in the wake of controversial remarks, most recently after she compared immigration detention centers to “summer camps.”

The effectiveness of a sustained protest against a TV host isn’t determined by advertisers alone, said Rashad Robinson, the president of Color of Change, a nonprofit civil-rights advocacy organization. It is too early to tell whether the ad boycott of Mr. Carlson’s show will affect the host’s status at the network, Mr. Robinson said, in part because that could be influenced by other factors such as internal pressure within the organization.

Mr. Carlson’s show is among the network’s most popular and its ratings haven't suffered since his remarks, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Although advertiser boycotts allow consumers to flex their muscles by putting pressure on TV networks, they run the risk of permitting marketers to determine what speech is OK and what isn’t, said Matt McAllister, a communications professor at Pennsylvania State University. Advertisers are ultimately interested in the bottom line, “so they’re not a neutral party in deciding what ideas should circulate and which shouldn’t,” he said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...comments-11545206941

Seems like more useless virtue signaling. They're still advertising on Fox News with no loss of revenue to them (Fox), and Fox News still supports Tucker. So in effect they are now indirectly supporting him. If they really wanted to make a difference they would suspend all advertising on Fox News, but in reality they're still all about the money so they'll pretend to make a stand without really making one. And somehow the leftist media will still portray them as heroes for standing up to Tucker. Idiots.

This virtue-signaling is handy for me, so I know who to boycott.

iHop sucks anyway. I ate at one a couple of weekends ago and it was terrible. I already said, i'd never go back.

quote:

“We stand for welcoming folks from all backgrounds and beliefs into our restaurants and continually evaluate ad placements to ensure they align with our values,” an IHOP spokeswoman said in an email. “In this case, we will no longer be advertising on this show.”

I wonder just how many of the illegals they have welcomed into their homes! I suspect that a goodly portion of their "welcoming" has to do with hiring the illegals to work in their facilities, for the obvious reasons.

Personally, I will never use any company in the future that pulls such BS.

My wife is an immigrant! And she got here LEGALLY!

I have no problem with legal immigration! I do have a problem with illegal invasion of my country.

Regardless of how it makes you feel, is it true? That is all that matters.

Much ado about nothing. Remember years back when Nancy Pelosi paraded around some college gal that was complaining about having to pay for her birth control pills and Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut". Well, several major advertisers pulled the plug on his show and a year later they all wanted back on. I remember Rush talking about it and he only let a few of them back. Pretty funny.

Ihop's hard to boycott since I haven't been there in a decade or 2.

The fundamental issue is- Rule of Law. Does IHOP want the people who visit their establishment to "Obey the Law"?

quote:

Although advertiser boycotts allow consumers to flex their muscles by putting pressure on TV networks, they run the risk of permitting marketers to determine what speech is OK and what isn’t, said Matt McAllister, a communications professor at Pennsylvania State University. Advertisers are ultimately interested in the bottom line, “so they’re not a neutral party in deciding what ideas should circulate and which shouldn’t,” he said.

I don't really understand what this communications professor at Pennsylvania State University is saying. How do "advertiser boycotts allow consumers to flex their muscles"? I'm a consumer of FOX News programming, a viewer of Tucker Carlson's show but I don't advertise and I don't decide who does/not advertise.

As a consumer, my only choice is to buy/not buy the products advertised. To my knowledge, I have never purchased anything advertised on FOX News and mostly just find the ads annoying. The ads are mostly for drugs, and I never even know what the drug is supposed to do, just that I'm supposed to "ask your doctor".

So I can't even boycott against an advertiser's decision not to advertise when I ALREADY DON'T BUY the product.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

So I can't even boycott against an advertiser's decision not to advertise when I ALREADY DON'T BUY the product.

I don't remember which movie it was, but there was a bit where Groucho Marx was getting aggravated by a reporter who was questioning him.

Groucho, to an assistant: "Do we subscribe to that newspaper?"

Assistant: "No."

Groucho: "Well, take out a subscription, then cancel it!"

Hopefully Wells Fargo will pull their dumb-assed commercials that they play every five minutes on FNC. I am so sick of them I dive for the mute button and am about ready to put a 7.62 round (or 20) through my TV.

Tucker spoke the truth. Screw the cowards.

Not that I would recommend or encourage anyone to break the law BUT maybe some folks should illegally enter an IHOP, trash the place like illegal aliens are doing to our borders, bring some underaged hookers in with drugs while asking for amnesty and then complain about the crappy service and less than average food?

quote:

Originally posted by Bassamatic:
Much ado about nothing. Remember years back when Nancy Pelosi paraded around some college gal that was complaining about having to pay for her birth control pills and Rush Limbaugh called her a "slut". Well, several major advertisers pulled the plug on his show and a year later they all wanted back on. I remember Rush talking about it and he only let a few of them back. Pretty funny.

Yup.

Carbonite backup ditched him then watched their revenue plummet.

They tried to come crawling back but IIRC Rush told them very nicely to kiss his ass.

Screw them they always come crawling back when they start losing sales, they can always be replaces

If Fox pussies out and pulls or fires Tucker, I will fire them and remove from my channel lineup like I did for CNN on the early morning of 11/9/16.

His show is pretty much the only Fox News I watch anymore.

Immigration Is Making U.S. Poorer and Dirtier
By Pedro Gonzalez

Pacific Life Insurance, among others, has pulled its advertisements from Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show following his observation that mass immigration is making America “poorer and dirtier.”

“As a company,” read the Pacific Life press release, “we strongly disagree with Mr. Carlson’s statements.”

Whether one agrees with the truth of a thing, strongly or otherwise, has no actual bearing on the truth of that thing. As a matter of fact, immigration is making our country poorer—save for those who profit from cheap labor—for one simple reason: we are absorbing masses of poor people who who remain concentrated in lower-skilled, low-paying jobs. Many of those poor, whether they arrive illegally or by chain migration, happen to be minorities, and in particular Latinos.

Latinos experience the third-highest rate of poverty behind blacks and Native Americans—but as the second-largest ethnic group in the United States, they constitute a greater number of poor than blacks and Native Americans combined (10.8 million, 9 million, 700,000, respectively), according to the Center for American Progress. So, yes, immigration is bringing in disproportionate numbers of poor people and making America poorer.

And although it is considered terribly gauche and “insensitive” to say so, it also happens that the environmental habits of Latinos, as a matter of culture, are not exactly what one would call “green” by default.

Turning our attention for a moment to Riverside Park in New York, Lisa W. Foderaro deliberates over what has become a common and dirty occurrence at the waterfront place.

All summer and into the fall in Upper Manhattan, barbecuers and picnickers flock to the Riverside Park waterfront on Saturdays and Sundays to enjoy the Hudson River views and breezes. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people descend on a grassy stretch in the northern part of the park where grilling is permitted. Carne asada and barbecue chicken sizzles, children run, tattooed arms bop volleyballs and couples watch the sun settle over New Jersey.

Through “carne asada” we can infer Latinos.

Then comes Monday morning, which presents a Sisyphean struggle for maintenance workers like Willie Fitzgerald—a weekly encounter with the paper plates, confetti, plastic straws and food scraps that wind up on the grass, along paths and under picnic tables.

The pattern repeats across the United States. Look to California, with its massive immigrant population, many of whom are from Mexico and Central America—not regions reputed for their environmentalism.

Accounting for litter, pests, population density, particulate matter air pollution, and nitrogen dioxide air pollution, cleaning and janitorial services company BusyBee found Los Angeles and San Francisco among the top-five dirtiest cities in America—L.A. is the runner-up to New York City, with San Francisco coming in fifth. In fact, Los Angeles and New York, both with the lion’s share of the nation’s immigrant populations, vie for the dirtiest city in America award. The annual cost of litter clean-up in Los Angeles alone is around $36 million. Unsurprisingly, all of this has brought the more honest among the environmentalist groups into the fray to insist on reducing immigration, fearing for “ecological realities such as limited potable water, topsoil and infrastructure.”

Certainly, cities can become dirty as they grow larger as a matter of course, and not all of this can be laid upon the doorsteps of badly behaved immigrants. And yet Tokyo, with a population of some 13 million Japanese (compared to New York’s “diverse” 8 million and 4 million in Los Angeles), is “unusually clean.” Population density matters, but so does culture and, indeed, it probably matters more.

America, then, is becoming “dirtier” not only because its population is growing rapidly via immigration, but because it is absorbing the habits that have made Latin American rivers among the most polluted in the world. Americans are accommodating the cultural norms that have left the streets, parks, monuments, and vacant lots of Mexico “choking” under mountains of litter.

But to ask immigrants to assimilate and leave their bad habits behind is “racist.” To ask them to clean up after themselves is “racist.” Merely to point out that they tend to litter is “racist.” Racism, it seems, is approaching something next to meaningless, insofar that it has no meaning beyond what progressives imbue it with when it is expedient for them to demagogue potential immigrant voters.

Steve Sailer has noted that the famous 1971 Crying Indian commercial was a direct shot at the “White Man” who had trashed the Native American’s landscape. But who will shed a tear for the corner of Sixth and Alvarado—what Victor Davis Hanson has called Mexifornia—in Los Angeles?

Formally, Pacific Life and others dropped Tucker Carlson because his remarks offended their progressive sensibilities. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to suppose that an insurance company based in minority-majority, immigrant-dense California, found it potentially injurious to their bottom line to be associated with Tucker. With corporate virtue signaling, never attribute goodwill to what more readily can be explained by greed.

To wage war on poverty and invite more poor. To save the environment and invite people who poison it. To claim that immigration makes us “richer” and cry foul that income inequality between whites and non-whites continues to expand. This is the task of true believers, with whom Pacific Life may or may not stand. In either case, it is American citizens who are doomed to roll that burden up the hill ceaselessly and pointlessly, and God help them if they should say a word in complaint.

https://www.amgreatness.com/20...-poorer-and-dirtier/