Stop Funding Hate

[ed_pete]

Please share if you feel so inclined.

[malumbu]

Don't just post this I scrolled down the attachment and was none the wiser. People over 30 need a few words of guidance.

[Jules-and-Boo]

sorry - don't get it. Are StopFundingHate targeting companies that advertise in newspapers that have headlines that they think are not fact?

Oh. seems a bit tenuous. Are they targeting the actual publications?

[Robert Poste's Child]

Can someone explain what this is about? Having trawled through tweets I'm none the wiser and can't be bothered to waste any more time trying to unpack it.

Note to campaign: the point of this kind of communication is to make it easy for people to understand the issue and convince them to support you.

(CC rage thread.)

[rendelharris]

Seemed reasonably obvious to me (unless I've totally missed the point which is more than possible) - asking big retailers to stop taking out adverts promoting peace and goodwill at Christmas when the money they're paying for them is funding rags like the Daily Mail etc which promote hatred. Quite a good conceit I thought, though I very much doubt it'll have any effect...

[Jules-and-Boo]

They're saying you shouldn't shop in places that use their revenue to buy advertising space in publications that are headlining immigration.

consumer buying power is real power and we as consumers can make world changing impacts by putting money into ethical corporations.

It's a very valid point to get across.....

but they're being very specific in who they are targeting - I think it's misdirected.

[Townleygreen]

Your interpretation is correct, Mr Harris. I think they are particularly angry about the Mail and Express

[Robert Poste's Child]

Thanks for explaining. JLP/Waitrose remains one of the most ethical employers in this country and did fair trade a century ago before there was a name for it, which is a big part of why people like spending money with them. Surely it would be more effective to target someone with a less ethical reputation. Seems unfair and a bit dishonest to focus only on one aspect of what they do.

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for explaining. JLP/Waitrose remains one of

> the most ethical employers in this country and did

> fair trade a century ago before there was a name

> for it, which is a big part of why people like

> spending money with them. Surely it would be more

> effective to target someone with a less ethical

> reputation. Seems unfair and a bit dishonest to

> focus only on one aspect of what they do.

Indeed, I too regard them as something of a shining example of workplace practices. I suppose the campaigners think that precisely because they're more ethical than the rest they're most likely to take note.

[malumbu]

The co-op bank invested in some dodgy things.

I suggest burning torches and mobs. Sorted out the poll tax.

[Huggers]

Waitrose were giving away free Daily Mails with coffee and now they are not.

[????]

Think political party leadership and top ranks should also not be sharing platforms with those who preach hate and violence too...but that's a tougher bit of virtue signalling than saying you're going to boycott John Lewis....

[TheCat]

I think this is a massive over-reaction. Sure some media outlets (like the DM) publish complete rubbish, which can be inflammatory. Those smart enough to see it for what it is just choose not to read it it, or read it in the context of it being a one-sided, over the top view. Those that take it at face value are unlikely to be influenced or swayed by a campaign such as this.

[DaveR]

Take a step back from this i.e. stop thinking specifically about the Daily Mail. This campaign is urging consumers to say to businesses, "use your commercial clout as major advertisers to exercise editorial control over the press"

Really??

[malumbu]

I popped into a Sainsburys store near to Wokingham once. I of course noticed that the DMs were piled high, but they had a single copy of the Morning Star, which I just had to buy. I told the assistant that they needed to order more (it was a few years ago, so you still had people on tills). She didn't know what the Morning Star was. Hope you lot do. Up the workers.

[Townleygreen]

from DaveR: "Take a step back from this i.e. stop thinking specifically about the Daily Mail. This campaign is urging consumers to say to businesses, "use your commercial clout as major advertisers to exercise editorial control over the press" Really??

Why not? Why should we be lied to by Rupert Murdoch et al, and of course the owners of the Mail don't pay any tax in the UK according to Private Eye?

We don't have much press left that isn't owned by these clowns. I think it's great to fight back against them, especially if they're inciting hatred.

Some of you ED-ers might not be fooled, but plenty seem to believe this invidious nonsense sadly.

[uncleglen]

DaveR is right....let's gag the press unless it is reporting sweetness and light according to the lefty brigade

[Townleygreen]

uncleglen, so you enjoy being lied to by the Mail, yes?

[DaveR]

"from DaveR: "Take a step back from this i.e. stop thinking specifically about the Daily Mail. This campaign is urging consumers to say to businesses, "use your commercial clout as major advertisers to exercise editorial control over the press" Really??

Why not? Why should we be lied to by Rupert Murdoch et al, and of course the owners of the Mail don't pay any tax in the UK according to Private Eye?"

What if a religious leader urged his congregation to stop buying a particular newspaper unless it stopped supporting gay marriage? Or a gay rights campaigner led a boycott of a publisher who printed Bibles? Either you support censorship or you don't. I don't. It appears you do when you disagree with the message. Book burning anyone?

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What if a religious leader urged his congregation

> to stop buying a particular newspaper unless it

> stopped supporting gay marriage? Or a gay rights

> campaigner led a boycott of a publisher who

> printed Bibles? Either you support censorship or

> you don't. I don't. It appears you do when you

> disagree with the message. Book burning anyone?

Neither of those examples you quote are anything to do with censorship, they would just be boycotting content, not censoring it. Two different things. The press have the freedom to print what they want, within reason, the public have the right to boycott it. Is the boycott of the Sun in Liverpool censorship? No, it's protest.

Kudos on the book burning reference though, yes that's exactly what everyone who disagrees with buying/funding a particular newspaper is really doing.

[DaveR]

A boycott aimed at removing editorial content from a newspaper using economic coercion is no different from censorship using legal coercion. Weasel words don't change that. I'm against it, whether I agree with the content or not. Anybody who genuinely believes in freedom of the press should also be against it

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A boycott aimed at removing editorial content from

> a newspaper using economic coercion is no

> different from censorship using legal coercion.

> Weasel words don't change that. I'm against it,

> whether I agree with the content or not. Anybody

> who genuinely believes in freedom of the press

> should also be against it

Except, as mentioned above, that's not what's being asked. The campaign is not saying tell the Daily Mail to change its content, it's saying given the content of the Daily Mail, please stop giving them money. Two different things. You will of course call these "weasel words" but never mind.

I wonder if John Lewis advertised in a publication which regularly called, quite legally, for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the UK, and people said they might withdraw their business from John Lewis if they didn't stop advertising in such a publication, if you'd call that censorship as well?

[jaywalker]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think this is a massive over-reaction. Sure some

> media outlets (like the DM) publish complete

> rubbish, which can be inflammatory. Those smart

> enough to see it for what it is just choose not to

> read it ...

so you think it is ok to publish "inflammatory" material that will ignite those who are not "smart enough to see it"?

what a truly strange post.

as if there was no history of newspapers and auto-da-fe. Suggest look at Berlin 1900, a great book on the subject.

[DaveR]

In answer to the question from rh above, yes - any act of power where the intention is to silence or restrict free speech should be opposed, and freedom of the press is well recognised as having a special quality in an open democracy. And coordinated economic activity is absolutely an act of power.

Btw, wtf has auto da fe got to do with anything?

[rendelharris]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In answer to the question from rh above, yes -

> any act of power where the intention is to silence

> or restrict free speech should be opposed, and

> freedom of the press is well recognised as having

> a special quality in an open democracy. And

> coordinated economic activity is absolutely an act

> of power.

Yet again, it's in no way attempting to restrict free speech, it's an attempt to ask certain entities to stop funding speech which should be antithetical to their ethos.