Questioning the Boycott - Who, What, Why, Where, When and How?

Questioning the Boycott - Who, What, Why, Where, When and How?
By Mike Hersh, Jun 22, 2005

Question: "Please explain to me how boycotting local advertisers will hurt the Post? Since you have mentioned their names it won't matter where they advertise to those who decide to boycott them, so why would these companies withdraw their ads from the Post?" (Adapted from actual, longer question.)

Answer: Thanks for asking! Those are very good questions. I can understand some people are concerned or confused about this, so I welcome the chance to discuss the Washington Post Boycott and Secondary Boycott of Advertisers.

Here's the quick answer: Until the editorial staff, publishers, reporters, and columnists of the Washington Post wake up and start doing their jobs, we don't want any of our dollars going to the Post. Period. The Post STILL refuses to print Rep. John Conyers' corrections of the Dana Milbank attack piece they rushed into print. Post writers and others have ignored, attacked, and even retaliated against Post readers. In at least one case, a Post "reporter" sought to punish Post readers who questioned her.

Real journalist, Gene Lyons wrote: "[O]ur old friend Susan Schmidt, dubbed 'Stenographer Sue' by the scrappy activists at mediawhoresonline.com for what they deem her practice of taking dictation from Kenneth Starr [after] a barrage of informed criticism of her comically one-sided articles ... tried to get even. Schmidt traced her correspondents' e-mail addresses, found out where they worked, and forwarded messages to their bosses in a seeming attempt to get them in trouble for malingering on the job. It backfired. Her antagonists not only didn't get fired, they exposed Schmidt's pettiness for the world to see.... [I]f Schmidt had put half the ingenuity into her reporting she did trying to silence her critics, maybe they wouldn't frighten her so."

This is a call to end media masochism. Why should we pay people to hurt us? We have tried to work with the Post, but we can't get through to them. We tried reasoning with the Post and they tried to punish us. Nothing else has had any appreciable impact. We've endured this long enough to know the Post will not respect serious grievances. On the contrary, they don't even recognize our right to disagree with them! As Lyons explained:

"The capital's crybaby culture has rarely been more perfectly captured than in a recent article by Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler. Post reporters have been getting rude e-mails, if you can believe such a terrible thing. Several, poor babies, got their feelings hurt. 'Some of the stuff coming into electronic mailboxes here in recent weeks is simply vulgar,' Getler huffed. ... Since he quotes none of it, Getler's complaint is hard to evaluate. Here at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, we're made of sterner stuff. The merely vulgar gets featured on the 'Voices' page, my favorite part of the paper. Name-calling, race-baiting, religious diatribes, anti-Semitism, sexual taunts, you name it. Only the major dirty words are forbidden."

See: Gene Lyon's Article Schmidt Strikes Out, April 24, 2002 http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/04/24_Lyons.html

Sadly this is all too typical of the thin-skinned, one-sided, petty Post. They have an ombudsman, Michael Getler, who is supposed to stand up for Post readers and others who feel wronged by the Post, but he prefers to stand up for the Post against the aggrieved. It's like hiring a lawyer and having her testify against you. Would you keep paying that lawyer? Why should you?

Back to the boycott. Businesses invest advertising dollars in ways they think helps them make more money. Boycotting Post advertisers will convince many that paying the Post to alienate people costs a lot of dollars and makes no sense. Many will pull their ads from the Post, that's how this boycott is hurting the Washington Post.

Businesses are not entitled to our money. They seek our patronage through advertising. If their advertising supports things that hurt us, why should we help them hurt us? We have no duty to fend for businesses. If we support businesses that support the Post, we are rewarding bad behavior that hurts America, imperils our children, and more. If we do not want this to continue, we have to stop supporting it with our consumer dollars. It's that simple.

Obviously we have to mention the businesses' names in order to boycott them. Also, we urge anyone who reads the Post now to do so at a library and note the advertisers in order to help us boycott every business that runs ads in the Post. So yes, it does matter very much to us if businesses advertise in the Post. That's the whole point. We're not giving our money to Post advertisers anymore. We are telling them why. They can act accordingly. If businesses stop giving our money to the Post, we will stop boycotting them. Until then, we can, should and will support businesses that won't use our money to support those who attack our essential concerns and values.

The Washington Post has ill-served its readers. I provided examples of the Post's media malpractice including:

* Dishonest, unfair, and inaccurate attacks against Al Gore and Bill Clinton by Post reporters and columnists.

* Refusal of the Post's reporters and columnists to challenge Bush Administration lies and failures especially regarding the Iraq War.

* Refusal of the Post's reporters and columnists to report on the Downing Street Minutes, hearings, rally and related issues accurately or fairly and their dishonest attacks against those who question Administration lies and failures.

See: http://www.mikehersh.com/Wake_Up_Call_for_the_Washington_Post.shtml

If anyone can actually show any of this is inaccurate I would welcome the corrections. I understand how newspapers work well enough. For example, I know that a boycott will not kill the Washington Post. I also know the Post will keep misleading and even attacking people who expect and demand they report the truth - unless we do something. We tried asking nicely, and were dismissed or attacked. Rep. John Conyers' letter addressing the Post's gross misrepresentations remains ignored by the Washington Post.

Apparently the Post doesn't think its subscribers have any rights or other options. The Post Ombudsman acts like his job is to protect offending writers, not offended subscribers. The Post shows contempt for you? I say return the favor. Join the boycott. Nothing else gets the Post's attention. But this isn't about me. I reject efforts to make this about me. I don't expect you to take my word for it.

Read what Rep. Conyers, David Swanson, Bob Somersby, John Nichols and others wrote. Consider the merits: the facts and the information provided. Then determine for yourself what you think. If you don't agree a boycott makes sense, or if you need more information, please write to me or check my sources. I am open to other points of view and I'm willing to discuss the facts.

If you agree, then join the burgeoning boycott effort. Cancel your subscription and stop buying the Post. Make sure you inform Post advertisers that you're boycotting them. Inform the Post of your actions so they get the wake-up call. After all, nothing else seems to get through to them. Also let me know if you want to help organize a picket-line to inform the public of this boycott.

© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast any material at this site, provided you identify the source as MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts or other written reproductions must include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.