I'm an American who hasn't been in the US for almost a year now, but I occasionally hear the name Glenn Beck. Why exactly is he the worst kind of person? What makes him markedly different from, say, Rush Limbaugh?
It strikes me that Apple's primary demographic is younger, urban, white-collar workers, who tend to lean liberal politically. Why should I view this as Apple 'Doing the Right Thing' instead of viewing this as Apple just catering to the views of the people who tend to buy their stuff?
Glenn Beck is worse than Rush Limbaugh because he wraps his warped logic in logical sounding soft talk.
Where Rush would say, "Black people all have disgusting hair!"
Glenn Beck would say, "Isn't it odd that most African-Americans have disheveled hair?"
It's obvious to intelligent people that these are both generalizations about black people meant to insult. However it's easier for simpler people to agree with the latter because it's not out right racist.
Why should I view this as Apple 'Doing the Right Thing' instead of viewing this as Apple just catering to the views of the people who tend to buy their stuff?
I think you could argue that Beck, Hitler and Stalin are part of the same type. This is not to say he is as bad as them just that the both focused on demonizing a group of people rather than supporting his viewpoint.
based on Glenn Beck and his ludicrous statements, including calling President Obama a racist and branding progressivism a "cancer."
Note: I am not comparing them based on ideology but rather core tactics. You can agree with someone’s standpoint and find their approach unacceptable
I knew someone was going to call Godwin's, even though I don't think it's justified. The thing is, if you're going to make extreme claims (like that Beck is the worst kind of person) then you are really asking for it.
Left = more government economic control, right = less government economic control.
Fascism is private industry combined with strong government direction. Fascism is to the left of the US, but to right of where Europe is now. The industrial/government complex is where Obama is going - not where the Republicans are going.
It would be helpful for you to learn a little about political theory before you go throwing simplistic, inflammatory rhetoric around.
Maybe you should learn a little about political theory yourself. Are you one of those socialism == fascism == communism people?
... reading the rest of your comment... yup! How're the tea parties?
I'd try to educate you here but you're seemingly too far gone already. Go read up on the movements you're equating. And on the Republican party, Ronald Reagan and George Bush for that matter, if you're going to claim they're not representative of an industrial/government complex. (EDIT: protip for free : fascism is not about economics, it's about culture and power -- economics are secondary to that)
There are conservative folks with plenty of expendable cash... it's not like Apple caters its products to liberals. In many ways Apple tries to position itself as a BMW or Mercedes Benz of the computer market; think of the target for those products.
The first two campaigns you mention are of a different era and no longer used. Haven't seen the third. The dancing hipsters, you'll notice, has been neutralized over the years with iPod ads focusing more on pop artist appearances, e.g Mary J. Blige (pretty mainstream). In any case it's only part of a larger range of ads; in my opinion the arrogant superiority complex of the ongoing Get a Mac campaign is directly analogous to the breathy narrator of a Lexus ad or a BMW ad proclaiming the Ultimate Driving Machine/Joy of Driving [a BMW]. The iPhone ads are 100% neutral and rather impressive in serving as simple but compelling 20-second product demos.
Fox's demographic is known to be older, hence they are less experienced than younger computer users. This falls in line with Apple's general selling point for products and software that "just works".
That may or may not be the correct answer, but there is a zero chance Apple was running those ads if they weren't backing out for them one way or another.
Who a company markets to and who a company sells to are sometimes two very different demographics. Toy companies market towards kids so that the kids can then turn around and market to (beg/plead/ask) their parents. Companies market to their "ideal" buyer-the one that exemplifies their image.
The people behind Color of Change (they do a lot of other projects too) are hiring python/Django developers in the bay area by the way, full time and contract. If you forward me your info I'd be happy to send it upstream. My contact info is in my profile.
For the same reason that Apple and Google supported Proposition 8: it's the right thing to do.
The 'best financial interest of shareholders' for Apple is long-term, and they believe the good will generated by doing the right thing will make the market look more favourably upon them. I know I do.
It's a lack of a short-sighted, myopic view that's gotten Apple where it is today. Putting their advertising dollars into ads on another channel (or websites, etc.) instead of Fox News isn't going to cost them a significant amount of sales in the long term, but it is going to hurt Fox in the short term (well, the boycott will).
Meanwhile, Apple's not worried about their profits for the next year; they've got so much cash in the bank they don't even need their employees to show up to work for the company to outlive any of us. Their iPad ads will go elsewhere, and will earn them sales, and the shareholders won't suffer at all.
This is an important point, and one that it seems is too often forgotten, believe it or not.
The framework of much of our political debate seems to assume a particular political direction.
For example, the terminology "progressive" indicates that we're only making progress when we engage in these policies, particularly redistributive tax policies.
Another example is the common usage of the term "special interests". It seems to me this is commonly used as a synonym for "corporate interests". But more realistically, everything is a special interest. That includes the education establishment and the NEA, unions, and environmentalists. Yes, businesses are a constituency of special interests, but so are those others that support the other side of the spectrum. It can't objectively be said that one side is the common interest of the people, and the others are special; they all hold equal roles in the debate.
(I would make a large bet that danudey's mistake was about which way round Proposition 8 was, not about which side Google and Apple are on when it comes to same-sex marriage.)
Citizens – including CEOs and corporate board members – are responsible not only to themselves and their shareholders, but also to their family members, to their neighbors, to their fellow citizens, and to humanity in general.
Usually these responsibilities do not conflict. When they do, the financial interests of shareholders should not always be the highest priority.
------
Closer to home though, Beck directly promotes a political party whose platform is explicitly anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc., and does it in a vile and toxic tone which threatens reasonable political discourse.
a political party whose platform is explicitly anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc.
I think you're mistaken when you assert that Beck is a Democrat. I mean, isn't that the party that
* backs the environmentalist approach of corrupting peer-reviewed science?
* seeks to remove our 2nd Amendment right to self-defense?
* supports the SCOTUS justices that allow State governments to take our property (viz Kelo)?
* promotes restrictions on speech critical of protected groups?
* etc.
Note: I'm not a Republican by any means. My point here is that the two major parties are much closer than most rhetoric would suggest, to the point of being two sides of the same coin. Choose which evil you hate the least.
It should be clear that both DEM and GOP pick-and-choose which values are most important, and discard the others. What they really share is a common disregard for the individual, and a propensity for an increase in the power of the State at the expense of the liberty of the individuals.
Edit: I'm constantly shocked at how easily people blind themselves to the abuses of their own team, while condemning their opponent. Back in the cultural revolution in China, there was a painting made for which the artist was imprisoned. It showed an owl (which in Mandarin is almost a homophone for "Mao") with its left eye closed and its right eye open, signifying that Mao was blind to the abuses of the Left, while alert for any slight from the Right.
Oy. It’s really not worth arguing about politics on YC news, but here goes:
> backs the environmentalist approach of corrupting peer-reviewed science?
Which Democratic Party leader said that? Come on, name him. Is it Obama? Steven Chu, our energy secretary? Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA? Pelosi? Barbara Boxer? Come on, let’s hear it.
> seeks to remove our 2nd Amendment right to self-defense?
You’re confusing “self defense” with “carry a semiautomatic weapon”. That’s okay though, it seems to be a common confusion. In any case, current social consensus about reasonable ways and places to carry guns has almost nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, as was copiously documented by Stevens’s and Breyer’s dissents in Heller.
> Supports Kelo.
You’re right that Democrats mostly support the Kelo decision, if only because the opposite decision would set a precedent they view as dangerous. I’m not going to get into the merits of the case because it is complicated. What does it have to do with Apple? No one has any kind of eminent domain claim for One Infinite Loop.
> Supports restrictions on [hate speech]
That’s true. Personally, I’m conflicted about government responses to hate speech, because while it is reprehensible and can be harmful, I generally am happy to let bigots and fools say whatever damn thing they want to each-other. The Democratic party is hardly unified on this, and has a complex and nuanced history with free speech issues.
> Choose which evil you hate the least.
If current policy is “evil”, what are you personally doing about it? Shouting from the sidelines is utterly useless. If our current politicians can be called “evil” as a group, then the word has lost all currency.
> people blind themselves to the abuses of their own team
Are you talking about me? You know nothing about me. Keep your vague implied insults to yourself, thanks.
Environment: Let's see. James Holdren says that "what went on in the way of manipulation of data, that remains to be seen", yet opposes any actual probe. Barbara Boxer is only interested in criminal charges against the climategate whistleblower.
From the WSJ: "In the House, the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on what Chairman Ed Markey said was 'the urgent consensus view . . . that global warming is real, and the science indicates it is getting worse.' But the only witnesses were officials from the Obama administration, who support dramatic action on climate change. Republicans asked to have a global-warming skeptic appear but were denied." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870434240457457... )
In the larger picture beyond climategate, Gore once said "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience" (see http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/ ). This is a little out of context, but in the context of what we now know about the distortions taking place, it's quite ominous.
Self-defense: Umm. You don't know what you're talking about. Carrying a semi-auto weapon is certainly self-defense. But the question is much broader than that. Here in New Jersey, as a matter of policy, it's impossible to get a carry permit for anything, including mace.
The fact is that there's a concerted attack on any form of defense, at least in parts of the country, and it extends far past even what some people feel are evil weapons, even to weapons that are clearly of only defensive use.
What does "current social consensus" have to do with it? This seems to be circular reasoning, the argument reduces to saying that "those holding the power say so, and that's sufficient justification".
Takings: This has nothing to do with Apple. What did your preceding comment have to do with Apple?
My point was that ones right to ones own property is certainly a civil right, and one which the Democrats trample with great abandon.
Hate speech: It seems to me that this isn't complex at all. "Slippery slope" might be a lame argument in general, but it turns out in practice that these laws are used more often to silence unpopular speech than to protect anyone from any real harm.
Choose your evil: My personal actions have no bearing on whether politicians singly, in parties, or across the board, are evil.
If our current politicians can be called "evil" as a group, then the word has lost all currency. You sound like a victim of BDS syndrome, the very kind of person who says that GWB is so evil that anyone else ought to be elected, just to get that evil administration out. (And, of course, there is a mirroring group ODS-sufferers now). But such actions are precisely what give politicians to be evil. They can be as evil as they want, right up to 1 unit less than whatever they can convince others is the evil of their opponent.
Blind to ones own side: Huh? What an amazingly self-centered response. Why in the world would you think I was talking to you specifically? If it matters, the answer is no. I'm talking much more broadly. That should have been obvious from my example of the phenomenon way over in China.
You’re right, I suffer acute debilitating “BDS”. I don’t know how I manage to even breathe in between heaving and laughing when I try to read stupid self-righteous columns by Chuck Krauthammer and John Fund.
> these laws are used more often to silence unpopular speech than to protect anyone from any real harm.
You’re clearly right. The US has no history of intimidation or violence against racial or religious groups, women, gays, etc. Hate speech laws are actually about scary government types “silencing” our god-given redneck right to shout obscenities at poor brown people.
Angry white men: oh why does the world heap so much injustice on their heads.
Closer to home though, Beck directly promotes a political party whose platform is explicitly anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc., and does it in a vile and toxic tone which threatens reasonable political discourse.
By this logic, Apple should pull ads from any network with any political commentary. They didn't.
False logic. If Apple has determined that network neutrality is important for their business model to succeed, why should they support the political party that opposes net neutrality?
You are moving the goalposts. The original comment discussed a party which is "anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc." This describes both major political parties in the US.
The tort is "breach of fiduciary duty", and again, I'll ask you, do you know of ANY cases where a corporate officer has been found guilty of this tort when they took an action that was in the interest of humanity?
It is my understanding that breach of fiduciary duty is very difficult to prove and it is usually included along with several other claims (breach of contract, fraud, negligence, etc) when there is already wrongdoing.
This is why you don't see successful prosecutions when an officer donates company money to charity, for example.
Totally reasonable decision. It's one thing when you're talking just political debate and a company explicitly backing one party. But Beck has created an entirely alternate universe that feeds the insane, irrational hatred that the GOP has turned to instead of coming up with good ideas in the last year.
I hope there is a major shift in the political conversation and the Republicans actually have a platform again, but Beck is a whole different ballgame for now than someone like O'Rielly even, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with him either.
Interesting, the article mentions that ads from smaller companies have been running in place of the boycotting corps, didn't a HNer get his Google TV ad run on Beck's show a week or so ago?
A friend in town from London reminded me that his show is actually shown outside the US, and said that British advertisers are quite understandably unhappy with his show. I've never seen it, but I can't imagine it appealing to an international audience.
I was once in a feel-good Arab-American lovefest summit where influential Arabs were being shown around NYC and DC at the behest of Karen Hughes and the Bush administration. I was in it for the free food.
They bused an assortment of Iraqis back to their hotel after a day of sightseeing historic places in town. And I stuck around interpreting for one of the artists ..
Long story short. The Iraqis gathered in the hotel lobby where the TV was set to Fox news and, I must say, a day's worth of diplomacy was undone with one hour of the O'Reilly Factor.
I am all for freedom of expression, but Fox News is something I rather keep in the U.S. Fox can broadcast overseas as long as they supply traveling and expat Americans with Canadian-flag backpack badges.
I know your last comment was in jest, but as someone from the US that travels a lot, I would like to mention that I think it is really important for educated/reasonable US Citizens to engage with locals and other travelers while abroad and let people know that what they see on Fox News (et al) isn't all we have to offer!
Many of my friends and colleagues here at home are some of the most wonderful, intelligent, caring people I have met anywhere on the globe, and it does them a great injustice to let people around the world judge the US based on what they see or hear on TV.
It's the responsibility of those of us that travel to spread the good word of the reasonable US Citizen!
Somewhat tangentially, it's interesting to watch news when traveling abroad. Even aside from Fox, the stuff you're like to see is quite a bit different even from CNN.
The international perspective is quite a bit different from that of Americans. I don't mean that (only) in the sense that we tend to be America-centric. It's also in the way the stories are told, and indeed what stories lead and how much time is spent on them.
I can't recall any specific examples, and it wasn't obvious on just a short viewing, but over a period of time I was very much struck by the difference.
I couldn't agree more. I traveled to Croatia a few years ago and stayed with locals. One of the first things each of them said was some variation of "I don't like George Bush." Simply saying "I don't either" brightened them up considerably.
It's kind of sad to be so narrowly defined by politics like that.
I'm not really interested in being friends with someone who would dislike me due to someone there's a 75% chance (totals + participation) I didn't vote for. Which doesn't even begin to scrape the surface of the importance of knowing and talking to people with opposing views in the first place.
If this is more than just hyperbole on your part, it reflects poorly on your guests.
There are badly-behaved people on television shows around the world; to conclude that such people represent their native countries in any meaningful sense is naive at best.
Fox News is relayed on the News Corp-owned Sky platform in the UK, in an obscure EPG position down among the other "international" news channels from Japan, Russia, France etc.
It doesn't show any advertising - where the US has ad breaks, the UK feed shows information screens with weather and financial information etc. I'm not entirely sure why it's there, to be honest.
Some friends in this country get worked up about Glenn Beck on Twitter but I just find it really hard to care about the rantings of a man on a foreign TV channel, to be perfectly honest. I'm sure there are other TV channels in other countries that are far worse.
It's surprisingly cheap to have a TV channel broadcast on satellite in the UK, assuming you have content to fill the time.
I always treated Fox News as comedy, to be honest. I'd like to watch it in Canada, but having to pay an extra couple of bucks to them directly is not agreeable to me (it's not a free channel on my cable package here).
From the little I have seen, the show is very American centric, and at many points is arguably xenophobic (isolationist to say the least). It is very strange that this would be shown in Brittan (much less popular).
For better or worse, Fox (ergo, Fox News) is shown just about everywhere, dude. Fox News is shown in Australia as one of the channels included with Foxtel pay TV. I had to go to Papua New Guinea for work last month, turned on the TV at the hotel in Port Moresby and there it was too.
For the English speaking countries at least, I have always assumed that there was a core audience agreeable to the views portrayed by Fox News, hence why it is shown. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though.
I've always assumed that Fox (News Corp) made it's editorial decisions based on the interests of it's owners. As far as I can tell, it's profitability comes second to it's function of being able to drive the news cycle and move public opinion.
I'm not aware of the profitability of Fox News specifically or any of the Fox related ventures, I not surprisingly have no interest in such things. No doubt what you're saying is not outside the realms of possibility though.
But I guess I figure a safe assumption to make in most situations involving musings on the motives of publicly owned corporations is that money and relatively shortsighted plans to acquire more of it tend to trump most else. e.g. Foxtel in Australia shows John Stuart and Stephen Colbert most weeknights. Not I suspect, because the execs at Fox agree with their POV but because there is an audience for that POV and the execs can spend their money in more places than they can spend their moral conviction in their position on the political spectrum.
This is just more proof that politics makes people stupid. Boycotting the whole network does the opposite of what they want because people tend to pull together when they're being jointly attacked. So this move is more likely to make Fox stand behind Beck than it is to get them to fire him
(As has been pointed out Fox News has double the viewers of it's nearest competitor so it isn't going to be lacking for advertisers)
A better move would be to move all their advertising to other shows. Cause all the other ships to rise while Beck's sinks. Then the network won't feel under fire and will instead be asking "Maybe this Beck guy is more trouble than he's worth?"
For the companies pulling advertising it's less about politics and more about protecting their brand/reputation. I doubt any of them care if Beck has a job or not. They just don't want their name anywhere near Fox News because it's becoming too risky. People who love Fox News probably won't notice or care if the ads are gone. Fox News is big for a cable network but for a company like Apple doing big network ad buys Fox News is just a blip on the radar. More risk than its worth.
(2) I think Apple may get more favor with their key demographics this way than by supporting Fox. There's a pretty liberal bias in Apple's demographics, at least from my anecdotal experience.
2.I would hope not. Say what you will about Fox News it’s no worse than MSNBC on the other side. Unless you truly believe Scott Brown is a “Irresponsible, Homophobic, Racist, Reactionary, Nude Model, Teabagging, Supporter Of Violence Against Women and Against Politicians with whom He Disagrees”. Apple’s fans clearly skew liberal but I’d like to think anyone would be opposed to that kind of hypocrisy.
Edit: I don't mean to be rude but I just don't have the energy to argue with political nonsense. So all those who claim MSNBC is so much better than Fox News are just being ridiculous. One's left wing and one's right wing and the only reason a person would think one is better than the other is if they subscribed to the political agenda of that station.
Citing Joe Scarborough is no different than Fox citing Alan Colmes (no longer on the network but who would still have a job there if he wanted it). And it's just silly to say someone like Olbermann is better or worse than Hannity or O'Reilly.
> 2.I would hope not. Say what you will about Fox News it’s no worse than MSNBC on the other side.
Ah, a "Pox on both their houses" argument. Actually, you're right, but not in the way you'd think. MSNBC was instrumental in "manufacturing permission" for the Iraq war. It also cut a backroom deal with Newscorp to not report on each other's dirty laundry (GE's Iran dealings, Fox News O'Reilly scandals). Back in the day (1998-2004) MSNBC was in some respects a Fox-lite. When Bush and the Republican's reputation crashed they jumped off that bandwagon and started bolstering left-wing talkers.
Beyond that there really is no comparison. Does the MSNBC of today lean left? Sure. But is it a major communication organ of the political Left-wing of the US the same way Fox is for the right? Not even close.
MSNBC's morning show is led by Joe Scarborough, former republican congressman.
MSNBC has never devoted an entire week of airtime to promoting liberal rallies.
It's entirely different, and your kind of "split the difference, he said she said" attempt at objectivity just hides the truth. The truth is not necessarily the average between two idiots.
Please, MSNBC is definitely biased, but... You are falsely equating the FoxNews and MSNBC. Further, FoxNews is run by Roger Ailes ... which says an awful lot -- just read his descriptions of FoxNews.
MSNBC...
1.) Morning Joe in the morning is 3 hours of conservative programming every morning.
2.) Olbermann and Matthews are over the top, but nowhere near Hannity and Beck.
3.) Maddow's an excellent interviewer and actually allows her opponents to answer questions and engage in substantive dialogue -- unlike anyone else on FoxNews or MSNBC. Maddow is progressive/liberal whatever the folks call themselves; however, she is critical of Democrats and Republicans both all the time from her ideological positions -- not just by party like Fox hosts, anchors etc.. tend to do.
Matthews isn't even a liberal. He's one of those "definitely-not-liberal-and-drawing-contrasts-all-the-time-to-prove-it-so-he-can-keep-social-climbing" people who were uniquely produced by the DC climate over the last 30 years.
1.) It's Fox News, not broadcast Fox and not NewsCorp.
2.) Fox News is the largest cable _news_ station and number two overall, that's still a fraction of viewership of cable in aggregate. The overwhelming number of ppl get their news from broadcast tv. [http://www.mediabistro.com/TVNewser/Ratings/]
3.) Advertisers are incredibly risk averse, since there are plenty of safer choices, they can simply move their dollars and save the trouble.
4.) Lastly, this campaign by colorofchange.org has been going on for quite a long time and it's been effective. It's against Beck specifically and not the Fox Network in total.
Why would Fox think that Beck was more trouble than he was worth if they didn't lose any money on the deal? By your suggestion he'd actually be no trouble at all.
They’d lose money on Beck. Let’s be honest, protests don’t work. They never work. Because eventually the protestors get bored and move on to a new cause. Remember not too long ago when the left tried to get the CEO of Whole Foods fired? That’s a chain with a major liberal customer base and even it came to nothing. The only way to enact real change is to have a long term strategy and by putting money in to other Fox shows you’re driving their rates up while Beck’s rates fall. So in the end you’re creating a situation where Beck looks like the weak link and Fox starts to ask themselves if another host could do just as well.
Boycotting the network on the other hand is, I guarantee you, going to drive his rates up. Every talk radio show is going to jump on this bandwagon and conservatives who don’t watch Beck are going to start watching him out of offense. The network’s going to feel under fire and back Beck and which point this protest has guaranteed Beck and job and actually raised his rates.
He resigned as Chairman of the Board but he's still a board member and is still CEO of the company. That's not being pushed out that's being smart enough to realize it would be better to put another face on the company because of a controversy.
He resigned as Chairman, not CEO. From your link: "Whole Foods, along with many other companies with combined CEO/chairman roles, has been targeted by corporate governance activists for several years now seeking a separation of these roles."
The article linked from TUAW talks about the growing rift between Beck and Fox. That Fox has let Beck go on this long is likely what Apple's upset about, but taking fire for harbouring hate is probably not what Fox had in mind. They might start to reign him in if the rest of the network starts suffering.
The rest of the 'journalists' on Fox News are upset enough already. Maybe this will help stir up dissent against Beck's lunacy amongst them too.
I, personally, am a news junkie and I watch almost ALL of the news networks....CNN, MSNBC (when I can stomach THEIR own brand of vitriol), ABC, FOX, CBS and CSPAN.
Other than CSPAN, FOX is the only network news channel that even attempts to balance its news shows with opposite points of view.
I was watching Chris Matthews last night as he interviewed two people about some stupid subject.....including Matthews all three of those guys completely agreed with each other about what they were discussing and it was, of course, the leftist viewpoint.
If you turn on FOX news shows they always have someone, whether it is Juan Williams or Mara Liasson of NPR fame or other liberal commentators on their Sunday Business News show to "balance out" their own conservatives.
Yes, Beck is outrageous but what about that maniac Keith Olberman over at MSNBC? The problem with all this censoring of FOX or anyone else is that it is just that.....censorship.
The only reason Fox News has the numbers it has is because it is the only channel that panders to the lowest common denominator of idiots. Every other major channel has some moralistic sense, so all of the smarter people on the curve get spread out amongst them.
Downvote because of your assertion that "Every other major channel has some moralistic sense".
In fact, Fox is intensely moralistic. You just happen to disagree with what those morals are.
Also, you imply that holding these morals indicates that one is less intelligent than those that share your morals. I'm sure this is incorrect, and it's certainly true that you haven't offered any reason to believe it.
Fox markets to a certain group of intensely moralistic people.
That's a very important distinction to remember.
If the network were actually moralistic, it wouldn't defend, promote and directly pay so many people who talk the talk, but have been exposed as acting in stark contrast to the network's stated morals.
(I'm not claiming other news networks are different in this regard.)
But I'd claim this is turtles all the way down. The politicians that they're covering exhibit the same dichotomy of actual morals versus play acting for market share.
I could go on for days with examples, but here are a few:
* Barney Frank and friends twisted the arms of mortgage lenders to get them to extend loans to people that wouldn't traditionally be considered good candidates. A few years later, he's on TV crucifying banks for doing just that.
All the more reason to note the distinction between words and deeds (marketing/reality). If we point out the lack of clothes, refuse to discuss talking-head spin and instead stick to reality and actions, I think we'll be better off.
We (private citizens) aren't served by allowing that marketing to be perpetuated as truth.
Philosophically this is true. But in the real world...
First, the "Myth of the Rational Voter" tells us that for any individual, deep research on politics doesn't pay off economically (their individual opinion makes little enough difference that what they lose due to a bad decision is smaller than what they'd have to invest to make the right decision). Thus, the actual democratic process is an example of the tragedy of the commons.
Second, I wonder to what degree people really hold the positions that they talk about. To what degree are the people trying to fit into the norms of their community? Perhaps the people are showing a behavior that's analogous to the "marketing" chameleon behavior of politicians and the MSM.
Please: Fox has realized there's an ignored niche market the rest of the MSM has been ignoring.
About half of the country, in fact....
Once the initial demand for the iPad has been served and the initial viral marketing has run its course, I can't see how this can be a good thing for Apple.
ADDED: my mid-70s parents are up to using Windows XP with some help from me (and of course I do the work behind the scenes, like build the machines) ... but when they're in their '80s, will any WIMP computer be the right solution?
(And, yes, like me, they're "arch-conservatives". They're be annoyed buying a machine from a company that's got AlGore on its board, but they'd get over that. On the other hand, if Apple strongly positions itself as a company for only the other half of the country ... well, that would be a mistake, in the evil category, I'd say).
I know that many Fox News Anchors use Macs on their respective shows (Fox News is on the TVs at work, do not judge me!), I wonder if Fox will react to this by pulling those computers.
As big business gets even more directly involved in politics through nearly limitless donation we need to become much more aware of which companies we choose to purchase products from. Realistically I don't expect people to totally change their buying habits but if it's a simple Coke vs. Pepsi sort of choice it's easy enough to make a difference.
Is there a way to analytically test if Fox News is bringing in their target demographic? Aside from Girls Gone Wild and Comedy Central, I haven't observed matches that make really good sense. The web is such a better platform in my ignorant opinion.
I haven't been very happy with several of Apple's latest moves but I have to applaud them for this. It's encouraging to see that some tech companies have the guts to stand up for their values, even if it costs them real revenue.
They'll move their ad dollars from Fox to some other channel and get their sales there instead. I doubt Apple has a huge market among people who only ever watch Fox.
Apple is just cultivating brand blandness. Steve Jobs aspires to be inoffensive to everyone, like Jim Davis does with Garfield the cat. If Glenn Beck had the personality equivalent of rounded corners and a shiny finish, Apple wouldn't be doing this.
Glenn Beck primarily speaks out against progressivism and he believes that the United States is spending itself into oblivion. I, for one, completely agree with him.
If we are lucky, one day we will all be able to make ipods for China. :)
Are you saying that he's bringing to light some caustic force within our country called "progressivism?" I can imagine a lot of ignorant people mumbling and nodding their heads in agreement, with images evoked of an unearthed cancerous network which is eating the country from its foundation. A cancer which has always been here, and has been causing the degradation of everything American. And this problem must be stopped. The solution is simple: anything "progressive" must be regressed, stomped out, and turned to ash, lest we sully our stupid, hardassed, values.
Puhlease. Glen Beck's message is absolutely atrocious and dangerous, and I cannot believe someone on HN would "completely" agree with him.
Seriously, "progressivism?" Let's go back in time and shoot the founding fathers.
Someone says "X is bad". Your response is "bad person Y also did X".
It's unclear how that's an argument for the goodness of X.
Note that the person who said "X is bad" may have disagreed with it when Y did it. If you find X acceptable now, it's unclear why you're criticizing Y for doing it.
And, FWIW, the Iraq/Afghanistan war has been cheaper than Obama's other adventures. And, for all the pre-election talk, Obama has followed the Bush timetable/plan wrt Iraq/Afganistan.
Bush's errors do not justify or excuse Obama's actions. However, they do constrain them.
WRT govt debt/spending, it's one thing to say "I'll start a diet tomorrow" if you're 20 pounds overweight and quite another if you're 200 pounds overweight. If you honestly think that Bush put us in a hole with spending, you can't seriously argue for digging it deeper.
i wonder why i'm getting downvoted...we all know that each news outlet has their own angle on the way our country is going. if you don't believe that, then you sadly have your blinders on. see things for what they are folks
You're downvoted not because you're right or wrong, but because this is not a political discussion forum. (This whole post is borderline, but at least most people have stuck to talking about the Apple/Fox News issue, not which side is destroying the country.)
I had some serious doubts about putting this on HN, and I'm glad to see that my worst fears weren't realized. What swung me towards posting it was the hope that someone on here would have some insight as to why Apple is following this course; unfortunately I have not seen anything solid in that regard.
My own take is that to some extent, it's about social class. There may be FoxNews fans who are Mac fans as well, but Apple's brand is an aspirational one; and like BMWs or Volvos it ends up being associated with upper middle-class liberal values even though the product itself has no such bias.
This along with google's decision to leave china, have been two great examples of companies doing (at least what I perceive to be) the right thing.