Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
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.
|
I agree that the parallel is generally not quite right. I was only responding to sgtclub's specific suggestion that somehow the boycott was OK because there was a critical mass of boycotters, but that it would have been wrong if the number of boycotters is smaller. The parallel to hecklers illustrates why that's a poor argument.
CBS is no doubt doing what's best for its shareholders. But that does not change the fact that people who would have watched the miniseries now will not be able to see it because the boycotters disagreed with it.
