It is simply not in the strategic interests of advertisers and businesses to associate themselves with such self-destructive people. Therefore it is in the interests of the blogosphere and individual consumers to make it known to those that would benefit from such. It doesn’t require a campaign of hate emails or anything else unpleasant. It is simply a changing of alliances. Like Al Anbar did by turning on Al Qaeda, their former allies, and siding with the Coalition, their former enemies.

The MSM media and their leaders do not care what individual people believe or do. And that in turn makes them poor choices for companies seeking to acquire more customers.
————-

Tail end of my blog post.

Thank your interesting and helpful comment on my blog.

As I admitted in my blog post, I haven’t actually seen the CNN show, not because I’m boycotting the show, but because I stopped watching either CNN or Amanpour years ago. I don’t like ‘em because they approach news in a way I find both snide and biased. I long ago concluded that life is too short to spend time watching things you don’t like.

Even without watching the show however, I had problems with the concept of doing a series of shows that appear to assume a parallelism between fundamentalist Christian, Jews and Muslims, by calling all of them “warriors.” I’m not a fundamentalist anything, and really don’t appreciate the ultra fundamentalist approach to life. Nevertheless, while fundamentalist Christians and Jews may have values different from the average Americans’, the fact remains that, with a few wacko exceptions, they are peaceful citizens in whichever country they live. This distinguishes them from significant numbers of people around the world who take Islam very seriously, and who can be counted upon to back up their beliefs with aggressive, often very violent, acts against the citizens around them, the countries in which they live, and other nations.

A friend of mine whom I respect a great deal thinks that Amanpour was trying to show the difference between the three types of fundamentalism, and he thinks she showed that through sarcastic delivery. That is, he thinks she was being sarcastic when she said that the Muslim Brotherhood, which preaches violent jihad and the creation of a worldwide caliphate, is devoted to peace and Democracy. He may well be right, but sarcasm only works if your audience is in on the truth — and the fact that this show was an introduction for many Americans to the whole idea of the Muslim Brotherhood may have left them taking her words literally. I assume she was also being sarcastic when she made (so I’ve heard) statements to the effect that the Jews stole Palestinian lands — and the heck with history from 1919 through to the present.

Anyway, I appreciate your email and I appreciate the fact that Orkin is taking this kind of consumer concern seriously. I think I’m consistent with many conservatives in believing that it is a blessing to live in a country where there is so much information available to citizens about so many things, both grave and small. I ask only that the information be presented honestly, both in terms of facts and in terms of the implications arising from those facts. If a show gets so cute, and so into a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” mentality that it makes it impossible to separate truth from falsehood, and forthrightness from sarcasm, there’s a serious problem and a reputable company may want to think twice about aligning itself with that kind of game playing.

Thnaks so much for the kind words. Watching and then blogging about Amanpour’s wretched special was mentally exhausting. I’m actually worried about my mental health now.