I'm a bit late to this, but it's long been on of my favorite things from highly paid journalists and it's a sentiment that gets expressed by some of them every time this issue
comes up.
On CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday, host Brian Stelter posed the question: "Are ad boycotts the right answer?"
"I'm personally pretty wary of this. I think it's dangerous," Stelter said. "My view is, let's not shut down anyone's right to speak, let's meet their comments with more speech."
This kind of thing should be so transparently stupid that the media reporter for a major cable network should be too embarrassed to say it, but here we are. Most of us don't have the right to be highly paid to speak, we just, you know, have the right speak. Most of us don't have a prominent platform - highly paid or not - to speak. We just get to yell at the teevee.
And there is no right of response or even a culture of allowing a fair right of response. Sure the internet means some of us get big audiences somehow, sometimes, and say our piece , but usually not.
The "journalism is so important that its revenue streams must be preserved no matter what" is not entirely untrue. Journalism is important! But most "journalism" isn't, at least not where the really big money is, and usually not the people who are recipients of high profile advertiser pressure. You know, it's the "talent" not the investigative reporters. It's the media celebrities, not the people doing the important work. If actual journalists think Laura Ingraham's right to continued lucrative employment is important for real journalism then...we have a problem.
