Following David Hogg’s push to boycott Laura Ingraham’s advertisers after she criticized Hogg on Twitter, both the effectiveness and the implications of political boycotts have been called into question.
The issue is whether or not political boycotts work, and, if so, are they worth the negative impact that they have on political discourse?
Consider this: if reporters such as Laura Ingraham are unable to voice their opinions out of fear that those who disagree with those opinions will boycott their advertisers cost the reporter their job, how much honest reporting can we expect these reporters to conduct? The ability for those who disagree with a reporter to get that reporter fired simply because they don’t like what they have to say sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
This brings us to the next question: do political boycotts even work? While advertisers on Laura Ingraham’s show have indeed begun pulling their sponsorship due to the fear of backlash from their customers, how many customers are these companies actually at risk of losing?
Boycotts often struggle to have any real impact even when the company being boycotted is the one directly responsible for the egregious action. When the companies being boycotted are not directly responsible for the controversy, and instead are merely partners with a third-party that is responsible for the controversy, the odds of customers actually boycotting them en mass are slim at best.
To here Ben Shapiro further discuss the negative impact of political boycotts, be sure to check out the video below.
~ Liberty Video News