Nathan Phillips gets things done! Tomorrow’s NY Times op-ed page has a piece describing the grass-root effort to notify companies and organizations that their ads are appearing on — and supporting — Brietbart News and Nathan’s role in getting things rolling. Nathan checked into Breitbart News to read a notorious article and noticed an add for his alma mater, Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, on the page. He got the school to stop advertising on Breitbart. Now, a Twitter group — Sleeping Giants — has helped convince over a thousand companies and other organizations to pull their ads from the white-nationalist site.
Newton’s Nathan Phillips takes on Breitbart News
by Sean Roche | Jan 7, 2017 | Newton | 33 comments
It’s great that Nathan, Sleeping Giants and others, including me, are working to get advertising off of Breitbart, for violating advertising policies. It’s continuing to be effective. Keep it up.
In addition to sending the companies involved screenshots alerting them to their ad placement, you can target the emarketing groups themselves. Clicking the google triangle in the upper right corner of an ad, opens a page with choices to report the website for not following the groups advertising policies.
Thank you, Nathan!
Nathan is a rock star. He has also been instrumental in the fight to get utilities to fix gas leaks and politicians to take the problem seriously (leaking methane is 84 times more powerful at trapping heat in our atmosphere than carbon dioxide).
Here’s a great writeup about him from BU Today.
And Sean and Emily (and BU Today) neglected to mention, Nathan is a Village 14 blogger!
Well if Village 14 would tweet that out and tag us, I bet Sean and Emily would be more than happy to RT it. This is so seriously awesome. So proud to call Nathan a friend. Oh and he inspired me to tweet-shame a couple advertisers I saw on Breitbart just now. Though visiting that site even for a few seconds made me want to take a shower.
Thank you, Nathan!
I beg to differ. You people are fascists who can’t tolerate an opinion that disagrees with your own. So you go to war and hurt anyone. It’s really a form of terrorism, or extortion.
Companies don’t advertise to show their support for the ideas of the medium, in this case Breitbart. They advertise in order to sell a product. But you can’t let anyone live freely. They have to advertise where you want and think how you want. Similar to where you went after Tom Mountain on another blog, who basically was trying to make this point.
Look at the outrage at the Golden Globes. It’s an entertainment awards show, but the arrogant and juvenile entertainers whose candidate didn’t get in were so upset that they had to abuse their appearance to make anti-Trump comments. Leave it alone. Let it be what it is, an awards show.
Folks, get over it. Trump won. Accept it, like I accepted the incompetent Barack Obama, without crying. It’s a democracy. This how it works. You also don’t have the Senate, the House, most governorships and most state legislatures. Maybe it’s because you are so obnoxious that many people just can’t stand you or your ideas anymore.
@Barry Cohen – You seem to be saying that expressing one’s political opinion is somehow “fascism” and that because Trump won, people who were not pleased should keep their opinions to themselves.
You made me laugh when you say “Trump won. Accept it, like I accepted the incompetent Barack Obama without crying.”. You’ve been extremely outspoken on this blog about your complete disdain of Obama during his term. That’s fine, nothing wrong with that. But how’s that any different than people expressing their disdain of Trump now?
This anti-Trump “crying” that you’re hearing now sure sounds lot like your anti-Obama “crying”
Jerry,
Expressing an opinion in a forum where it’s appropriate is fine, like here. Taking action to punish everyone who disagrees with you is not. Then we can debate that opinion, which we do. Interfering with people enjoying an awards show because you decide to use that opportunity to force people to listen to you is not. Discussion in an intelligent way is very important.
I also like think people need to give Trump time. He isn’t even in the White House yet. Trump was not my favorite. But I couldn’t stand the thought of Hillary in the White House. Trump could go either way. He’s not a staunch conservative. But I think he’s unlikely to go your way of supporting things like sanctuary cities. So be it. You don’t always get what you want. I mean, even Bill, the hero of Democrats, created workfare instead of welfare and “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military.
We are not crying or whining, we are speaking our minds as were the entertainers at an award show. We are free to say we disagree with DT’s policy choices, cabinet picks or anything else just as you are free to dislike what we say. It’s not being upset that we did not win, it’s an expression of anger at the actions of the president-elect.
The companies contacted about being on a website that goes against their policies are free to choose to: change their policies, continue to advertise on Breitbart or pull their ads. No fascism, terrorism or extortion involved.
We have no intention of boarding the Trump train by ignoring his refusal to attend intelligence briefings, his advisor and cabinet picks, his and his appointee’s possible ethics violations, his possible nepotism or his policies, even though we accept his being the next POTUS.
Marti,
It’s very frustrating to me that you can’t comprehend a simple concept like, no matter what your politics, it doesn’t belong in every aspect of life and in everyone’s face. It’s not an issue of free speech.
You were probably one of those who were very upset because people picketed abortion clinics, to express their opinions. I mean that wasn’t even random. It was right where it was being done, but there was a massive objection to it.
It seems more to me that you refuse to understand that freedom means I can generally choose how and when to disagree with you or anyone else as long as it’s legal. The aspect of life in which I choose disagreement isn’t regulated by you. Abortion clinic protestors are fine with me as long as they follow the laws. Of course throwing blood at women and shooting doctors are not legal.
Then, Marti, we have a fundamental disagreement. To me, Meryl Streep was out of line. There’s a time and place for most things. Respect for others is an important virtue, even if you feel strongly about your views.
The outrage at Breitbart isn’t just outrage at Conservative outlets – if it were, there’d be calls for advertisers to boycott a lot more outlets. The outrage is at a supposed news outlet that encourages the “alt-right” (self-proclaimed neo-nazis, antisemites, racists, etc.) and publishes false information.
Telling advertisers that we won’t buy their products if they advertise on Breitbart is no different from the people who said they wouldn’t buy from LandsEnd if it kept up the Gloria Steinhem interview, or who’ve threatened boycotts of products that run ads featuring mixed race or gay couples. I may agree with some of those and disagree with others, but I see no basis on which to say one group is using outrageous tactics while the other isn’t. In each case, it’s people using their money to let companies know what matters to them.
Barry,
There is a time and place for most things. A respected entertainer standing before a large audience using her voice to encourage activism is perfectly appropriate. I suggest you move on from your attempt to direct where people’s activism is allowed.
Marti,
Everyone on stage has something they feel strongly about. Should they all use an awards show to spout their beliefs? It would be out of place, in my mind.
@Barry: Did you actually watch Meryl Streep’s speech? If not please do and then come back and tell us which particular part of what she said that you disagreed with? Was it that it’s wrong to mock disabled people? That Natalie Portman was born in Jerusalem or that Ruth Negga was born in Ethiopia? Or are you furious because she said the martial arts are not really arts?
I’m being serious. What was it she said that was so disrespectful?
Barry, it’s not up to me or you to make that decision for them. That’s the point you keep avoiding.
There’s a long history of people speaking out at awards shows on all sorts of issues. As far back as 1973 Marlon Brando famously gave his Oscar speech time to a Native American spokeswoman to address Native American issues. I’d be surprised if there’s been a single Oscar broadcast since then that award winners didn’t address political or social issues, and certainly the hosts often have too.
Maybe its me, but regardless of the topic or point of view, I’ve frankly enjoyed those speeches much more than the 27th “I’d like to thank my agent, my producer, my wife, and the lord” speech of the night. Sometimes they’re totally muddled, sometimes they are moving, sometimes they come from left field but they’re almost always more interesting than the “thank you” laundry lists.
@ Marti and Jerry said.
Greg,
I heard the whole thing. It’s irrelevant.
We have a fundamental disagreement here. It’s like the students that staged sit-ins in the dean’s office to protest the Vietnam War. Good cause, but not a good approach.
My opinion. I find these things offensive.
I also disagree with a lot of the ideas I hear as well. So, I think it’s good to debate them, like here, but not hold an unsuspecting audience captive.
Interestingly, these types of speeches energize the base of both sides. By it’s very nature, the creative arts community tends to be overwhelmingly liberal and speeches like Streep’s feeds the Hollywood community’s collective creative soul. She was genuine, and her words were truly heartfelt. The people in the room were riveted.
In contrast, it can be like fingernails on a chalkboard to many conservatives – causing eye-rolling irritation – which further energizes the very people (mostly between the coasts) who voted for Trump & the GOP to have the Whitehouse, Senate, House, and majority of Governorships.
In other words, this type of speech Liberals is proving to have the opposite effect of what is intended. Regardless of policy value, and pragmatically speaking, the Democratic public relations/persuasion techniques have not work out very well recently. Go back and study Carville. That’s a guy who knew how to make a policy based point and never sound like he was whining — and his wife was no slouch either.
Charlie,
I don’t think they are trying to convince anybody of anything (Jerry, Brando had a real cause that needed airing, although I disagree with the forum). Streep is fundamentally whining. Yes, Marti, whining. Trump will be president and, short of an assassination (maybe you’d like that?), he’ll be it for a while, with a Republican Congress. Streep and others accomplish nothing except to encourage like-minded thinkers to feel good about what they believe, and to close their minds to any possibility that Trump may accomplish some good things. And she rams it down the throats of people who either disagree or don’t care. Maybe, in that crowd of wealthy superficial egotists many liked what they heard.
Meryl Streep said she disagreed with a president elect mocking a disabled person. If you want to fall on your sword to defend a powerful person’s right to make fun of the disabled, go to town. But I don’t think that’s what won Donald Trump this election. I think he won in SPITE of his cruelty and lack of compassion.
Emily,
You really don’t get it. To me, it’s not about what Streep believes, or what Trump did, but about using that forum. People like you are so full of hate for Trump that any avenue of complaint is okay. Trump denies he was doing what you say anyway. You just want a cudgel with which to beat him regardless.
By the way, I was pretty pissed off at how Obama treated the Cambridge cop who was trying to protect Henry Gates’ house, and accusing pretty much all cops of racism, and stoking flames of hate here and in other places that have caused a lot of damage and loss of police life. Serious things like that don’t bother you.
@Barry et.al. I really didn’t want to get involved in this, but Barry’s statement about Obama and the Henry Gates affair is so far over the top that it’s hard to not respond. Obama never should have stated that Officer Crowley acted “stupidly”. It’s my opinion that the President should never have become so directly involved in this issue; but to stretch this to say that the President was “accusing pretty much all cops of racism and stoking flames of hate” is just another trip into fantasy land for my dear friend Barry.
Recall that Obama admitted he had made a big mistake in his use of words. “Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped to contribute to ratcheting up, I want to make it clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave the impression I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sergeant Crowley, and I should have calibrated those words differently.”
No, it wasn’t a direct apology, but it went a lot further than any other President from recent memory I can recall after they dropped the ball on some major or minor issue. And it’s certainly a lot, lot further than any apology from Trump about statements he has made that really have “stoke(d) the fans of hatred” . Does anyone really believe that Trump raised and promoted the “Birther” fable to bring truth to the issue? No, he knew there was a significant segment of the population that just couldn’t stand the fact that a young Black guy with a funny sounding “foreign” name had made it to the White House. I know some of these people. The birther lie fit into all their misconceptions and prejudices and was all the red meat they needed to believe every word of what Trump and right wing talk radio were advancing. And a good share of these aren’t even Republicans.
There are several reasons why Trump is in negative territory in terms of public approval even on the eve of his inauguration, a time when most of the American people generally give any new President a big initial boost of approval. This is a big reason why it is so.
I think inviting the guy you insulted to have a beer with the vice president and you at the White House is a pretty direct apology.
BOB,
I stand by what I said. Obama, who should have been a force for improved race relations, has done more than anyone in my memory in a position of influence to ruin race relations. Jumping to conclusions and then assigning blame has been a consistent theme. Gates, Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, etc. Then he gives gold star treatment to people like Al Sharpton.
You’re the one living in the “fantasy” world.
And, thank God that pea-brain Bernie Sanders failed. His only value was to show clearly what a poor candidate Hillary was.
Barry, It’s not just about the venue selected to you or you would have agreed to disagree about the award show selection long ago.
Instead you continue to whine about our current president and the other two candidates that ran against DT. The election is over, we have a winner so you are the one who needs to get over it.
You say we should accept DT’s win and move on but what you refuse to admit is we are all accepting his win but will continue to speak out about his verbal attacks and threats, his fostering of hate, his advisor and cabinet picks, his conflicts of interest, his ethics violations, his nepotism yesterday appointing his son-in-law to be a top advisor, his lack of understanding of the US’s current policies on foreign affairs or his outright defiance of them, his disregard for policies concerned with sharing confidential information with his family, his taking credit for things he had no hand in, his lies and on and on.
We will continue to fight against holding hearings for his appointees before their ethics investigation and bills that hold back security for our diplomats abroad until there is an embassy in Jerusalem.
Whining is childish crying and pouting by those who think their voice has no power or who didn’t get their way. Voicing condemnation against authoritarians who are abusing their power is not whining, it’s protest.
Whining is your continued insistence on being a poor winner and wanting everyone who disagrees with you to silently accept your win and all that goes along with it. Not going to happen.
Marti,
You really don’t get it. This blog is a forum for discussion. Say what you want. An awards show, IMHO, is abuse of that opportunity.
I make points about Obama, because he’s the hero of this blog and the paradigm of a president for you. I only do so to point out hypocrisy in your criticism of Trump. He’s gone soon. I don’t care about him any more. He was an awful president.
Personally I’m starting to feel that Trump may be a decent president, though I wasn’t a Trump supporter. But he won’t be in terms that you would like. Sorry. But he may, in fact, make America great again after Obama moved us in a different direction.
Barry,
You are not having a discussion on this blog, you are deflecting criticism with projection, continuing to say “you just don’t get it” when I have a different opinion than yours and calling me a hypocrite because I don’t support DT’s hyperbole, lies and actions without any discussion whatsoever.
Since I spoke out when Obama’s administration said or did something I did not agree with, I’m not being hypocritical when I do the same about DT. You are quick to say what a “terrible” president Obama has been without discussion of why, but you blindly accept DT.
Here’s hypocrisy for you, an on-line news outlet calling out DT’s unsubstantiated claims and then publishing unsubstantiated claims about him.
You want a discussion, participate in one.
What does “make America great again” mean to you?
What specifically made you change your mind after the election to believe DT will be a “decent” president?
How do you think DT will convince Mexico to reimburse us for the billions it will take to build a wall, not a fence, a wall?
When republicans repeal the ACA, who will be most affected?
How do you explain the economics behind getting rid of the insurance mandate and keeping coverage for pre-existing conditions?At his press conference, DT said the ACA will be replaced within a two week period. How will that be achieved when republicans disagree on what a new health plan should look like and some would like to put it off for 2-3 years? DT also said the new plan would get rid of high deductibles but all republican plans increase deductibles. FYI, I’m not claiming the ACA is perfect.
I want to come back to something earlier in the thread (well, really where it started) and that’s the idea of blending consumer buying decisions with political affiliation. It’s not all that new, as people have long boycotted companies for different reasons. There was an attempt by some people on the right (mostly Trump supporters) to boycott both Hamilton and Star Wars. Neither suffered much by those attempts.
As a rule, republicans want to see more commerce, not less. Trump has made a big show of how he is going to help our economy grow faster. If that’s the metric, then consumers using our dollars to pick and choose the winners and losers based on whatever criteria is entirely fair game. In fact, it should be encouraged.
So Barry, I think you’re entirely wrong to say that these two things can’t mix. It’s a valid form of protest. The brand that gets a call about ads on Breitbart doesn’t need to pull them down. It’s their decision in terms of what it means for their brand identity and sales.
I lead a regular call with communications professionals and this idea was a big point of discussion. It means that companies 1) can’t be content to sit on the fence and expect to win, they often must take a stand; and 2) need to also understand that the decisions they are making politically will likely force them to pick and choose a market, often at the expense of losing another.
LL Bean is running into this right now. People talked of protesting LLBean because a family member was a big Trump supporter. LLBean responded in a way to stay out of the political fray. Today Trump tweeted in support of LLBean, which I have to imagine will have some economic repercussions. By not taking a stand the company appears to be losing control of the narrative and its brand promise. We’ll have to see what happens to sales.
Marti,
I don’t want to debate all your issues here on this blog. I don’t think it’s a good forum for it, even though I disagree on many but it’s too voluminous. The “you don’t get it” means the issue of using things like awards shows like Streep did, which I think is wrong and you don’t. And you still reply with your complaints against Trump. So, I still say, you don’t get it. Pick one important topic and I’ll be happy to discuss it.
Chuck,
I disagree with boycotts in general. They can hurt not only the company owners, but also employees at all levels and stockholders, both of whom might in fact agree with your political positions and are there either because they need a job or see the products, which may be very good, as worthwhile investments. As I’ve said, except in special severe cases, I consider economic weapons as nonsense and really promote for yourself a feel-good I’m doing something self-image. It’s a real disaster to legitimate business to scour around where we disagree and who to hurt. For the most part, politics should be separated from business. And, as I’ve said, I see them as a form of extortion: “do as I want and think as I want or I’ll hurt you”.
Marti, again,
I wasn’t a Trump supporter. In the general election I simply way preferred him to Hillary, who is a total sham, IMHO. But having seen how he operates now, while not even yet being president, I admire his organizational skills, his refusal to kowtow to nonsensical politically correct dogma, his strength, and his leadership abilities, and more. Obama had the reverse of all of this and I craved a different type of president. Time will tell how Trump actually does, but I like the way he’s starting.