We land at opposite ends on this one but I appreciate this perspective. It is true that cancellation prevents further potential for positive influence on the publications or media companies involved, but none seem to respond to correspondence as quickly, if at all, compared to denying cash that causes immediate financial impacts.
My own observations and anecdotal experience with companies, is that complaints yield placating responses, short-term discounts or a few complementary products or services. Continued patronage under protest doesn't seem to inspire much reflection or course correction from companies anymore.
my own experience with NYT and WaPo in the run up to the election was that the thing I hated most, misleading headlines, tended to get corrected as complaints rose—I could actually see the changes. Not just my bitching, of course, but a whole lot of us did. I stick with NYT and WaPo because they have so much OTHER good reporting on things I care about, particularly Gaza.
At least we have Kimmel back. So much can be said for cancelling, too. Wish we could keep Colbert. Interesting to watch how this all plays out re the other mergers. There won’t always be a handy martyr to use as a tool.
"Not just my bitching, of course, but a whole lot of us did."
This statement seems the key, whether using complaints or cancellations as a lever. The larger the mass of participants, the greater the effective force exerted. The reality is probably that we're both right, and both methods need to be applied simultaneously, a yin and yang of sorts. The cancellations give the complaints weight, and the complaints explain the cancellations.
So long as progressive voters and thinkers are coordinating in large numbers and mobilizing quickly, each method complementing the other works like jaws on a pair of pliers.
well, your initial comment was about Star Trek. I was watching it religiously while you were still in grade school. We never went anywhere on the day Star Trek was on.
Actually, I was in my first year of high school and I watched it at Barry Leavitt's house because his parents had bought a COLOR TV! Then, in the 70s, I lived upstairs of a fellow who had a Nielsen box on his TV, and since I wasn't at work at the time it was on, every day I went into his place and watched Star Trek. I kept that show on the air in the Cities for a couple of years!
We land at opposite ends on this one but I appreciate this perspective. It is true that cancellation prevents further potential for positive influence on the publications or media companies involved, but none seem to respond to correspondence as quickly, if at all, compared to denying cash that causes immediate financial impacts.
My own observations and anecdotal experience with companies, is that complaints yield placating responses, short-term discounts or a few complementary products or services. Continued patronage under protest doesn't seem to inspire much reflection or course correction from companies anymore.
my own experience with NYT and WaPo in the run up to the election was that the thing I hated most, misleading headlines, tended to get corrected as complaints rose—I could actually see the changes. Not just my bitching, of course, but a whole lot of us did. I stick with NYT and WaPo because they have so much OTHER good reporting on things I care about, particularly Gaza.
At least we have Kimmel back. So much can be said for cancelling, too. Wish we could keep Colbert. Interesting to watch how this all plays out re the other mergers. There won’t always be a handy martyr to use as a tool.
"Not just my bitching, of course, but a whole lot of us did."
This statement seems the key, whether using complaints or cancellations as a lever. The larger the mass of participants, the greater the effective force exerted. The reality is probably that we're both right, and both methods need to be applied simultaneously, a yin and yang of sorts. The cancellations give the complaints weight, and the complaints explain the cancellations.
So long as progressive voters and thinkers are coordinating in large numbers and mobilizing quickly, each method complementing the other works like jaws on a pair of pliers.
The good news is that Paramount also has all of the Star Trek franchises.
The bad news is that Paramount is now owned by Skydance Media, which is controlled by David Ellison, the far right wing son of Larry Ellison.
I guess the next episode will feature the glorious Death Star zapping boats from Venezuela.
That would be Disney's Star WARS... LOL
oops. I meant all political comedians wearing red shirts.
Still Star TREK.... LOL
Guess who's not a Star Trek fan OR a Star Wars fan... YOU! LOL
well, your initial comment was about Star Trek. I was watching it religiously while you were still in grade school. We never went anywhere on the day Star Trek was on.
Actually, I was in my first year of high school and I watched it at Barry Leavitt's house because his parents had bought a COLOR TV! Then, in the 70s, I lived upstairs of a fellow who had a Nielsen box on his TV, and since I wasn't at work at the time it was on, every day I went into his place and watched Star Trek. I kept that show on the air in the Cities for a couple of years!
Thank you Susan. Once again a balanced perspective!
Excellent review!