by Barry A. Liebling
There are countless online news, entertainment, and educational sites that attempt to have a positive cash flow and make money. “Countless” is the right word because every day some fresh sites emerge and others cease to operate.
Consider how they get funding. One way is to obtain revenue directly from their viewers and readers. A site can construct a pay wall where only registered members will have access to the content. Another way is to sell merchandise directly to the public. And it is very common for sites to ask for donations with messages such as “if you like our content, please support us.”
Another way of obtaining revenue is via advertising. The two largest behemoths, Google and Facebook, reap most of their income by selling advertising. Nearly anyone can get into the game. Medium sized and small concerns can obtain ad dollars by informing advertisers how many viewers they have and what the demographic characteristics of their users are.
The content in most sites is inspired by the philosophical and political orientation of the sites’ management. In the United States today there are two major orientations, and they are adversaries. The larger, more powerful, established, dominant orientation is directed by the leftist progressive mob. There is no doubt that the management teams at Google and Facebook do everything they can to further the woke narrative and woke interests. They are allied with other sites and players that make up the left ruling class.
The smaller, less influential orientation is anything that is opposed to – or does not actively support – the leftist progressive cabal. This is composed of multiple factions including pro-liberty advocates, conservatives, and people who intend to be non-political.
Of course those who place or buy advertising on internet sites have the right to decide where they will spend their dollars. They are free to decide the extent to which they want to support sites that promote ideas they appreciate. And they certainly are not obligated to funnel money to sites they find offensive.
Let us indulge in a thought experiment. I do not purchase any advertising space, but suppose I did. I strongly endorse the philosophy of individualism and liberty. Would it be acceptable for me to deliberately withhold advertising dollars from sites that push the leftist agenda? As real life examples note that msnbc.com, thenation.com, LAtimes.com all sell advertising, and all are enthusiastically woke.
Suppose I contacted others who share my orientation and informed them about sites that work against our interests and urged them to refrain from sending them money. Is that fair? I regard these actions as appropriate.
I am an advocate of universal standards. Leftists have a right to identify and criticize sites that promote individual liberty, free markets, or are pushing conservative policies (providing the critics do so honestly and accurately). Some examples would be foxnews.com, NYpost.com, reason.com, realclearpolitics.com, thefederalist.com, pjmedia.com, and americanthinker.com – each of which has online advertising. If leftists want to warn their fellow accomplices to keep their ad dollars away from their opponents they can do so.
But note well, urging others to boycott particular sites ought to be done honestly.
I recently learned about an organization called the Global Alliance For Responsible Media – abbreviated as GARM. This entity is an initiative from the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a powerful organization that is highly influential in what companies receive advertising dollars. WFA members are some of the largest ad spenders and include McDonald’s, Exxon, Visa, and Adidas. Apparently GARM is instrumental in persuading advertisers to avoid spending money on sites that provide “misinformation, disinformation, or harmful content.” And, as an alert observer would expect, the sites targeted by GARM just happen to have content that is offensive to the collectivist elite.
https://nypost.com/2024/07/12/opinion/garms-silencing-of-conservative-media-could-potentially-
be-devastating/
and
https://nypost.com/2024/07/12/opinion/fascist-creep-rob-rakowitz-wants-to-control-what-you-rea
d-good-on-the-house-for-blowing-him-up/
I would not object if GARM said something like, “We enthusiastically support the leftist agenda. We request that if you agree with our woke orientation, you boycott internet sites that are opposed to our objectives.” That could be an honest request. Advertisers could respond according to their personal values.
But the “misinformation, disinformation, harmful content” label is fundamentally corrupt. The terms suggest (falsely) that the negative judgement is objective, obvious, and not controversial. It portrays the GARM smear as something that is non-partisan, even though it is hyper-partisan. Notice that this enables the advertiser to pretend that withholding funds is not related to politics, while it is entirely motivated by politics.
To the extent that GARM is a problem, what is the solution? The organization has to be exposed as the woke political weapon that it is. Some advertisers will be pleased to support GARM. And when an accurate picture of GARM emerges, other advertisers will reject its messages. Every decision regarding ad spending should be an informed decision.
*** See other entries at AlertMindPublishing.com in “Monthly Columns.” ***