Letters to the Editor
-
Definetly not the "free market."
Domini writes: "Sharpton's threats did NOT get Imus fired. Many millions of people who are ALSO a market called and wrote the advertisers, saying that they would not buy the advertisers' products if they did not drop the show. THAT did Imus in. . . . This was about market. Imus's market was small, the people who disliked him represented a larger market, and the corporations were not willing to lose sales to the much larger market of those who disliked Imus's comments."
A financial decision is not necessarily a market decision. Example:
You rent some retail space and open an atheist/freethinker bookstore. The local large fundamentalist Christian community dislikes your business. They threaten to boycott your landlord's other businesses if he continues to rent to you. As a result, the landlord refuses to rent to you any longer, and you go out of business. Your customers would like to buy from you, but they can't because you no longer have a store.
You would call that a free market result? Ridiculous. A situation such as that would have nothing to do with the free market. I suppose you could call that an example of "free speech," but only in the sense that the free speech of a large group was used as a tool of intimidation to shut down free speech of a small group.
All I'm saying is that we should be very clear about what is happening here. Let's not paint intimidation with the happy face of "free market" and "free speech." You may not like Imus. But it's Imus today, and tomorrow someone whom you do like.