5 ms·

It does not seem like a decision that was made with the best financial interests of shareholders at heart. Unless Fox tried to force them to buy a package, I d

by steve19 17y ago

It does not seem like a decision that was made with the best financial interests of shareholders at heart. Unless Fox tried to force them to buy a package, I do not see why they could just avoid advertising on Beck's show.

danudey 17y ago
For the same reason that Apple and Google supported Proposition 8: it's the right thing to do. The 'best financial interest of shareholders' for Apple is long-term, and they believe the good will generated by doing the right thing will make the market look more favourably upon them. I know I do. It's a lack of a short-sighted, myopic view that's gotten Apple where it is today. Putting their advertising dollars into ads on another channel (or websites, etc.) instead of Fox News isn't going to cost them a significant amount of sales in the long term, but it is going to hurt Fox in the short term (well, the boycott will). Meanwhile, Apple's not worried about their profits for the next year; they've got so much cash in the bank they don't even need their employees to show up to work for the company to outlive any of us. Their iPad ads will go elsewhere, and will earn them sales, and the shareholders won't suffer at all.
- wolfhumble 17y ago
  "For the same reason that Apple and Google supported Proposition 8: it's the right thing to do." I think it would be more correct to say: They think it is the right thing to do. I do not share their opinion. I am a buyer too and I do not look more favourably upon them because of this. (I am not talking about Fox news here; don't receive it and have barely watched it, and can't form an opinion over that.)
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    This is an important point, and one that it seems is too often forgotten, believe it or not. The framework of much of our political debate seems to assume a particular political direction. For example, the terminology "progressive" indicates that we're only making progress when we engage in these policies, particularly redistributive tax policies. Another example is the common usage of the term "special interests". It seems to me this is commonly used as a synonym for "corporate interests". But more realistically, everything is a special interest. That includes the education establishment and the NEA, unions, and environmentalists. Yes, businesses are a constituency of special interests, but so are those others that support the other side of the spectrum. It can't objectively be said that one side is the common interest of the people, and the others are special; they all hold equal roles in the debate.
- henrikschroder 17y ago
  (Apple and Google were against proposition 8, not in support of it)
  - gjm11 17y ago
    (I would make a large bet that danudey's mistake was about which way round Proposition 8 was, not about which side Google and Apple are on when it comes to same-sex marriage.)
    - danudey 17y ago
      (Actually, I knew what Prop 8 was, and which side Google and Apple were on, it was just a case of the late-night stupids.)
jacobolus 17y ago
Citizens – including CEOs and corporate board members – are responsible not only to themselves and their shareholders, but also to their family members, to their neighbors, to their fellow citizens, and to humanity in general. Usually these responsibilities do not conflict. When they do, the financial interests of shareholders should not always be the highest priority. ------ Closer to home though, Beck directly promotes a political party whose platform is explicitly anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc., and does it in a vile and toxic tone which threatens reasonable political discourse.
- gaius 17y ago
  When they do, the financial interests of shareholders should not always be the highest priority. But legally it is. CEOs who disagree go to jail.
  - portman 17y ago
    Do you have an example of a CEO who has gone to jail for putting the interests of "humanity" above the interests of shareholders?
    - gaius 17y ago
      Apparently the wisdom of the Interwebs has never heard the phrase "fiduciary responsibility". Google is your friend.
      - portman 17y ago
        The tort is "breach of fiduciary duty", and again, I'll ask you, do you know of ANY cases where a corporate officer has been found guilty of this tort when they took an action that was in the interest of humanity? It is my understanding that breach of fiduciary duty is very difficult to prove and it is usually included along with several other claims (breach of contract, fraud, negligence, etc) when there is already wrongdoing. This is why you don't see successful prosecutions when an officer donates company money to charity, for example.

by steve19 17y ago

danudey 17y ago

For the same reason that Apple and Google supported Proposition 8: it's the right thing to do. The 'best financial interest of shareholders' for Apple is long-term, and they believe the good will generated by doing the right thing will make the market look more favourably upon them. I know I do. It's a lack of a short-sighted, myopic view that's gotten Apple where it is today. Putting their advertising dollars into ads on another channel (or websites, etc.) instead of Fox News isn't going to cost them a significant amount of sales in the long term, but it is going to hurt Fox in the short term (well, the boycott will). Meanwhile, Apple's not worried about their profits for the next year; they've got so much cash in the bank they don't even need their employees to show up to work for the company to outlive any of us. Their iPad ads will go elsewhere, and will earn them sales, and the shareholders won't suffer at all.

wolfhumble 17y ago
"For the same reason that Apple and Google supported Proposition 8: it's the right thing to do." I think it would be more correct to say: They think it is the right thing to do. I do not share their opinion. I am a buyer too and I do not look more favourably upon them because of this. (I am not talking about Fox news here; don't receive it and have barely watched it, and can't form an opinion over that.)
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  This is an important point, and one that it seems is too often forgotten, believe it or not. The framework of much of our political debate seems to assume a particular political direction. For example, the terminology "progressive" indicates that we're only making progress when we engage in these policies, particularly redistributive tax policies. Another example is the common usage of the term "special interests". It seems to me this is commonly used as a synonym for "corporate interests". But more realistically, everything is a special interest. That includes the education establishment and the NEA, unions, and environmentalists. Yes, businesses are a constituency of special interests, but so are those others that support the other side of the spectrum. It can't objectively be said that one side is the common interest of the people, and the others are special; they all hold equal roles in the debate.
henrikschroder 17y ago
(Apple and Google were against proposition 8, not in support of it)
- gjm11 17y ago
  (I would make a large bet that danudey's mistake was about which way round Proposition 8 was, not about which side Google and Apple are on when it comes to same-sex marriage.)
  - danudey 17y ago
    (Actually, I knew what Prop 8 was, and which side Google and Apple were on, it was just a case of the late-night stupids.)

jacobolus 17y ago

Citizens – including CEOs and corporate board members – are responsible not only to themselves and their shareholders, but also to their family members, to their neighbors, to their fellow citizens, and to humanity in general. Usually these responsibilities do not conflict. When they do, the financial interests of shareholders should not always be the highest priority. ------ Closer to home though, Beck directly promotes a political party whose platform is explicitly anti-empiricist, anti-civil-liberties, pro-internet-content-restricting, etc., and does it in a vile and toxic tone which threatens reasonable political discourse.

gaius 17y ago
When they do, the financial interests of shareholders should not always be the highest priority. But legally it is. CEOs who disagree go to jail.
- portman 17y ago
  Do you have an example of a CEO who has gone to jail for putting the interests of "humanity" above the interests of shareholders?
  - gaius 17y ago
    Apparently the wisdom of the Interwebs has never heard the phrase "fiduciary responsibility". Google is your friend.
    - portman 17y ago
      The tort is "breach of fiduciary duty", and again, I'll ask you, do you know of ANY cases where a corporate officer has been found guilty of this tort when they took an action that was in the interest of humanity? It is my understanding that breach of fiduciary duty is very difficult to prove and it is usually included along with several other claims (breach of contract, fraud, negligence, etc) when there is already wrongdoing. This is why you don't see successful prosecutions when an officer donates company money to charity, for example.