Is Supporting Brands Pulling Ads from Controversial Shows Ethical?

The recent controversy surrounding Laura Ingraham and Kathy Griffin has sparked a broader discussion on the ethics of supporting brands that advertise on controversial shows or individuals. This article delves into the implications of such decisions, weighing the ethical considerations against the practicalities of business.

The Case of Laura Ingraham

To understand the broader context, we start with a quick sidetrack into the actions of Laura Ingraham. Ingraham's tweet crackling against Kathy Griffin's unauthorized use of a photo of Laura Trump has sparked a debate on the use of public figures in an unconsented manner. Ingraham herself once said that conservatives need to take similar actions against individuals like Griffin, emphasizing the need for a backlash when others use controversial or inappropriate content.

"Conservatives have to do the same thing in response. And we can sit around and whine and moan about how unfair this is and it is. Its gross. Its awful. But until people start standing up and say You know something I dont tolerate what youre doing. I dont agree with it. And Im actually not going to buy your products. Im not going to support you know your -- you know your economic partners or your business partners. Im not going to do it. Money does talk at some point."

This sentiment is echoed in her interviews and statements, where Ingraham emphasizes the importance of accountability and the power of consumer choices. However, this perspective raises questions about the broader implications on free speech and the impact on these individuals and their businesses.

Business Pragmatism vs. Ethical Considerations

Companies operate with a focus on profit and business growth, often making decisions based on what is most beneficial for their bottom line rather than moral or ethical considerations. When a brand decides to pull its ads from a controversial show or media figure, it is often motivated by the desire to protect its reputation and avoid being associated with negative publicity.

For instance, David Hogg's attention-grabbing fifteen minutes of fame may be a tactical move, but it does not necessarily justify moral support from brands. Similarly, Laura Ingraham, while having a right to call a spade a spade, faces similar scrutiny. Both figures are ultimately concerned with public image and their place in the media landscape.

The Dilemma of Corporate Responsibility

Companies must navigate a complex moral landscape when deciding whether to support or boycott controversial individuals or media. While it is ethically sound to stand against harmful or inappropriate behavior, this stance must also be balanced with the practical considerations of business associations and partnerships.

Examples of brands pulling their ads include:

Hulu - Canceling Subscription Today: A decision to distance themselves from a show perceived as controversial or harmful. Thumbnail Image for TripAdvisor where they are changing to a new service for their next trip to avoid association. Wayfair - No Idea Who They Are: Avoiding continued support by choosing not to engage with a brand they are unfamiliar with. Nutrish - Not Punishing the Dog: Opting not to boycott a brand they have a personal relationship with, in this case, their dog's food. Expedia - Never Heard of Them: Choosing not to engage with a brand further by steering clear of potential inquiries and services. Nestle - Too Big to Ignore: Recognizing the significant footprint of Nestle and choosing to find alternatives, but still acknowledging the importance of corporate responsibility.

Conclusion

Supporting or opposing brands pulling ads from controversial shows is a complex issue that intertwines business ethics, corporate responsibility, and public relations. While Laura Ingraham advocates for standing up against inappropriate behavior through economic means, it is important to consider the broader implications and balance these actions with the necessity of supporting businesses that align with one's values.

Ultimately, the decision to support or boycott depends on the specific circumstances and the ethical considerations of each individual or company involved. It is a nuanced issue that requires a thoughtful and balanced approach.