Pounding “Punk” into Pulp

I’m not one to casually call for boycotting nations or corporations who offend my sense of right, wrong or fair play. It’s my opinion that if their leadership is going to be responsive at all, that a barrage of angry letters and emails will generally suffice to get their attention. Besides, the economic effects of scattershot boycotts may well be offset by increased support from other groups supportive of what the boycotters perceive to be their misdeeds.

But enough is enough. The New York Times publisher has flipped his exquisitely manicured digit in our national face one time too many. That metrosexual twerp obviously believes he is above the law and the refusal of the Bush administration to pursue legal remedies for repeated violations of our espionage laws could well lead this scofflaw to that belief. But there are laws from which Mr. “Punk” Sulzberger has no immunity: those economic laws that determine the success or failure of his newspaper. A quick look at the paper’s stock performance graph here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NYT&t=5y, shows that the stock price has been steadily declining for the past thirty months and has lost roughly half its value in that time.

In the face of that weakened stock performance, how financially prepared do you suppose the Times would be to face a massive boycott of a few of its biggest advertisers by a very large segment of an American public that is fed up with Sulzberger’s total disdain for our laws, our safety and the lives of our troops? Not very is my guess. While I’d rather see “Punk” in the slammer, where metrosexual types are ever so popular, I’d settle for seeing him overthrown by angry shareholders. Yes, I’m aware that his family owns the lion’s share of the Class A stock, but even his family doesn’t want to see the value of those shares vaporized to complete worthlessness by their spoiled little darling’s two-handed flipping of the bird to the American public.

So why don’t you big dog blogs out there form some sort of loose coalition to pound “Punk” into newspaper pulp with the biggest organized boycott this nation has ever seen? You have readers in the millions and they in turn are networked with millions more; and right now, they’re all mad at “Punk.” You have research capabilities that could fine-tune and focus such a boycott so as to make it excruciatingly painful and deadly effective to the targeted corporations. You don’t need to boycott every advertiser; just pick a couple and make examples of them to demonstrate to the remainder what you are capable of doing, you know, sort of like shooting every tenth prisoner to get the undivided attention of the others.

Best of all, humbling the New York Times would show the “Drive by Media” that, once and for all, we’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it any more. It would also bring them face to face with the reality that the blogosphere is a reality with which they must forevermore contend. And think about this because I guarantee you the MSM ownership will: the same companies that are the big-ticket advertisers in the Times are also the deep pockets at other major publications as well as the major television networks. You bloggers won’t have to shoot too many prisoners before the mainstream moguls get the message. To borrow a catchphrase from the maggot-infested, long-haired dope-smokin’ opposition:

Power to the people! Heh, heh…

Russ Vaughn