Pearce to Boycott New Times

Russell Pearce's supporters just sent out this email.

Sen. Pearce and I are calling on all conservatives across Arizona to boycott businesses which advertise with the Phoenix New Times.The PNT is entirely reliant on ad revenue to fund its pro-amnesty, anti-Arpaio, pro-illegal immigration agenda that rabidly attacks Arizona law enforcement, Arizona conservatives and the community leaders and public servants who dare oppose their dangerous, leftist beliefs. 

That companies such as local auto dealers, Harkins Theaters and many local restaurants we all patronize fund this campaign against Sheriff Arpaio is something that cannot go on. Corporate responsibility is not limited just to environmental causes and the like. Arizona businesses are (possibly inadvertently) funding the Left’s campaign for lawlessness, crime, illegal immigration, amnesty and worse. 

http://www.banamnestynow.com/buy-cott/and in each week’s edition of THE RUSSELL PEARCE SHOW, live on Monday’s at 7pm on KFNX News Talk Radio 1100.

Could this work?  The Limbaugh boycott has fizzled, and boycotts are so retro--and so over-called for--that they seem to have lost any punch.  In fact, a few years ago I would have said that Pearce is wasting his time, but now I'm not so sure.  There are a some factors at play that might just make a Pearce-led boycott an effective tool:

First, New Times itself has changed.  We think of New Times as liberal, but it's really more anti-authoritarian.  The paper was certainly a pain in Napolitano's backside.   Now that the state has a Conservative Governor and Legislature, New Times' anti-authoritarian outlook is also a hard left outlook.  The paper has also become a one note tune that's anti Arpaio all the time.

These changes will not be lost on advertisers.  After all, Arpaio/Pearce supporters can go to, say, Dan Harkins and rightly say that New Times is trying to destroy them personally.  We can debate how much popular support Arpaio/Pearce enjoy, but the number is not small.  If Arpaio/Pearce supporters simply stop attending Harkins theaters, that would be noticed.  If they start demonstrating in front of Harkins Theaters that would be huge.  Harkins would be foolish to risk even one protest for whatever benefit he gets from New Times ads.

Which leads to the second point.  New Times has picked up some "respectable" advertisers.   Nothing against car alarms, breast augmentation and tatoo removal but those industries are unlikely to care about Russell Pearce's views on anything.  Car dealers, restaurants, movie theaters and yes, breast augmentation surgeons however, will be sensitive to large pro-Arpaio crowds in their parking lots.  Pearce is smart enough to use the Alinsky rules and will target, freeze personalize and polarize individual advertisers--and not just in Mesa.  Shutting down the Harkins megaplex at Scottsdale and the 101 on the opening night of each summer Blockbuster would be a powerful message.

Next, the world is changing in three important ways that will have the potential to make the boycott successful.  First is that Pearce can get his message out through the social media, twitter, email plus his radio show.  I know that everyone uses social media now, and it may not be the organizational panacea that people claim, but it is very effective for organizing a midsized--a few thousand--group of highly motivated individuals.  And having a thousand people break into groups of five or ten and target New Times' 50 biggest advertisers for a few weekends can only be organized--and reported--through social media.

The Internet also gives advertisers more choices.  Businesses shouldn't be expected to forgo revenue just because someone is offended by their advertising choices.  But now they don't have to.  Newspaper advertising is now one of many alternatives and if companies took the money they spent on those full page ads and devoted those same resources to their own social media campaigns they might be better off.

Newspaper economics have also changed.  It's not like Pearce is trying to take out New Times at its anti Mecham, anti Symington peak.    New Times used to run 224 pages now its often fewer than 100.  Newspapers are on life support. Pearce is just going to stand on its oxygen hose.

This boycott is different because Pearce is not trying to change behavior.  Most groups launch a boycott because they oppose a specific policy...the company doesn't hire enough minority workers, it offers benefits to its gay employees, it uses sweatshops in Thailand...but Pearce doesn't want to change New Times, he wants to bankrupt New Times.   The paper is not ever going to stop opposing him. His only option is to ignore it or destroy it.  He's been ignoring it for years and look where it got him.

The Pearce boycott is unlikely to actually drive New Times out of business, but he will hurt them and he may even manage to tip the balance and finish them off.  

Comments

[westsider]

Wonderfully written satire, Greg.

[Its a Dry Heat]

And here I thought the New Times was exclusively funded by escort service advertising...

[oxygen monitor]

i think the Internet also gives advertisers more choices and businesses shouldn't be expected to forgo revenue just because someone is offended by their advertising choices.

[Bob Morris]

It depends on if they can get big crowds to protest and if the protests don't annoy patrons and thus hurt their cause.

Mom, Dad, and the kids going to see a Disney movie might get really annoyed at a bunch of protesters screaming at them.

And if the theater in in a mall then it's on private property and protesters can't be at the theater entrance, they'd have to on a sidewalk far away.

[BrooksKolkman]

wah sukanya dpt tinggalkan jejak kat sini jugak la..ammboi recently posted..SEDIAKAN TEMPAT PARKING SECUKUPNYA DULU SEBELUM BERTINDAK, http://hjmotorquickreview.com Hojo motor, djudn,

[BobH]

As a conservative who strongly opposes illegal immigration, I find it embarrassing to have a nutcase like Arpaio on my side.

But I think you're right that such a boycott might help in pushing New Times over the edge. It shouldn't take much of a push at this point.

[Grover]

A wise man once said: don't get into a pissing match with someone who buys their ink by the barrel.

To me, this is just RIPearce and his followers trying to use the bullying tactics that so often work for them.

[BobH]

"A wise man once said: don't get into a pissing match with someone who buys their ink by the barrel."

I first heard that line about fifty years ago, at which time it was certainly good advice. It has lost much of its validity in the intervening decades, however.

What exactly is New Times going to do? Print nasty things about Pearce?

[Son of September]

You mean Harkins should stop showing movies from studios that buy advertising in PNT?

[Oranje Mike]

Is a New Times boycott even worth the effort? The magazine is a joke and it's free for a reason. Articles in the New Times read like editorials and many of the headlines are hyperbole. How many people actually take the rag seriously? I recall an issue, not long ago, with Rany Parraz on the cover promoting a virtuous article about him. Above the masthead was a teaser about a story on the Phoenix race for mayor that referred to him as "Lobbyist Wes Gullett" and then just "Greg Stanton". The hypocrisy was nauseating. No digs at the self-proclaimed "Independent" Greg Stanton and "lobbyist" was used as a derogatory term when the cover story featured Randy Parraz, a lobbyist.

Who cares about the New Times? Russell should call it a day and just go away. Glad he's gone.

[RonJ]

The New Times used to be relevant (maybe a dozen years ago). No longer. It's a leftist tabloid filled with very little of anything newsworthy and the rest is liberal opinion. If you're a Democrat/liberal you will, for the most part, be treated kindly. Forget it if you're a conservative, especially if you believe in the rule of law. Oh, wait, were we talking about the Republic or the New Times? Pretty much the same.

[Jack]

Step 1. Do something ridiculous. Step 2. Watch while desperate media covers your ridiculousness.
Or in this case, watch while a blogger does the same thing that the MSM always used to do. I'm going to keep a copy of this article so I can bring it up in about six months to prove its ridiculousness.

[Brother Lester]

It's been a very rapid and very steep downhill climb for Mr. Pearce. A year ago he was the most powerful politician in the state, busy pulling the puppet strings on his favorite headless body in the governor's office, dreaming of shutting down ACCCHS completely, and turning nurses and teachers into immigration cops in the ethnic cleansing of Arizona. Now he's just another looney tunes wingnut talk show host. He's probably realized now that he's alienated a huge part of the Mormon community in Mesa with his hateful bigotry, his Olivia Cortes antics, and his utterly classless election night "concession" performance. The Mormon community recruited yet another very strong opponent to run against him, this time a very wealthy one. Pearce is going to lose and he knows it. I think he's actually on the verge of cracking up completely.

Lashing out at the New Times won't help. It's actually pretty funny. Stephen Lemons and the New Times wiped the floor with Pearce last fall, exposing the whole Olivia Cortes fraud and the pathetic lies that went with it. Pearce tried to open up his new campaign by confabulating a wonderful story about how the Mormon church supports SB 1070, only to have Lemons blow that one right out of the water in no time flat. So now Pearce is calling for a "buycott."

Which is funny. Funny and very revealing. Pearce and the idiotic sycophants who trumpet his cause don't even seem to know what the word "buycott" actually means. Hint: there's this website called "Google." If you want to know what a word means just type it the little box and push the button. Try it. Type in "buycott." Type in "bigot." Type in "liar."

At this point it's safe to assume a number of things. The "buycott" (sic) will go about as well as the recall of Sheriff Dupnik that we were promised last year. Pearce will lose in the primary by double digits. He'll use the word "patriot" as a synonym for "bigot" in his election night boo hoo I lost again speech. Patterson will dig through the trash and find another box of old clothing to smear Pearce's new opponent with. And the whole thing will be blamed on the Arizona Republic. Boo hoo.

[Thane Eichenauer]

Could somebody that knows Russell Pearce explain to him what a buy-cott is?

http://www.ammoday.com/ is a good example.

[Robert Woodman]

The wingnut string quartet of Pearce, Arpaio, Thomas, and Babeu just can’t be stopped. Just when you think they’ve done everything they possibly can to disgrace our state and drag the whole conservative wing of the Republican party down with them, they pull out another stop and hit yet another stunning jarring high note of sheet stupidity.

Thomas will be disbarred next week, taking Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander down with him. He’s lucky he’s not facing criminal charges. They would certainly be justified.

Arpaio and Babeu are locked in a tight battle to claim the title of the Clown Prince of Arizona’s immigrant hatred movement. Arpaio almost had the battle won with his birther lunacy, but Babeu’s got a few punches left. Shredding documents and deleting emails, criminal charges perhaps? As if it weren’t enough for our immigrant bashing Mr. Tough on Immigration Sheriff to be caught sleeping with the enemy.

Now Pearce is caught red handed lying about the Mormon Church supporting SB 1070. He responds with a “Buycott.” Without knowing what the word means. You just gotta love it.

I’ve tried to tell conservatives in this state for the same thing for years: Wash your hands of these fools. They’ll just drag you down with them and hurt your cause in the process. You can actually find supporting evidence right here in the comments to this post: “As a conservative who strongly opposes illegal immigration, I find it embarrassing to have a nutcase like Arpaio on my side.” He neglected to mention Babeu, Pearce, and Thomas, but you get the idea.

Wash your hands of these bigoted racist icons and wash your hands of their stupid antics. You’re only embarassing yourselves by continuing to support them. If you’d like to be taken seriously about immigration policy, associating yourselves with racist nutcakes is a bad idea.

[RonJ]

Robert Woodman: "I've tried to tell conservatives in this state the same thing for years. . . " Do you really even know a conservative? Most of us live in a world that usually has a blue sky. Not sure what color the sky is in your nutcake world. Still can't keep it under 300 words, can you?
I oppose organized boycotts. They usually don't work well, and any negative effects that are realized typically harm innocents.

[Robert Woodman]

The sky is blue, Ronnie Baby. Arpaio is babbling on and on with racist crap claiming that he can determine that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery by opening it up in the computer program of his choice and monkeying around with it. He’s even buying into the old Bill Ayers conspiracy theory. What color is the sky in Arpaio's world?

Babeu made a huge name for himself with hysterical racist crap about our country being invaded and Mexican drug gangs controlling dozens of geographical areas within Pinal County. While he was sleeping with an illegal immigrant. Do we even need to discuss the judgment issue involved when an elected official, a law enforcement officer no less, posts photos of himself naked with a woody on the Internet? Do I need to tell you that destroying evidence is a crime? What color is the sky in Babeu's little universe?

Andy Thomas sat is his office and conspired to indict a judge and two elected officials on completely trumped up charges. He did so after your good friend Joe Arpaio suggested it. Did you pay attention to Arpaio’s testimony at Thomas’ hearing last fall? America’s Toughest had a sudden attack of Can’t Remember Shit on the witness stand, the worst one on record since Alberto Gonzales. In a world with a blue sky, Ronnie Baby, this is a crime. In a state with a functional criminal justice system, they’d both be indicted and facing jail time for this little stunt. We’ll have to settle for disbarrment for Andy. Joe will get his turn soon in a court of law soon enough.

Russell Pearce is a liar, Ronnie Baby. He claimed that the Mormon church was on board and supported SB 1070. Stephen Lemons at the New Times checked his facts. And surprise surprise surprise, Pearce was lying.

No one at the LDS church will back up Russell’s story. Surprised, Ronnie Baby? Don’t be. Surprised that the LDS community keeps finding strong candidates to run against Pearce? Surprised that both the Capitol Times pre-election poll and two different exit polls found that Jerry Lewis won a majority of the vote from people who identified themselves as LDS? Why would that be a surprise to you? Mormon voters are somewhere between embarassed to outraged and insulted by the stain Mr. Pearce has put on their church. They should be.

Pearce retaliated against they New Times by calling for his hysterical and unintentionally hysterically funny buycott.

Your response is getting awfully predictable, Ronnie Baby. You cannot answer facts with facts, so you just insult me personally. Which really only amuses me. Tell me, did you know what the word “buycott” means?

In 300 words or less, you could attempt to discuss facts. Perhaps you could prove that Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent. Perhaps you could justify Babeu’s behavior, or Andy Thomas’. Perhaps you could call up the Mormon church headquarters in Salt Lake City and ask if they spoke with Russell Pearce and supported SB 1070?

Nah, it would be easier to just throw another insult at me personally. Classy. Just like Russell. Classy all the way.

[The Klute]

Yes, I'm sure Russell Pearce is certainly going to bring down the New Times, when his core constituency (bitter white old people who live east of Sossaman) is TOTALLY in line with the New Times constituency (18-35 year olds living between 7th St & Roosevelt and Scottsdale).

Either westsider is right, and this is brilliant satire, or this is one of those Espressodamus predictions that never come to pass.

Hey, where's our latest "CASINO ARIZONA TALKING STICK RESORT IS GOING TO BANKRUPT THE O'ODHAM TRIBE!" missive. Haven't seen those in a while!

[Phoenix48]

..."Russell Pearce is a liar, Ronnie Baby. He claimed that the Mormon church was on board and supported SB 1070. Stephen Lemons at the New Times checked his facts. And surprise surprise surprise, Pearce was lying."

Wow. What a whopper. The kind of lying anyone with the time and online access can easily refut.

But hardly surprising considering the source.

Much to the dismay of folks like Woodman, whose long-winded rants here are well known, our elections are TRANSPARENT.

The Demographic breakdowns are available - not just to political insiders who consult for a living - but to anyone who cares look.

Lewis - choosing to join forces with the likes of Snow & Parraz - roughly SPLIT the Mormon vote - while enjoying the unique advantage of NO DEM on the ticket.

In every way it amounted to a one-off event.

He's had zero effect since winning. Hardly surprising since he's rightly regarded as untrustworthy among fellow legislators.

Likewise, neither your characterization of the 'Cortez affair' or the prospect for Pearce in the upcomming newly drawn district hold any resonance beyond the progressive bubble you swim in Woodman.

As for your discription of S. Lemons? What has been holding this (according to you) 'talented' reporter back?

Why is he still toiling in relative obscurity at a 'priced to sell' givaway rag?

How come he has about as much name recognition (& paid bylines)outside of a few bars on Central or over in Tempe... as say...you or me?

Lemons has proven, as opinion pundit, that he has about as much of a love affair with the facts regarding any story as...

...Brewer does for 'retracting' her finger-wagging @ Obama!

[RonJ]

Robert Woodman: I don't need to insult you personally. You make a fool of yourself all by yourself.
You are correct, Pearce should never have claimed the LDS Church supported him. The LDS Church doesn't support candidates. However, if you would take the time to read the LDS Church's official policy on obeying the laws of the land, including immigration, you will find Pearce and SB1070 (which is 98% a carbon copy of federal law) are closer to LDS policy than Lewis and the squishy Republicans in east Mesa. Pearce's mistake was to claim Church support. I can't account for the soft-headed, thin-skinned east Mesa Mormons.
Arpaio is still very popular, despite the unrelenting attack from the Republic, New Times, and other MSM.
No doubt Thomas handled the investigations and indictments poorly. But it's becoming clear that he was spot on with the crimes committed by Stapley and Wilcox.
Babeu is his own worst enemy.
All under 300 words.

[The Other Travis]

A handful of cranky gray-hairs from East Mesa are going to keep thousands of high school and college students from seeing Avengers on opening weekend? Hahahahahahaha!!

[The Other Travis]

I assume Greg meant to publish this on April 1st...

[Paula Pennypacker]

Well said Thane!

I will be buying more products from PNT advertisers. It's time to end the polarizing rhetoric of Arpaio, Pearce and their flock of extremists followers.

The PNT rocks!

[OttoPrisoc]

the walmart hot dog from hell was my favorite. I want to watch it again ;(((, http://dizaocosmetics.blogspot.com/2012/03/dizao-cosmetics-where-to-order-online.html dizao cosmetics, :)),

[Richard Grayson]

This will never work. Boycotts almost never do. Harkins is not going to pull its ads, and right-wing people are not going to stop going to their theaters, because, frankly, few of them -- mostly elderly people -- go to the movies anyway. You think they're among the millions who've come to theaters to see "The Hunger Games"? The NT advertisers are not, generally, patronized by Arpaio/Pearce supporters (morons)? Like, do you think they go to the concerts and bars and restaurants advertised in there or any alt-weekly? Look through your own ads and you'll see the demographic they appeal to, and they have nothing to do with the kind of people being urged to boycott here.

Now Backpage is the real issue with Village Voice Media, of course. And as far as I know, people like New York Times columnist Nick Kristof haven't called for a boycott. What they're doing is getting Goldman Sachs and other financiers to drop their stakes in the company. And believe me, the people at Village Voice Media are much more concerned about that than they are this blip. VV Media may be centered in the Valley --sadly, from the perspective of someone who grew up on the Voice in the late 60s and early 70s and worked there in '74-'75 (it was a cool place even if you were a messenger in display advertising; I once lost a $10,000 check from the nightclub Reno Sweeney's and didn't get fired or even reprimanded) -- but, really, the action, as always, is in Manhattan and not in backwater Arizona with laughingstocks (in non-backwater America) like Arpaio and Pearce.

Full disclosure: members of my family are managers at a company that advertises in Phoenix New Times. (And news of a Pearce-led boycott will only encourage them to take out more ads.)

[amos t. sludge]

i are gonna joyn in ur boicott. me and ma and granpa are doggone sic and tared of them librull due gooders! gob bless Mr. Peerce and mr. Arpieo, tru bleu amerricans, and god luck mr. Patersin on woopin them college bois into shape.