Submissions keep coming in, so I’m putting them all here in one place. (Reminder: JetBlue contact info is here. Or e-mail [email protected] or [email protected]) But first, Dean Barnett weighs in on the “stupefying” decision:
The Daily Kos is not only political, but a political lightning rod. It doesn’t get more political than the Daily Kos. The fact that someone at JetBlue thought it was a good idea to hitch their wagon to Markos’ star is truly stupefying…The amazing thing about the JetBlue/YearlyKos thing is that people doing the advertising for JetBlue could be so ignorant regarding either the blogosphere or the nature of business. As far as business is concerned, you don’t attach yourself to an entity that not just alienates but also offends and angers half of your potential customer base. Of course, there is the chance that the people at JetBlue had no understanding of who or what the Daily Kos is before Bill O’Reilly gave them a crash course last night. If that’s the case, JetBlue’s new management team is off to a truly pathetic start.
They deserve all the mockery they get.
Favorite so far is this Pshop from reader Mark S.:
From John at Verum Serum:
From reader Matthew G.:
From reader R.S.B.:
From William Teach:
From the Pointfive blog…
From reader Curtis…
From reader Conservative Cat:
With all due respect, Roger L. Simon entirely misses the point and accuses JetBlue critics of “restricting” the “rights” of the dailyKos and its sponsors. Simon writes:
…the question is not whether you like the Daily Kos or Pajamas Media. It’s whether you respect JetBlue’s – or any other corporation’s – right to make its own business decisions. JetBlue’s leadership has determined that associating themselves with the Kos Convention will sell tickets for them. You may differ in that analysis, but I would imagine they have done market research.
Based on JetBlue CEO David Barger’s clueless comments, I don’t know why Simon would assume that.
Aaanyway, Simon continues:
Those of us who value open discussion on Internet sites – for general reasons of speech and more specific ones of advertising support – should be happy that JetBlue has seen fit to sponsor a site as extreme as the Daily Kos. It’s good for all of us. (O’Reilly, of all people, should be applauding this.) What comes around goes around – as the cliché goes.
Before you start to throw bricks at me, obviously there are limits to this. Advertising on Jihadist or Nazi sites or the like should not be countenanced. But, whatever you feel about it, the Daily Kos does not fit in this category. This is a democracy. They are people with whom you or I may disagree. We should say so and denounce their views as vigorously as possible. But we should not attempt to restrict their speech in any way – or their sponsorship.
Excuse me? I am–or rather, was–a JetBlue customer. I am expressing my disappointment at its decision to mix its business with nutroots politics. I am exercising my free speech, as are other JetBlue customers who disagree with its corporate sponsorship of dKos.
What? Are we just supposed to sit here silently lest we be perceived as “restricting” the “rights” of blogs on the other side of the political aisle?
“Those of us who value open discussion on Internet sites” should “be happy” that there is a vigorous discussion of JetBlue’s decision –instead of suggesting, as Roger Simon does, that there is something nefarious about registering our dissenting opinions.
Update: Ace nails it