Fox Business News apologizes after commentator calls Apple CEO Tim Cook a 'bigot'

189101113

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 276
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member

    All this squabbling over "He said. . .", "She said. . ." is soooo. . . .ordinary.

     

    Apple is the most valuable company on the planet. That was achieved by a lot of "doing the right thing"—by doing the right thing for DECADES. It was achieved by real people dedicated to their many jobs all of which were coordinated and administered by competent management. Tim is and has been at the top of that management hierarchy. He deserves the lion's share of credit for this achievement.

     

    All this moralizing and discriminating is simply noise and shouldn't be allowed to impede constructive and valuable work. Everyone at Apple, and indeed everyone in the world (except a small number of insane) wants to contribute and help improve conditions. Apple is doing that with its products. Millions around the world value Apple products which they know will help them do their work and improve their lives.

  • Reply 242 of 276

    Tim Cook is an American citizen and the CEO of an American corporation.  He is subject to American laws.  His recent comments are about discrimination in America, examples of which he has witnessed firsthand during his life.  He would like America to do better, as many of us would.  He has not withheld sales of Apple products to Indiana or Arkansas as a form of retribution, so why would he apply a different standard to other countries?  He is not a hypocrite; by contrast, you are not strong on critical thinking.

  • Reply 243 of 276
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    The same could be said about liberal media outlets such as MSNBC. I like to watch national/world news without the liberal bias other outlets have such as CNN. Obviously Fox News caters to the right with their talk shows, but I like watching Shepard Smith. Just basic news without the political bias. 


     

    YOu actually were talking about their number of viewers. The reason for the number of viewers is the fact they cater to a large group that mostly agree amongst themselves, are older, and watch more TV and other traditional medias; that's what my reply addressed.

     

    This is a quote :

     

    "Fox News has the oldest audience among fully distributed cable networks. The network's average viewer last season was 65 years old, according to Nielsen. Heck, it's viewers are even older than viewers of Hallmark Channel, Military Channel and Golf Channel."

     

    This is the same reason why right wing talk shows have high ratings numbers."

     

    But, most news watchers are older than average, Fox News are just the oldest (CNN=62,MSNBC=59,CNBC=52)

     

    Also, give me a break about liberal bias. Everything to the left of the far right for people like you are "liberal".

    Eisenhower would be a raving socialist by modern definitions (with extremely high tax rates on the wealthy).

     

    Anyone who has watched the BBC News would laugh so hard at you saying Fox isn't biased. It has bias going up and down the wazoo. Maybe you think they're "fair and balanced too"....

  • Reply 244 of 276
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post

     

    BBC? The Brussels Broadcasting Corp which is supposed to be politically independent but receives an EU handout and thus is biased in favour of the United States of Europe


     

    Give me a break buddy. Instant ignore list for saying something so crazy.

  • Reply 245 of 276
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    stantheman wrote: »
    @rogifan - "Yeah and people are entitled to call him a hypocrite. Free speech and all. I'll change my opinion when Cook speaks out for gay rights in China and the Middle East."

    First, Cook should be consistent, but do you whine about hypocrisy when one car going 80 mph is stopped for speeding and another one isn't? Is it wrong to feed one poor person if we're unable to feed another one? Because our resources are limited, it may be impossible to address all challenges simultaneously. That is reality, not hypocrisy.

    Second, what about you? Your comment suggests that Cook should mend his ways and press the same offensive everywhere, whether the USA or China or the Middle East. Your only interest is eliminating hypocrisy. Well, suppose that Cook launches those political battles and succeeds in securing equal rights for gays in China and Iran. Would you feel better? Worse?

    If better, then hypocrisy is, indeed, your only interest in the matter. Yay! Now gays in China can come out of the closet. But if you would feel worse when gays in China get more respect and greater freedoms, then your charge of hypocrisy against Cook falls apart.

    Finally, consider Cook's comment from the perspective of those living in China. When the CEO of the world's biggest and most successful company, who only days before was selected by Fortune as the world's top leader, stands up and challenges Americans to turn away from bias and bigotry, that challenge is also heard overseas. Cook said directly and without equivocation that Apple conducts business with people regardless of their color, race or sexual orientation. That message was sent out by Cook and received by Chinese President Xi in full view of the Chinese people. If Xi doesn't like it, the next move is his.

    So Cook did what you insisted he do, and is no hypocrite: He stood up against bias and bigotry everywhere the same, by expressing it as a universal principle at Apple. Since politicians in Little Rock and Indianapolis recently passed bills waiting for the signatures of their respective governors, then of course Cook focused his comments on those bills. Rednecks in Little Rock and Indy did gays around the globe a favor by giving Cook a vehicle to advance their cause.

    This conversation is about the US and its 50 states. Standing law has long since been settled with the US Constitution and hundreds of precedences regarding discrimination. It is quite recent that laws have finally included a fully inclusive anti-gay discriminatory set of laws banning the crap Indiana and other red states have passed.

    Not a single one will pass the Federal Appeals Courts and the US Supreme Court will side with the Appeals.

    What is different is Corporate America is fed up with the bull shit and are putting their money directly with action instead of lobbying behind the scenes.

    When all these states see their GDP's plummet due to such discriminatory laws they'll ultimately attempt to leverage the US Congress to force Corporations to about face, ultimately revealing the GOP for what it is: a bigoted, ignorant pool of greedy pricks who cannot handle the modern world not being directed and managed by the great white hope.
  • Reply 246 of 276
    Great stats, but I use Mark Twain's quote about stats and then add a big so what as well. My beliefs are not determined by peer pressure. Here is one problem with your stats, I'm in your old white guy category. However, I support gay marriage and abhor government suppressing the free exercise of religion and speech. By the constitution, I see no stated bar to gay marriage at the federal level, while states maintain the right to do so (damn ninth and tenth admendment). Would I support laws banning gay marriage in my state? No. Do people like you, who believe their opinions trump our first admendment scare the hell out of me? Hell yes. The line between us and many, many current and historical models (enter the dictator's name here) should scare the crap out you.
    As for Tim. As a private citizen he has every right to express his opinion. As the CEO of apple, not really. His only job is to ensure he increases shareholder values using strong ethical standards. Now he going have to fend off challenges about not selling to discriminatory countries. Heck, that is about 90% of his markets. As a shareholder, I say poorly played.
  • Reply 247 of 276
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 1,080member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    I agree with much of what you say.



    I recall that, a couple of years ago, some taxi drivers in Minneapolis -- most of them Somali Muslims -- refused to take passengers from the airport because they had duty free liquor with them. I also recall the furor it caused. But I am guessing that those taxi drivers could have sought protection under the RFRA.



    So let me ask those here for it: would you agree with the taxi I drivers? What if a Hindu owner of an Indian vegetarian restaurant refused to serve those who ate beef? Ok with that?

     

    I'll take the bait. I live in Minneapolis and remember this well.

     

    I don't agree with the taxi drivers' position. If I'm carrying a product that is legal to possess and I am not intoxicated on the product they object to (the cabbies already have the right to refuse me service if I am too intoxicated). It is unreasonable for them to impose their religious idiosyncrasies onto me when I'm behaving well within what is considered acceptable public behavior and they are offering a service to the general public.

     

    The restaurant owner certainly has the right to not serve beef in his establishment and it would be considered poor form for me to bring my own beef snacks (or any other snack, really) with me if I were dining there. Now, if the owner quizzed me at the door to discover if I ever eat beef and would turn me away for beef I ate last week, I'd say that was unacceptable for a business owner offering food the general public while I am again behaving in a way that is considered acceptable behavior in public.

  • Reply 248 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 135member
    My exception would be very limited...say requiring a clergyman to perform a gay wedding. Not some random business even though there is often a charge involved.

    Also, you keep saying 'sexual preference'. Regardless of whether you personally believe it, I'm going to take the time to let you know that the preferred term is sexual orientation. I'm sure you can understand why.
    boltsfan17 wrote: »

    Limited exceptions wouldn't be fair. So a church bookstore can refuse to sell books to a gay couple, but a book store owned by a Christian couple can't refuse to sell books? You can't just randomly insert some group. What religion is against a certain race or other religion? Federal law doesn't recognize sexual preference when it comes to businesses and their right to refuse service based on that. I do know that a few states have changed their laws to include sexual preference, but many don't. Even if this law in Indiana was never in existence, it was always legal in Indiana to refuse service to someone based on sexual preference. 
  • Reply 249 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 135member
    It would be great if you could identify the part where Tim Cook was either disrespectful of, or advocated suppressing the rights of people of religion..
    mytdave wrote: »
    Why apologize for making an accurate statement? It was a bit harsh, yes, and if it were me I would have omitted the "bigot" part of the the statement, but hipocracy is certainly true. If Tim were truly concerned about diversity he would be respectful of others' religious rights as well as all other human rights.

    It is also indisputable that Apple does business in countries that murder anyone in the LGBT camp. Where's the outrage from the left for the actual abuses of human rights in these places? I don't condem Apple for doing business in countries all over the globe, but the hipocracy on display is thick.
  • Reply 250 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 135member
    Yes, you are correct. Nobody should try to change, influence, or affect anything whatsoever, unless they can affect said change on a worldwide level...

    I guess based on that Indiana should have voted a law into place that applied to the whole world right? That sure would have taken care of this entire problem..

    ( in case you can't tell, my entire comment was sarcastic....)


    jinx59 wrote: »
    As much as I agree with Tim Cook's stance, he needs to be careful about wandering into the political quagmire - even though his outburst seems to have nudged the cursor forward in the right direction, I hope he takes heed of the vitriol and step back from the minefield he is walking on.

    Because his naysayers have a point. Apple is a global player, so his remarks resonate globally.

    He is a business man first and not a politician. His duty is therefore first to his customers, employees and shareholders. If he has deep felt convictions about how minorities get treated in society, and if he has decided to use his influence for political gain, then he needs to be consistent across the globe. He has after all improved worker conditions in China that is having a ripple effect across the region.

    The problem is he is never going to change the lot of the LGBT communities in the Middle East. I suppose this is why his outburst is not directed there - for fear of creating a diplomatic incident.

    The calls to be consistent in my view are fair.

    Better to stick to business. Unless Apple's values are to vanquish injustice in society.

    Politics is an uneven, messy and viscious business far away from the values of Apple.
  • Reply 251 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 135member
    There is a stark difference between CEO's endorsing a letter critical of the laws of a state, or a CEO writing an oped piece in a newspaper and what the Koch Brothers are doing...

    You make an interesting point.

    Do you approve of CEOs and large businesses using their financial clout and political influence to change public opinion and get laws changed?

    If you DO approve, what are your thoughts on the Koch brothers?
  • Reply 252 of 276
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

     

    I'll take the bait. I live in Minneapolis and remember this well.

     

    I don't agree with the taxi drivers' position. If I'm carrying a product that is legal to possess and I am not intoxicated on the product they object to (the cabbies already have the right to refuse me service if I am too intoxicated). It is unreasonable for them to impose their religious idiosyncrasies onto me when I'm behaving well within what is considered acceptable public behavior and they are offering a service to the general public.

     

    The restaurant owner certainly has the right to not serve beef in his establishment and it would be considered poor form for me to bring my own beef snacks (or any other snack, really) with me if I were dining there. Now, if the owner quizzed me at the door to discover if I ever eat beef and would turn me away for beef I ate last week, I'd say that was unacceptable for a business owner offering food the general public while I am again behaving in a way that is considered acceptable behavior in public.


    You're against one, and conditionally against the other ("quizzed at the door").

     

    What's your take on whether both would be acceptable under RFRA? I am guessing that either business owner could argue that they had protection under the law for their position.

     

    That would be the problem with a piece of legislation like that...

  • Reply 253 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 135member
    I have no problem with CEO's coming out verbally against something like this and then making business decisions based on said law. However, buying politicians along with all the others things the Koch's do are on a totally different level.
    Speaking for myself, and independently of the current issue at hand (where I happen to agree with Cook's point of view, if not his pedestal), I am deeply troubled when corporations get involved in issues of social policy. On the left or the right.

    After all, it's a short step from there to plutocracy.
  • Reply 254 of 276
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DiegoG View Post



    I have no problem with CEO's coming out verbally against something like this and then making business decisions based on said law. However, buying politicians along with all the others things the Koch's do are on a totally different level.

    I think you're completely missing the larger question that SS was asking. 

     

    You can call it a "different level" and may be morally opposed, but none of what the Koch brothers -- or Sheldon Adleson types -- are doing is against the law.

     

    But both are forms of corporate intervention in polity. That is just a fact.

  • Reply 255 of 276
    diegogdiegog Posts: 135member
    No. I understand the larger issue.

    Both influence. Speaking out for what you beleive in is never wrong (though your views may be). BUYing influence may not be illegal but are you going to say that ethically it's exactly the same as simply speaking out?
    I think you're completely missing the larger question that SS was asking. 

    You can call it a "different level" and may be morally opposed, but none of what the Koch brothers -- or Sheldon Adleson types -- are doing is against the law.

    But both are forms of corporate intervention in polity. That is just a fact.
  • Reply 256 of 276
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 1,080member
    You're against one, and conditionally against the other ("quizzed at the door").

    What's your take on whether both would be acceptable under RFRA? I am guessing that either business owner could argue that they had protection under the law for their position.

    That would be the problem with a piece of legislation like that...

    Gotta admit I know nothing about RFRA.
  • Reply 257 of 276
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by polymnia View Post



    I don't feel that anyone, including Apple & Tim Cook, must refrain from doing business parties they disagree with to not be hypocrites. Engagement is certainly a more productive way to bring others around to your opinion. When it gets down to it, no one has a monopoly on moral perfection. Anyone who claims their side is the pure representation of good is full of it.



    Examples of US foreign policy based upon isolation of countries we disagree with: Cuba, North Korea & Iran. Did we convince them by shunning them? Have they changed their ways? Not really. How about another country we formerly shunned: China. We re-engaged decades ago (thanks Richard Nixon, the guy wasn't all bad), and while the change wasn't overnight, things have changed over time. Exposure to American people, businesses & culture certainly has shaped China's transformation.



    No doubt, there are still many things Americans should rightly disagree with China on. I'm not saying it's some utopia.



    On the flip-side, where would China be today if the USA had continued shunning and refusing to engage them?



    My point being, interact with people. All people. All races, religions, genders, sexuality, wealth, class, etc...If you disagree with them, perhaps it's even more important to interact.



    Our politicians (I'm an American) could learn from this philosophy as well.

     

    Best post of the thread.

  • Reply 258 of 276
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bluedalmatian View Post

     

    BBC? The Brussels Broadcasting Corp which is supposed to be politically independent but receives an EU handout and thus is biased in favour of the United States of Europe


     

    By that logic, UKIP must also be pro-European as they also receive EU money. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 

  • Reply 259 of 276
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 1,080member
    richl wrote: »
    Best post of the thread.

    Aww, shucks :D

    To follow up on my original thoughts:

    A lot is made of freedom in the comments I read here. I am a big proponent of freedom.

    Here's the thing, we cannot expect our society to be successful if we all exercise unbridled freedom to behave any way we like. We owe it to our fellow citizen to enable THEIR freedoms to behave the way they see fit, within reason. Sometimes this means biting our tongue and tolerating different behaviors than we engage in personally.

    I feel it is my responsibility to tolerate everyone's religious views and activities. To be clear, I disagree strongly with a lot of these beliefs. I'm not a religious person. As long as no one tries to force me to participate I'm happy to let people do their own thing.

    Let's all try harder to make freedom accessible to EVERYONE by not imposing our views on others.
  • Reply 260 of 276
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,403member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by polymnia View Post



    Gotta admit I know nothing about RFRA.

    I don't mean to be contentious, but what do you think this whole thread is about!?

Sign In or Register to comment.