Slim-Fast trims Whoopi from ads

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Yes, for the record, Slim-Fast is free to do whatever they want, however I would only question why they're doing it.

Slim-Fast trims Whoopi from ads

(CNN) -- Weight loss product manufacturer Slim-Fast announced Wednesday it had dropped Whoopi Goldberg as its spokeswoman, following a controversy over sexually explicit comments she made last week at a fund-raiser in New York for presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.

"We at Slim-Fast trust the public understands that the way in which Whoopi Goldberg chose to express her own personal beliefs at the recent fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall does not reflect the views and values of Slim-Fast," said a statement from Terry Olson, general manager and vice president of marketing.

"We are disappointed by the manner in which Ms. Goldberg chose to express herself and sincerely regret that her recent remarks offended some of our consumers. Ads featuring Ms. Goldberg will no longer be on the air," the statement added.

Some conservative groups and GOP supporters had threatened to boycott Slim-Fast products if it did not take action.

At the fund-raiser last Thursday, which also featured other Hollywood entertainers, Goldberg made sexually explicit comments that were puns on President Bush's name. (Kerry bash raises $7.5 million)

Goldberg responded with a statement released through her publicist.

The statement said she understands why the company felt it needed to respond to its consumers, given all the press attention it received.

"But it saddens me that people who were not present at the fund-raiser, including anyone from Slim-Fast and others who have not seen the material for themselves but are only reacting to soundbites produced by the media, have opted to judge my 'conduct,' " Goldberg's statement said.

"I've done material on every president in the past 20 years, from Reagan to Carter, from Clinton to Bush. I have used portions of the material I did at the fund-raiser in shows, speeches and even on national television and it seems now that people from the other side are using this to further their own agenda," her statement continued.

"I only wish that the Republican re-election committee would spend as much time working on the economy as they seem to be spending trying to harm my pocketbook."

Goldberg said she wished "godspeed" to Slim-Fast and its users and hoped "that everything will be better digested, now that I'm no longer representing them."

"And just because I'm no longer in those spots, it doesn't mean I will stop talking," the comedienne's statement said.

Other entertainers also made disparaging remarks about Bush at the event, but what has Republicans particularly critical of Kerry were his closing remarks in which he thanked them and said they "conveyed the heart and soul of our country."

That prompted the Bush-Cheney campaign to demand that the Kerry-Edwards campaign release video or film footage of the event, saying Americans deserved to decide for themselves about it.

In response, the Kerry campaign said it would not release the footage unless the Bush campaign released a raft of documents "relating to Bush's performance in office" -- including records of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, among others. (Full story)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, for the record, Slim-Fast is free to do whatever they want, however I would only question why they're doing it.

My guess is enough people called and exercised their right of free speech about her performance and how she represents the company. Quite simple.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Good for them. They have every right to pull an ad/spokesperson if that person pisses people(potential customers) off due to their "questionable" antics.

CkG
 

MidasKnight

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2004
3,288
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yes, for the record, Slim-Fast is free to do whatever they want, however I would only question why they're doing it.

My guess is enough people called and exercised their right of free speech about her performance and how she represents the company. Quite simple.



Agreed.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Does anyone know what she actually said?

We may never know as Kerry wont release the video tape of the rally that displayed the heart and sole of America.

Apparently she made some tasteless jokes about the president.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
She said something like "Let's keep Bush where it belongs" and then pointed to her groin.

It's been reported. I remember reading that when the "news" of that first "broke".
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
LOL!!

I just saw a commercial on TV for SlimFast with Whoopi in it!

Those are ads probably already bought and paid for. She has been removed from the slimfast website....
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
So seriously, are these "conservative groups and GOP supporters" simply unable to take a joke? I mean, as much as I personally don't think she's funny, she is supposedly a comedianne. Furthermore, I don't understand the concept that somehow Whoopi is a spokesperson for Slim-Fast 24/7. Obviously, this was a private fund raising event and had nothing whatsoever to do with Slim-Fast or their products.

Like I said, it seems like yet another campaign to silence critics of the current administration. The idea that there can be a penalty for free speech only serves to chill free speech. If you have to censor yourself 24/7 because your employer or your government (or over-zealous supporters of your government) can levy penalties on you, then you're not really free to say what you wish.

It really bothers me.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So seriously, are these "conservative groups and GOP supporters" simply unable to take a joke? I mean, as much as I personally don't think she's funny, she is supposedly a comedianne. Furthermore, I don't understand the concept that somehow Whoopi is a spokesperson for Slim-Fast 24/7. Obviously, this was a private fund raising event and had nothing whatsoever to do with Slim-Fast or their products.

Like I said, it seems like yet another campaign to silence critics of the current administration. The idea that there can be a penalty for free speech only serves to chill free speech. If you have to censor yourself 24/7 because your employer or your government (or over-zealous supporters of your government) can levy penalties on you, then you're not really free to say what you wish.

It really bothers me.

She is a spokeperson, which means she does represent the company she works for. If she offends the target audience, she stops being of value to the company. On one hand you want whoopi to be able to say what she wants, but you want to silence those who would critize her.

What happened here is both sides got the speak their mind. But i suppose you have never boycotted a product/company because of something the company did to piss you off.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So seriously, are these "conservative groups and GOP supporters" simply unable to take a joke? I mean, as much as I personally don't think she's funny, she is supposedly a comedianne. Furthermore, I don't understand the concept that somehow Whoopi is a spokesperson for Slim-Fast 24/7. Obviously, this was a private fund raising event and had nothing whatsoever to do with Slim-Fast or their products.

Like I said, it seems like yet another campaign to silence critics of the current administration. The idea that there can be a penalty for free speech only serves to chill free speech. If you have to censor yourself 24/7 because your employer or your government (or over-zealous supporters of your government) can levy penalties on you, then you're not really free to say what you wish.

It really bothers me.

It isn't really about politics - it's about money. That company doesn't want to lose customers(you know....the people who pay for their product) for being associated with someone who willingly says questionable things.
It may have been funny to some, but others may not have taken it that way. I think you are(and others) are putting too much politics behind this instead of looking at the $. It's always about the $.

CkG
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Limbaugh , Savage, etc. say worse things on a daily basis and on public airwaves. Oh ya, they are pro-Bush and policed by the pro-Bush FCC.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
She is a spokeperson, which means she does represent the company she works for. If she offends the target audience, she stops being of value to the company. On one hand you want whoopi to be able to say what she wants, but you want to silence those who would critize her.
I never said I wanted to silence anyone. Those who wish to criticize her are free to do so. My problem is with the chilling of free speech. You seriously can't see how these incidents could have that effect?
What happened here is both sides got the speak their mind. But i suppose you have never boycotted a product/company because of something the company did to piss you off.
Well, only Wal-Mart. But I never organized any kind of mass protest or boycott. I just decided for myself not to shop there.

These conservative groups have taken it a step or two further and try to stir up all of this mass hysteria and put pressure on these companies to do things they never would normally do. The aim is clear: to penalize the individual for exercising their free speech rights.
 

happyhelper

Senior member
Feb 20, 2002
344
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So seriously, are these "conservative groups and GOP supporters" simply unable to take a joke? I mean, as much as I personally don't think she's funny, she is supposedly a comedianne. Furthermore, I don't understand the concept that somehow Whoopi is a spokesperson for Slim-Fast 24/7. Obviously, this was a private fund raising event and had nothing whatsoever to do with Slim-Fast or their products.

Like I said, it seems like yet another campaign to silence critics of the current administration. The idea that there can be a penalty for free speech only serves to chill free speech. If you have to censor yourself 24/7 because your employer or your government (or over-zealous supporters of your government) can levy penalties on you, then you're not really free to say what you wish.

It really bothers me.

It isn't really about politics - it's about money. That company doesn't want to lose customers(you know....the people who pay for their product) for being associated with someone who willingly says questionable things.
It may have been funny to some, but others may not have taken it that way. I think you are(and others) are putting too much politics behind this instead of looking at the $. It's always about the $.

CkG

As usual, you exhibit your volitional blindness.

When is the last time a person lost their job because of a joke they told when they weren't doing their job? People tell crude jokes all the time, but normally the Fat Christian Zealots don't call up the company the joke teller works for and demand that he/she be fired or else they are going to boycott. The opposite of what you say is true - the only reason this happened is because of politics. Anyway, I am definitely not saying there is anything wrong with people using their "boycott power" but I am saying it is either extemely naive or deceptive of you to pretend it's not about politics when it's entirely about politics.
 

happyhelper

Senior member
Feb 20, 2002
344
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: charrison
She is a spokeperson, which means she does represent the company she works for. If she offends the target audience, she stops being of value to the company. On one hand you want whoopi to be able to say what she wants, but you want to silence those who would critize her.
I never said I wanted to silence anyone. Those who wish to criticize her are free to do so. My problem is with the chilling of free speech. You seriously can't see how these incidents could have that effect?
What happened here is both sides got the speak their mind. But i suppose you have never boycotted a product/company because of something the company did to piss you off.
Well, only Wal-Mart. But I never organized any kind of mass protest or boycott. I just decided for myself not to shop there.

These conservative groups have taken it a step or two further and try to stir up all of this mass hysteria and put pressure on these companies to do things they never would normally do. The aim is clear: to penalize the individual for exercising their free speech rights.

DealMonkey,

I see what you are saying but I think you are missing a pertinent point. It's a free country. It wasn't the government that "silenced" Whoopi, but a group of people who worked together and notified the company that they were boycotting and the reason they were boycotting. I disagree with their reason, I think it was a stupid reason, and I disagree with the company, because I think their loss of sales probably wouldn't hurt them as much as whatever they have to pay Whoopi for breaching their contract with her. However, I think people do have the right to boycott, which is as equally valid a form of "free speech" as any other.

I think Democrats ought to do the same thing... write your local network affiliates and tell them you are boycotting their channel until they stop airing the deceptive anti-Kerry campaign ads, and that if they continue to air those ads right up til the election, you will boycott them permanently. What else can we Kerry supporters boycott that might help Kerry win the election? Also, write to slim-fast telling them if you ever get fat, you will never buy their product because of the way they have treated Whoopi Goldberg.
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Free speech goes both ways. Whoopi has a right to crack a joke, the uptight pricks who took up the letter-writing campaign have the right to air their self-righteous indignation and lack of a sense of humor, and the company, fearing a backlash, has the right to make a judgement call between offended consumers and the cost of kicking Whoopi out.

And those irritated or offended by their actions can write them expressing their dismay at the path they chose to take.

This wouldn't be the same as someone cracking a joke while not working - As a public spokesperson, she DOES represent the company in some capacity, and there is undoubtedly some portion of her contract which deals with her public persona. It's the cost of doing business.

Rush Limbaugh had his 1st Amendment rights to make potentially racist comments on ESPN, and people had a right to be upset and write ESPN about it.

There's no difference between the two scenarios, except one was a left-winger mouthing off and getting canned, and the other was a right-winger mouthing off and resigning pre-emptively.

Equality goes both ways.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: happyhelper
I see what you are saying but I think you are missing a pertinent point. It's a free country. It wasn't the government that "silenced" Whoopi, but a group of people who worked together and notified the company that they were boycotting and the reason they were boycotting. I disagree with their reason, I think it was a stupid reason, and I disagree with the company, because I think their loss of sales probably wouldn't hurt them as much as whatever they have to pay Whoopi for breaching their contract with her. However, I think people do have the right to boycott, which is as equally valid a form of "free speech" as any other.

You're right, it wasn't the government, but instead political groups and supporters of the current administration. Only a mere step away.

I think Democrats ought to do the same thing... write your local network affiliates and tell them you are boycotting their channel until they stop airing the deceptive anti-Kerry campaign ads, and that if they continue to air those ads right up til the election, you will boycott them permanently. What else can we Kerry supporters boycott that might help Kerry win the election? Also, write to slim-fast telling them if you ever get fat, you will never buy their product because of the way they have treated Whoopi Goldberg.

That was actually a question I wanted to pose earlier: When have democrats done something on this order?
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
DealMonkey

It makes no difference who complained as long as they complained as private citizens. I happen to think the point of protest was pretty stupid, but that is only my opinion. The company obviously feels that their action was the thing to do to protect their bottom line (squeaky wheel gets the grease). Maybe fat right-wingers are their target market. The Dell kid got canned. Anita Bryant got canned years ago for stirring up a public controversy.

I don't think there is any way you can convince me this is some kind of breech of free speach. It's just a group of people execising their right to be heard with their wallets. It dosen't matter what you think of these people or whether they have an agenda.
 

csf

Banned
Aug 5, 2001
319
0
0
Originally posted by: Todd33
Limbaugh , Savage, etc. say worse things on a daily basis and on public airwaves. Oh ya, they are pro-Bush and policed by the pro-Bush FCC.

But so do the leftists at Air America. You also forget that the Senate voted 99-1 and the House voted 391-22 to increase FCC indecency fines. That means it's a clearly bipartisan effort. Your point?

Besides, as was stated, a good counter-example was Limbaugh getting kicked off ESPN for his percieved "racist" comments? Why was there no indignation there? Oh yeah, because it's only a chilling effect when people on your side lose.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: csf
Besides, as was stated, a good counter-example was Limbaugh getting kicked off ESPN for his percieved "racist" comments? Why was there no indignation there? Oh yeah, because it's only a chilling effect when people on your side lose.
Was there an organized liberal protest of ESPN?
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: csf
Besides, as was stated, a good counter-example was Limbaugh getting kicked off ESPN for his percieved "racist" comments? Why was there no indignation there? Oh yeah, because it's only a chilling effect when people on your side lose.
Was there an organized liberal protest of ESPN?

Blame the liberals for not organizing. I for one would love it if the organized Conservative Christians who persistantly write letters to congressmen opposing abortion, drug laws, and other such topics were counterbalanced by some organized leftists.

You're the ones to blame here for not effectively managing and energizing your base.

And if memory serves, the media stoked the flames of the Limbaugh controversy. I don't think there was enough time passed after the comment was uttered for them organize anything if they could.