What is the intention behind Ingraham’s tweet? Personally, I see no other intention other than to discredit Hogg, a 17-year-old mass murder survivor fighting for change.
As a true Gen Zer, Hogg replied the same day on Twitter, calling for his (then) 600k followers to urge advertisers to boycott Ingraham’s show.
Less than a month later, 19 advertisers have dropped sponsorship of the show. Ingraham’s on-air advertising has dropped from an average of 14.5 minutes to about 7 minutes following the aftermath of the Ingraham’s tweet. In an industry reliant on advertising, that is not a good sign for Laura.
Clearly, a growing number of consumers are repulsed by networks such as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting. Let’s not forget Fox News’ other disgraced hosts Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, and Charles Payne who were all ousted from the network after news of numerous sexual assault allegations against them came became public knowledge.
David Hogg can’t even vote in this country, but he and his fellow Parkland activists are using all the tools they have to be heard. They have uncovered a path to gun reform that skirts politics and directly asks our nation’s largest corporations to enact change.
If you disagree with Fox News’ stance on gun reform, does your investment portfolio reflect the same sentiment?
Even with such animosity towards these networks, many investors – whether they are cognizant of it or not – continue to hold shares of these companies in their portfolios. In fact, anyone owning an SP500 index fund owns 21st Century Fox, which in turn owns Fox News.
While it can be difficult to exercise ethical preferences within retirement plan structures such as 401(k) and 403(b), anyone owning passive index funds within taxable accounts can find actively-managed options that exclude specific holdings.
Investors have the choice to minimize portfolio risk and align capital with their belief systems by filtering funds that hold Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting. It’s a win-win situation
About the Author: