Target to Drop Mark Levin Book for Fear of Offending Democrats
By: Joel B. Pollak (Breitbart)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Target has reportedly informed conservative radio host and litigator Mark Levin, via his publisher, that it will not carry his new book, The Democrat Party Hates America, for fear of offending Democrats who shop there.
Levin, whose previous books have been New York Times bestsellers, made the revelation on Twitter yesterday:
Target has informed my publisher, Simon & Schuster, that it will not carry my new book when it is released on September 19. It claims that certain customers might be offended by the title. Imagine that! So, the corporatist leftwing censorship begins. I will discuss this in…
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) July 5, 2023
Target's stance on Levin's book contrasts with the chain store's approach to controversial transgender-themed clothing, which it rolled out ahead of Pride Month, and which prompted a nationwide backlash by customers.
Target eventually made adjustments to its "LGBTQ" inventory, as the Associated Press reported at the time:
Target is removing certain items from its stores and making other changes to its LGBTQ merchandise nationwide ahead of Pride month, after an intense backlash from some customers including violent confrontations with its workers.
…
Target declined to say which items it was removing but among the ones that garnered the most attention were "tuck friendly" women's swimsuits that allow trans women who have not had gender-affirming operations to conceal their private parts. Designs by Abprallen, a London-based company that designs and sells occult- and satanic-themed LGBTQ clothing and accessories, have also created backlash.
…
Target confirmed that it has moved its Pride merchandise from the front of the stores to the back in some Southern stores after confrontations and backlash from shoppers in those areas.
The book, excerpts of which Levin has read on his radio show in recent episodes, is a strident attack on the way in which, Levin argues, the Democratic Party has weaponized government bodies to attack America's ideals.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Tags
Who is online
408 visitors
This will be the final day for the Book Group.
There isnt a single word in this video that is isnt regurgitated by the far right 24/7.
Mark Levin evidently doesnt know how to speak or spell. There is no "Democrat Party" , there is a Democratic Party. The use of Democrat Party is along the same lines of the use of "Brandon" by the right to identify President Biden. In other words, aggressive stupidity.
By the way , the thing Mark Levin is best known for is screaming at his radio audience for the past 20 years.
So, after trying and failing to deflect, you're OK with such blatant censorship and hypocrisy?
I commented on the video Vic posted. Try and pay attention.
I suggest you stop making suggestions to people that are not interested.
You didn't know? That's the liberal way.
Are you opposed to a private company determining for themselves what they want to sell? I thought republicans were pro-capitalism.
Fox’s Cavuto Grills Mark Levin on Why He ‘Yells and …
Web Aug 13, 2013 · By Andrew Kirell Aug 13th, 2013, 6:50 pm Why does Mark Levin “rev it up a notch” and “yell and scream ” on his radio show? …
Ok. So we now know YOU are good with blatant censorship and hypocrisy.
Target can do whatever they want and then live with the consequences of their decisions. Whatever they may be. I can only say if I was a stockholder I might start getting a little concerned about the company I invested in being swayed by a bunch of cry babies and not concentrating on making money for me.
But but but he raises his voice therefore he must be silenced! /S
Why would it be censorship?
Are we really going to attempt to assert that any book Target doesn't carry is somehow censored?
It's not censorship when we decide that certain books don't belong in a school library, and it's not censorship when a retailer chooses to offer one book over another.
Censorship requires government to do it. This is a private company deciding what they do and don't want to sell.
But you keep trying to spin it?
You mean like Biden's Disinformation Governance Board that pushed the lies about Hunter's laptop that it was "Russian disinformation"
Oh wait, even the liberal media was in on it:
We can't forget about the dim bulb that was chosen to run this "Disinformation Governance Board", Nina Jankowicz .
Do us a favor and and, for once, at least TRY to keep up with what's going on.
Yes.
And both Biden AND Obama have pretty shite track records with regard to attempting to control information in a free society. Apparently Orwell's works are more guidebooks for them instead of dystopian fiction.
That is wildly and massively different than a private retailer deciding they don't want to sell a book because it will create more nuisance than it's worth.
The rest of this thread was removed for an endless slap fight. It better stop. Only warning.
If I want to buy Levin's books I will just go to Walmart or Amazon.com. the closest Target to me is a hour away and I have zero desire to shop there as they are over rated and over priced.
If Target is going to stop selling things that may offend people they may as well shut the doors now.
That's what the so-called "conservatives" have been saying about public schools and public libraries.
When there are no facts just make stuff up.
Educate yourself:
The playbook of the so-called "conservatives", emulating their Lord and Master T.F.G.
You have a copy of the playbook or just what left wing loons think is in the playbook? What schools or libraries have been closed? Or are you just gonna triple down on making shit up?
That's hilarious. Do right wing loons understand what a "figure of speech" is?
So that gets us back to when there are no facts just make stuff up. What schools or libraries have been closed?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA........That's classic, using Media matters and Salon to tell someone what a right wing loon is thinking, The term is out of favor but retarded seems appropriate when describing those sources as authorities on anything right wing.
If that was humor well played, if not......
Get back to me when you actually understand my comment.
Retarded does appropriately describe your comment.
No, Target has not been closed down either, but by you logic in comment #2 schools and libraries might as well shut down if they are going to remove books and not teach history that some people find offensive. Think before posting lame blatant rank bullshit!
Target quit selling all Pride paraphernalia because it offended customers, which was their decision to make regardless of how individuals felt about it. This was the same, a business decision!
I was thinking the same thing for most of your comments, so i will assume you actually believe those sources are experts on the right wing........Clarifies a lot of your comments.
Get back to me when you actually have a response to my original comment
I stopped counting but I think it was at least quadrupling down on ridiculous.
Is it? not sure Media Matters is anything but propaganda, at least the late night comedian is entertaining.
I have no problem with them making business decisions.I question any and all business decisions if a stock drops by 18% in 6 months. Seems they may be making some bad business decisions. Time will tell if this is another.
You mean you are not supposed to go to left wing and DNC propaganda stations and web sites to find out what the republicans think? That has to be a serious claim to some left wing loons.
You would obviously agree that an excellent source to understand what lunatic fringe right wingers (republicans as you refer to them) are "thinking" is reading their comments every day on this website. It proves the failure of their home schooling.
I was thinking the same thing about almost all of your comments, but you are already aware of your comments' deficiencies.
No, that shows you might not know what you think you know.
Based on your comments, I know about you and that's all that's needed for this discussion.
Now, I have some work to do so I'll leave you to waste peoples' time, if that's what you chose to do.
Have a wonderful life.
One of my favorite Reagan Quotes.
[DELETED]
Doesn't make any sense does it?
Thread 3 was removed Gsquared
It's the leftist liberal way.
Seems like an easy call. Target does not want to alienate 50% of its US customers with a book whose title is gratuitously inflammatory. I suspect they would do likewise if someone published a book entitled 'Republicans are all Fascists'.
Agree, I don't understand why people get their panties in a bunch about this stuff, if you don't support a companies social policies don't shop there, A company if free to stock and sell whatever it likes. I don't understand announcing it. just don't carry it.
While I agree with what you said I am not sure this was precipitated by a Target announcement as much as a Levine complaint about Targets letter to his publisher. Of course I would love to see the actual letter from Target stating what Levine says. I have my doubts if it really exists and if it does someone should be fired for saying the reason is some ones feelings may be hurt..
Maybe Amazon (maybe Target) should look at "American Fascism: How the GOP Is Subverting Democracy" Paperback. Personally I don't put a lot of stock into a title of a book. I really don't care. If someone does not want to shop at a store for any reason that is on them. I have to doubt if that title is going to alienate all that many people. They might shake their head, not buy the book and move on with their lives. I see a large part of the issue is companies feel the need to make everyone happy. Now target is in the position of making some unhappy because of the name of the book if they sell it or making some unhappy for not selling the book. IMO they should make a decision based on which unhappy people will have the greatest impact on their sales or profitability and go with it.
Half of their customer base is rather substantial, right?
Looks like Amazon does carry both books and Target does NOT carry both books.
You are assuming half of their base will be alienated. While I agree there is the potential of about 50% I believe the actual number of people being alienated is much much much much less. My guess would be a few hundred or some percentage of twitter users that seem to want to believe they speak for America. But that is something Target should look at IMO.
Looks like Amazon does carry both books and Target does NOT carry both books.
I have no problem with the choices they make, I do find it interesting that they seem to be consistent in their own decisions, assuming it was not by accident.
I am assuming that 50% of their base could be alienated. Think as an executive here; you have a choice to place a product on your shelves that you know is insulting to a substantial portion of your consumer base. Further, the product is insignificant and not even remotely close to a necessity.
What do you do?
[ This is a no brainer ]
It seems you are really stuck on a large portion of their base actually being alienated. Whittle that down a bit. First they have to be people that shop at Target. Second they have to walk by the book while shopping, it doesn't have to be in a big display at the front of the store. Third they have to be so insulted they stop shopping at target. Obviously (based on my comment) I do not agree with your assessment of substantial. If you take it to the other extreme it could be thought that a substantial portion of your customer base will also rebel if you take a book off the shelf for what they perceive to be political reasons (bending a knee to democrats). Personally I don't agree with that assessment either but I suggest Target look into it if they have not already.
My point is I don't believe this in particular issue will have much of an actual impact no matter which route they choose. This is a decision for Target to determine which is the less potential damage. I am not going to pretend to know the answer without alot more information that Target marketing should have. They might also look into trying harder to avoid mines like this in the future and stopping the freefall of their stock price.
(I was an executive, and a very successful one at that. One of the things I learned is there is no such thing as a no brainer, only lazy people that don't want to spend the time to properly research an issue)
I am not stuck on anything. This is common sense.
Well of course, I was talking about Target consumers. A pointless first point; Target is not going to care about Wal-mart consumers, et.al.
They can be informed by the media, social forums, etc. making a big deal about the book. Hello?
Who said that they will stop shopping? As an executive, you should be concerned about offending customers and not limit yourself to the small minority who would be so offended that they stop shopping at Target altogether.
My point is that this is an irrelevant, unnecessary product so it is a no brainer to not offer it given its title is insulting to a large portion of your consumer base.
Yeah, there are no-brainers; don't be ridiculous. And you say you were a successful executive yet you apparently would make a bone-headed decision to sell this book in your stores when you have almost nothing to gain and plenty to lose. Some executive; you disregard the impact that today's fast-paced communications have on businesses. Think Bud Light, Chick-fil-a, Hobby Lobby, etc.
This is a smart move by Target.
Since I stated "I am not going to pretend to know the answer without alot more information that Target marketing should have." it is obvious you once again seem to want to hear yourself and ignore what someone is actually saying.
The phrase "too busy talking to listen" comes to mind.
Have a nice day.
Could not have said it better myself.
My father used to say "I am not going to bother talking if you are not going to listen". Of course I was 16 at the time and have outgrown it years ago.
You made an argument that they should carry the book. I read and responded to your points so I was obviously 'listening'; I was not 'persuaded'.
I made an argument that supports their decision.
Your argument was not persuasive so now you equivocate and claim that you were not really making an argument.
Wait! People still go to Target? Didn't they lost a a few billion over pissing off their customers? Oh, imagine that It was $14 BILLION.
You would think they would figure it out already.
Are they following the Bud light model of successful advertising?
Seems to me that choosing to carry this book has a large potential downside while not carrying it has no significant downside.
Hmmmm. Carry it and take another potentially large PR hit or not carry it and lose essentially nothing? I think the answer is obvious.
A vast majority of Target customers probably don't go there to buy books.
You, and apparently Target management, seem to be assuming the majority of Target shoppers are Democrats, since this action gives a very visual optic of kowtowing to them.
Probably not. Do you think that a customer has to literally go to a Target store and look for books and then discover this book for them to find out that Target carries it?
Surely you are aware of how bad / sensational news spreads in our modern, connected society. So why are you thinking in terms of the 1950s?
Where do you get this shit?
This is obvious, Greg. This book is meaningless to Target's profitability and market share. Yet it is insulting to all those who are Democrats (or lean D). Why would Target willingly carry such an emotive titled book when it can do no real good for them and has the potential of being another PR problem?
As an executive, would you really risk yet another PR problem just to carry an insignificant book?? Imagine being the bone-head who knowingly made the decision to carry and then having the CEO wonder who was responsible for Target to be in yet another PR issue?
Or---maybe it is time to quit pandering to right wing sycophants and stop being afraid of what these yokels think. If the right wing acheived absolute power the onlly books would be the bible and The Art Of The Steal.
So after all your bloviating (and attempting to put words in peoples mouths that they never said) it looks like this was not the "no brainer " and "obvious" decision you were claiming and Target is actually selling the book.
Maybe they actually did what I said when I suggested "My point is I don't believe this in particular issue will have much of an actual impact no matter which route they choose. This is a decision for Target to determine which is the less potential damage. "
The only question I would have is were they actually going to sell the book all along or did their mind change based on the feedback.
I guess Target management did not get your persuasive argument.
I was defending their original decision . And I still do defend it for the same reasons. Target first made the obviously sound business decision to not associate an inflammatory title with its brand . It then buckled to pressure from conservatives via social media and reversed itself.
Yeah stunning and damaging. This reversal suggests that Target now thinks it has a PR problem no matter what they do and has calculated that the Ds will be less of a PR problem than the conservatives. They are now in no-man's land.
And they originally believed the less potential damage would be to not associate that emotive title with their brand. Again, a fundamentally sound business decision. Obviously every business will try to reduce damage; that is the underlying dynamic of this story. But I think it is also obvious that this particular issue will indeed have an actual impact . It already has demonstrated that.
So now, they have tied their brand to this inflammatory title. Good luck, Target.
With their not taking a stance and going back and forth, the only thing they are going to do is piss off everyone like Bud light did.
They already pissed off the more Liberal people with their handling of the pride merchandise. This is not going to help their look.
Agreed. They now need to focus their energy on damage control to stop this from turning into yet another PR problem (which they clearly do not need at this point).
I expect businesses to continue to be stuck between a rock and a hard spot with the divisiveness in this nation and the ability to rally social media, et. al. to apply pressure.
Not every business can execute a business model like Amazon which will pretty much sell anything.
Thread 6 was removed Texan.
I just go there to meet women....the ratio is 10:1 and they are already there looking for shit they don't need.
Levin is in Putin's pocket. Levin deals in division, fear. He is a professional accuser proficient in disseminating falsehood, lies, slander and hate.
If Target does not wish to offer Levin's product that is their choice which is apparently the same choice made by the lady with the fake wedding planner account over the fake gay person. The only people getting their stuff in a wad are the same right wing autocratic bumbleheads that make it a profession to getting their stuff in a wad over any issue that some might have that they disagree with.
Turns out, they’re selling it after all . In fact, they’ve been doing pre-sales on the book for 3 weeks, even though the title bothered them.
Now “hate” - without further context - is fairly harmless. You can buy a “haters gonna hate” t-shirt at Target. But the context for that is light humor. I can understand why Target would be concerned about a book seriously declaring that about half the country genuinely hates America.
Still, I don’t see any evidence, other than Levin’s tweet, that Target was actually refusing to sell the book. The opposite appears to be true. Perhaps in his rush to be outraged over something, Levin exaggerated this second-hand information he got from his publisher. The motivation is plain - ratings and book sales. More victimhood energizing the base.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence ( Learn More ). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Detailed Report
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Yes, this is just the latest prime example of the far rightwing being outraged for the sole purpose of maintaining a perpetual state of outrage. If it wasn't this thing it would be another. First they were outraged that Target was selling Pride paraphernalia and now they are outraged Target is not doing enough to propagate even more far rightwing outrage. So let them stew in their own outraged juices...
This is new decrease in their reliability. I will let this one go, but in the future, they will not be allowed on the site.
Brava!
The truly unreliable source here, though, is Mark Levin. Target and his publisher clearly had some kind of conversation, but the headline declaration that Target was not going to carry his book seems unfounded. It seems to me that he has represented the information in the worst possible, most exaggerated light.
I will say though, that from a journalism standpoint, Breitbart should have sought statements from either the publisher, Target, or both. Their willingness to just take Levin at his word on something he himself got 3rd-hand, does speak to their bias.
I disagree
I'm sure. And?
And I think it's time to end censorship.
Who's being censored?
A business must have the right to determine the products it sells. When a business sells a product (or offers a service) their brand is associated with the product.
It is not censorship to protect one's brand; it is not censorship to determine a product line that the business believes is in their best interest.
As an author, imagine if you were forced to write an article praising the D party. As an author you have a product line (that which you publish) and that product line is associated with your brand (your name). Do you not think you have the right to determine what is associated with your name?
By your logic, if people cannot force / coerce you to write a pro-D party article (against your best interest) then you are imposing censorship.
There are so many. Let us start with the New York Post and any Twitter member who questioned the advice Dr Fauci and company gave during the pandemic. Will we ever forget the experts who knew next to nothing about that virus, yet had the economy shut down and people losing their jobs via mandates. The Post story was true and the government had a hand in censoring the story.
How did you miss that?
Next to nothing??? Why do you think ridiculous hyperbole like this is sensible to post?
Dr. Fauci is one of the leading experts on infectious disease. He knows more about viruses and pandemics than most. The problem was that the entire planet was hit with a new virus that quickly turned into a pandemic and everyone (the entire planet) was scrambling to learn about it and how to best deal with it.
They (experts across the planet) did make recommendations based on their knowledge of infectious diseases and pandemics. And, in case you did not notice, the world did indeed suffer a pandemic even with preventative measures and had to deal with large death tolls, overworked hospital resources (and people), etc. This was a real life and death situation and you pretend as though actions to isolate human beings from each other to mitigate even more spread was unnecessary and grossly irresponsible.
Your complaints about Fauci and the other experts are not only ridiculously unfair but project profound naivety.
Gotta love that hindsight. Apparently anything less than absolute perfection from the get go, ESPECIALLY when dealing with something totally new and that we don 't know much about, is just beneath Vic's standards.
That was my thought too ... what extraordinarily high standards to impose on the medical / biological professionals in contrast to abysmally low standards for who we would choose as PotUS.
Do we have any standards when it comes to POTUS?
Almost none from what I can see.
I would say "alive, and not in prison" but this next race seems likely to blow even that minimal standard away.
Hyperbole and emotion.
Brainwashed and indoctrinated!
Yet the difference is, Sandy only criticized your comment while you insulted her...
See the difference?
It is critically important that one take stock of conspiracy theories one held and the degree to which they have shown to be true given time.
Only than can one take corrective actions to ease back on seeing conspiracies where they might not be and focus more on hypotheses rooted in sound evidence.
Conspiracy theories are often driven by fear. Not healthy, IMO, if the fear is ultimately rooted in an irrational perception of reality.
For example, do you still hold that China intentionally allowed COVID-19 to escape their shores (once it was discovered) because it had the chance to ruin Trump's presidency and that China did not care if they were seen holding the smoking gun on a worldwide pandemic?
Fauci (and, by the same token, Francis Collins) is not the villain, he is a liaison scientist whose objective, during the pandemic, was to mitigate the aggregate harm to the people of our nation.
[deleted]
You seem to have conflated a lot of what I said many months ago. Let us go over it once again, for the tenth time. The virus escaped most likely from the lab. At that point, it was a proven FACT that China took measures to protect it's own people, yet allowed flights to leave China for the rest of the world. There is little chance that it was part of a diabolical plan to take down Trump, but that was one of the results that came out of the pandemic that benefited China. Only a day ago , Janet Yellen raised the possibility of removing some of the Trump tariffs on China. That is where we are.
Fauci (and, by the same token, Francis Collins) is not the villain, he is a liaison scientist whose objective, during the pandemic, was to mitigate the aggregate harm to the people of our nation.
Dr Fauci was the greatest advocate for "Gain of Function" research. He even once said that the research was so valuable that it was worth the risk of the accidental leak of a resulting virus. Collins also believed in the research and wrote a report at the direction of Fauci which dissed the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan. Fauci then cited the report as if it was something that he was surprised to see. His aswers under oath about funding the Wuhan lab were misleading at best. Dr Fauci is partly responsible for the deaths caused by the pandemic. End of story.
Conspiracy theories are often driven by fear. Not healthy, IMO, if the fear is ultimately rooted in an irrational perception of reality.
I hate to sound like Roy Cohn, but what was the name of your teacher in Critical Thinking?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bullshit, what I stated was spot on. You have now changed your story. I suppose that is good, you have at least realized that your conspiracy theory was bogus.
But you are not going to get away with changing your story and accusing me of misrepresenting you:
Here is the most succinct exchange that illustrates your conspiracy theory. The full thread of comments (if one were to read them) makes this even clearer.
" The greatest advocate " is more ridiculous hyperbole. Supporting, categorically, gain of function research in 2012 is profoundly different from violating US regulations and knowingly and willingly supporting said research in Wuhan. Here you are again connecting dots that are miles apart to produce a conspiracy theory.
[DELETED]
I think I'll draw the line with ten. I'm assuming our readers want to hear issues discussed. I'll try to stick with that.