My thoughts: The main holder of Coca Cola is Berkshire Hathaway, so going by Steve and Jimmy Dore’s logic of “you can’t talk badly about someone who’s giving money to you” wouldn’t that mean you couldn’t talk badly about Berkshire, who is also a top stakeholder in American Express, a company in the banking financial services industry?
By taking money from Coca Cola, you are now somewhat beholden to Berkshire, a major holder of numerous companies and brands including Kraft Heinz, American Express etc. By now taking that money, if you speak or behave directly or indirectly about any of the brands in a way that BERKSHIRE investors perceive is hurting profits then your “sponsorship funding” will be cut if you don’t change.
“It’s hard to talk bad about a company that’s giving you money”
Logically, what Steven Oh said at the end about potentially accepting a Coca Cola sponsorship “because he likes Coca Cola” doesn’t align with what they said earlier in the video about “you can’t talk badly about someone who’s giving money to you” and the overall tone of TYT/Aggressive Progressives.
A sponsorship from Coca Cola would likely include, but not limited to: on-screen Coca Cola-only product mandates. Don’t you dare come on that camera with Aquafina (PepsiCo)! Check yourself! Dasani (Coca Cola Brands) only baby!
At which point you can’t lecture about politicians receiving corporate money. What happens when Coca Cola/Berkshire finances a political candidate? Are we going to see nuances in TYT reporting that reflect bias towards Coca Cola/Berkshire candidates in either tone or reporting quantity?
It’s best to not go down that rabbit hole of receiving corporate money and that’s why TYT supports political candidates who receive NO corporate funding rather than those who receive “just a little” corporate funding, right?