The Media Industry

This morning one of the Fake News Networks had the title "How Sean Spicer lost his credibility."

CNN Fake News must not see the irony in their statement.
 
I35 said:
This morning one of the Fake News Networks had the title "How Sean Spicer lost his credibility."
Click to expand...

Did they have Captain Obvious saying it? Spicer has become a laughing stock chasing the absurdity of Trump's statements. I'm sure he's a smart person but the pretzel Trump forces him into each and every conference is like watching an impending train wreck. You can see the wreck about to happen but there is nothing anyone can do to prevent it.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Did they have Captain Obvious saying it? Spicer has become a laughing stock chasing the absurdity of Trump's statements.
Click to expand...
Granted, Trump would be the most difficult of all Presidents to spin for but its not a desirable job in general. I still remember Clinton's various Press secretaries having to spin answers for the bimbo scandal of the week. You know its bad when your narrative becomes "character doesn't count". Yeah, not a desirable job.
 
Trump should have hired Laura Ingrahram, who openly campaigned for the press sec. job. She's quick witted, conservative, and loyal. Not a big fan of Spicer.
 
UTChE96 said:
Granted, Trump would be the most difficult of all Presidents to spin for but its not a desirable job in general. I still remember Clinton's various Press secretaries having to spin answers for the bimbo scandal of the week. You know its bad when your narrative becomes "character doesn't count". Yeah, not a desirable job.
Click to expand...

I fully recognize that the job description for the WH Press Secretary is to be the spin artist for the POTUS. It's so stressful that none last the full term for a POTUS. Defending Trump's emotionally driven Twitter rants present unique challenges.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Did they have Captain Obvious saying it? Spicer has become a laughing stock chasing the absurdity of Trump's statements.
Click to expand...

As usual you (the lib) ignored the point about the irony, not who the CNN FAKE NEWS is reporting about. Trust me, CNN fake news have had their head up their a$$ much more than Spicer has the past year.
 
I35 said:
As usual you (the lib) ignored the point about the irony, not who the CNN FAKE NEWS is reporting about. Trust me, CNN fake news have had their head up their a$$ much more than Spicer has the past year.
Click to expand...


Spicer just nailed CNN gal at the WHPB pretty well, saying --

"there's more evidence that CNN colluded with Hillary and her campaign than Trump colluded with Russia."​
 
......and that, what are at this point, false claims of the latter have lead to discovery of Watergate II on the part of the Obama Admin.
 
Some more on ESPN's declining fortunes

"..... Viewership for the 6 p.m. edition of SportsCenter, a bellwether for the franchise, fell almost 12 percent from 2015 to last year, according to Nielsen. Keith Olbermann, the SportsCenter-host-turned-political-commentator, put it bluntly on a podcast last year: “There’s just no future in it.”

SportsCenter is only part of the problem. ESPN has lost more than 12 million subscribers since 2011, according to Nielsen, and the viewership erosion seems to be accelerating. Last fall, ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers in a single month, the most in the company’s history. The losses have helped depress Disney’s stock price—down 7 percent since August 2015, despite a big jump in the company’s film revenue thanks to a string of hits, including the latest Star Wars film, Rogue One. John Malone, the cable entrepreneur and chairman of Liberty Media Corp., has publicly suggested that Disney would be better off selling ESPN.

As subscribers leave the network, and often cable altogether, ESPN is stuck with rising costs for the rights to broadcast games. Programming costs will top $8 billion in 2017, according to media researcher Kagan. Most of that money goes to rights fees through deals that extend into the next decade. Last year profits from Disney’s cable networks, of which ESPN is the largest, fell for the first time in 14 years. The dip was small, about half a percent, but nonetheless alarming. Rich Greenfield, a media analyst at BTIG Research, says ESPN has been “over-earning,” with cable customers paying for the channel as part of their subscription bundle, whether they watch it or not. “It’s pretty clear that the years of over-earning are going to end,” says Greenfield, who’s made a name for himself as an ESPN naysayer. “The question is does it end slowly or fast.”....."​

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...e-future-of-tv-and-they-re-not-really-into-it

600x-1.jpg
 
Mr. Deez said:
The Right is being a bit hypocritical on this Syria attack. I don't remember much conservative support for Obama attacking Syria after the last chemical attack. Not sure why this one is a game changer.
Click to expand...

Yep. R's and D's in congress all clamored that any military action required congressional approval and there was no support for that at the time.

The lack of support included our current POTUS who said this in 2013:
 
Not really sure I know what to think about this situation, as something about it just doesn't feel right. Maybe I'm getting more suspicious after all that's happened in the past couple of years. Regardless, one difference in the attitude may be that frankly it seemed like it happened so quickly that there wasn't a lot of time to evaluate. There were lots of discussions when Obama brought all this up about "red lines" and whether this meant we were committed to ongoing actions, and what our goal was, and frankly I don't remember nearly as much emphasis on showing the impact of the gas. Maybe I'm not remembering it accurately. Anyway, this seems like a lot of people scrambling after the fact to make sense of it, and it sure seems like it plays into the hands of the neocons who seem to be the ones most supportive of this action. And the Sean Hannitys of the world, obviously.
 
And then Seattle comes in on the other side. How exactly is he propping up Putin and Assad by bombing Assad? That's just ridiculous on the face of it.

Whether you think Trump made the right decision or not, he was pretty clear that the events changed his position on Assad. That does happen, from time to time, although yes, that would mean he's now doing what at one time he thought was a bad idea.

I'm not convinced it's still not a bad idea. I guess we'll see.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Not really sure I know what to think about this situation, as something about it just doesn't feel right. Maybe I'm getting more suspicious after all that's happened in the past couple of years. Regardless, one difference in the attitude may be that frankly it seemed like it happened so quickly that there wasn't a lot of time to evaluate. There were lots of discussions when Obama brought all this up about "red lines" and whether this meant we were committed to ongoing actions, and what our goal was, and frankly I don't remember nearly as much emphasis on showing the impact of the gas. Maybe I'm not remembering it accurately. Anyway, this seems like a lot of people scrambling after the fact to make sense of it, and it sure seems like it plays into the hands of the neocons who seem to be the ones most supportive of this action. And the Sean Hannitys of the world, obviously.
Click to expand...

The neocons are surely enjoying this move. There were all the same pictures/videos then as there are now. That's what prompted the "Red Line" from Obama yet he was unable to get Congress to back him up. This left the Obama Admins only recourse a diplomatic solution with Kerry working to remove the chemical weapons which obviously was unsuccessful despite their claims of success.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
And then Seattle comes in on the other side. How exactly is he propping up Putin and Assad by bombing Assad? That's just ridiculous on the face of it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I've ever said that so please don't attribute that to me. If anything I'm simply pointing to the hypocrisy by those that previously wouldn't support a more aggressive stance with Syria yet now do simply because their guy is in the White House. It was a Republican controlled Congress that held Obama back.

Whether you think Trump made the right decision or not, he was pretty clear that the events changed his position on Assad. That does happen, from time to time, although yes, that would mean he's now doing what at one time he thought was a bad idea.

I'm not convinced it's still not a bad idea. I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I have no problem with this action. The only thing that changed for Trump is that now he's sitting in the White House and is more informed. It does show how ignorant Trump has been during the campaign and continues to be on foreign policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top