The Media Industry
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
And you voted for the sexual predator rather than the enabler. See how that works?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That last sentence is pretty sad and speaks strongly to the enabling of misogynists like our POTUS.
What percentage of them are bogus, and how do you know they are bogus?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
There is an assumption they are bogus because they received compensation.
Clearly, there are false accusations but the exception does not make the rule. In Ailes/O'Reilly's case, its attitudes like those displayed above that let the behavior perpetuate uncontrolled.
Really? He's a sexual predator? Proof?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
As much proof as you have for Bill Clinton, accusations and settlements. They both have sordid pasts on this topic.
There's hell of a lot more proof against Clinton than Trump.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
When the Murdoch kids undeniably go center or even slight left they'll create a massive vacuum they'll deeply regret.
Part ways with Hannity and the abrupt revolt is guaranteed. Or being a deep, loyal conservative, Hannity chooses to leave and boost a new conservative network, and they're forked.
The new one would gradually replace Fox and steal a huge share of their viewers. With a robust lineup of Hannity, Larry Elder, Mark Stein, and a few other prominent, largely followed conservatives and it's all over but the crying for Fox News.
Not to mention Fox will be left fighting for market share between the many other avenues on the left. These kids are morons. The far more lucrative route would've been to make the model more conservative in an escalating political climate.
Instead they're gonna finish off the already tinkering base. Megan Kelly and Shep Smith were enough to make conservatives want to bail already. Lose Hannity to a new competitor and Fox becomes CNN before they went radical.
I decided to search online for the Conservative Review TV (CRTV) network that's already offered on my Roku service. Look what I found, other contenders already smell blood in the water...
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill-oreilly-conservative-news-outlets-fox-news-1202390884/
Part ways with Hannity and the abrupt revolt is guaranteed. Or being a deep, loyal conservative, Hannity chooses to leave and boost a new conservative network, and they're forked.
The new one would gradually replace Fox and steal a huge share of their viewers. With a robust lineup of Hannity, Larry Elder, Mark Stein, and a few other prominent, largely followed conservatives and it's all over but the crying for Fox News.
Not to mention Fox will be left fighting for market share between the many other avenues on the left. These kids are morons. The far more lucrative route would've been to make the model more conservative in an escalating political climate.
Instead they're gonna finish off the already tinkering base. Megan Kelly and Shep Smith were enough to make conservatives want to bail already. Lose Hannity to a new competitor and Fox becomes CNN before they went radical.
I decided to search online for the Conservative Review TV (CRTV) network that's already offered on my Roku service. Look what I found, other contenders already smell blood in the water...
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/bill-oreilly-conservative-news-outlets-fox-news-1202390884/
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I didn't make a judgement on the volume of evidence but merely it's existence for both parties. So, I held my nose and voted for the "enabler" while you happily voted for the "perpetrator". That's a pretty ****** statement all around for our POTUS candidate choices.
No, I don't know, but I'm also not presuming that anyone's case is bogus. I do know that sexual harassment cases are hard to win. If a company is paying out seven figures to settle them, it's not likely that they're bogus. That's far beyond nuisance value.
In a country with hundreds of millions of people, I'm sure you'll read about all kinds of things happening. That doesn't mean you should draw general conclusions.
Another "validate Deez" article, but it's too good not to share.
"Indeed, the fastest way to become the next conservative star is to “destroy” the Left, feeding the same kind of instinct that causes leftists to lap up content from John Oliver, Samantha Bee, and Stephen Colbert. Liberals use condescending mockery. Conservatives use righteous indignation. That’s not much of a difference.
The cost has been a loss of integrity and, crucially, a loss of emphasis on ideas and, more important, ideals."
Sad but true.
"Indeed, the fastest way to become the next conservative star is to “destroy” the Left, feeding the same kind of instinct that causes leftists to lap up content from John Oliver, Samantha Bee, and Stephen Colbert. Liberals use condescending mockery. Conservatives use righteous indignation. That’s not much of a difference.
The cost has been a loss of integrity and, crucially, a loss of emphasis on ideas and, more important, ideals."
Sad but true.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Too bad David French didn't decide to run for POTUS earlier. Do conservatives read the National Review anymore?
Some do, but the reality is that it has become too elite and erudite for the modern Republican in the Trump era. It's a shame. I've lamented it for a long time, but few on the Right seem to care about actually convincing people to embrace conservative doctrine on the merits. There is a strong urge to try to righteously bully conservatism into people, and it doesn't work. It rallies the troops and makes them feel good about themselves, but it doesn't expand the tent, because it doesn't persuade anybody to embrace conservatism. National Review actually tries to sell its ideology to others, and the bully factor doesn't work for that, so they don't do it. Accordingly, many on the Right now go with your talk radio people, Sean Hannity, etc.
You have the same attitude. You voted for Clinton!! For you, it's just a matter of being a Democrat or Republican that determines right or wrong.There is an assumption they are bogus because they received compensation.
Clearly, there are false accusations but the exception does not make the rule. In Ailes/O'Reilly's case, its attitudes like those displayed above that let the behavior perpetuate uncontrolled.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Could this be the real reason that Bill O'Reilly was pushed out at Fox News?
Beyond Sexual Harassment, Lesser Known Scandals Could Cost The Murdochs A $14B Deal
Beyond Sexual Harassment, Lesser Known Scandals Could Cost The Murdochs A $14B Deal
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The ESPN layoffs will be "larger than reported"
Clay Travis reported this several weeks ago. ESPN denied it. Indeed, they did more than just deny, they sent their PR after him
Here is Richard Deitsch's post on it --
Clay Travis reported this several weeks ago. ESPN denied it. Indeed, they did more than just deny, they sent their PR after him
Here is Richard Deitsch's post on it --
You are going to be reading a lot about ESPN’s layoffs over the next couple of weeks. It’s a major business story inside and outside the sports media, and there will be significant on-air names affected at ESPN. I’ve heard from people I trust that employees in Bristol will be informed as early as tomorrow. The numbers will be larger than previously reported. It is not a fun story to report.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the ESPN layoffs over the past few weeks since I first wrote about this on March 5. I’m asked on social media daily what names am I hearing. I don’t answer. Most of the questions are not asked maliciously, though the worst of the lot attaches a name to someone they hope loses their job.
As it stands now, my instinct is not to report any names I know before the person announces it themselves. I've struggled with coming to terms on whether that's the right call, but I end up on the side, first and foremost, that you aim not to do harm in journalism. As someone smart in the field told me: Those affected deserve to hang on to the dignity of framing this in their terms and on their timetable. It’s the same I thing I attempted to do when FS1 went through layoffs in March 2016.
I will continue to report on what I know about total staffing deficits, the timing, and why and what the cuts mean. But the only names I’m going to mention are those who either mention it on their own terms, or grant me permission to do so either in print or audio form. Wanted to let you know. Thanks.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the ESPN layoffs over the past few weeks since I first wrote about this on March 5. I’m asked on social media daily what names am I hearing. I don’t answer. Most of the questions are not asked maliciously, though the worst of the lot attaches a name to someone they hope loses their job.
As it stands now, my instinct is not to report any names I know before the person announces it themselves. I've struggled with coming to terms on whether that's the right call, but I end up on the side, first and foremost, that you aim not to do harm in journalism. As someone smart in the field told me: Those affected deserve to hang on to the dignity of framing this in their terms and on their timetable. It’s the same I thing I attempted to do when FS1 went through layoffs in March 2016.
I will continue to report on what I know about total staffing deficits, the timing, and why and what the cuts mean. But the only names I’m going to mention are those who either mention it on their own terms, or grant me permission to do so either in print or audio form. Wanted to let you know. Thanks.
Last edited:
I'm sure the smug, sanctimonious political lecturing on ESJWPN hurts the network. Big businesses used to avoid political controversy because they didn't want to alienate large parts of their market. If I'm buying your toothpaste, why do you care about my politics? I'm not sure why they've decided to reverse that trend, but they're free to do it if their shareholders/owners don't mind throwing money away.
Nevertheless, I think ESPN's problems are much bigger than that. First, I think people are starting to figure out what a scam cable is, and they're dropping it. It's way overpriced for what it is, and there simply isn't much need for it. Streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and streaming devices like the Fire Stick, Google Chromecast, Roku, etc. are doing to cable what they did to Blockbuster Video. Well, if you don't have cable, you don't watch ESPN. Personally, I dropped cable about 5 years ago and haven't missed it at all. In fact, the youngest cable subscriber I know is about 45. People in their 20s and 30s aren't willing to pay for it, but they are willing to pay to have the fastest internet service they can find. That'll tell you something.
Second, there's a lot less need for a network like ESPN. Back in the '80s and early '90s, Sports Center was the only way to find out the scores on sporting events (unless you were OK with waiting to see them in the newspaper the next day) and see highlights. With the rise of the internet and smartphones, you simply don't need Sports Center to see all that. You can get all that on demand, and you don't have to waste your time on junk you don't care about. You don't have to get put to sleep with golf "highlights" to see all the NFL scores. Furthermore, there are ways to see most sporting events through the internet without cable and without ESPN.
Third, ESPN's product just isn't that good. About the only thing they offer that you can't get anywhere else are their sports commentators, and frankly, they're not that good - certainly not good enough to warrant buying a cable subscription. Most of them are loudmouths with delusions of grandeur. If you're a sports fan, do you really need some obnoxious Northeastern jackass like Chris Berman (who was actually one of the better ones) yelling at you with shallow commentary to try to make the game interesting? Personally, I don't. In fact, if I ever watch a game on ESPN again, the first thing I'll probably do is mute the sound.
So the bottom line is that ESPN is in a dying business, and they're going to go the way of other dying businesses like printed newspapers and for the same reasons. They simply aren't necessary. So even if they drop the silly political commentary, it'll only delay the inevitable.
Nevertheless, I think ESPN's problems are much bigger than that. First, I think people are starting to figure out what a scam cable is, and they're dropping it. It's way overpriced for what it is, and there simply isn't much need for it. Streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and streaming devices like the Fire Stick, Google Chromecast, Roku, etc. are doing to cable what they did to Blockbuster Video. Well, if you don't have cable, you don't watch ESPN. Personally, I dropped cable about 5 years ago and haven't missed it at all. In fact, the youngest cable subscriber I know is about 45. People in their 20s and 30s aren't willing to pay for it, but they are willing to pay to have the fastest internet service they can find. That'll tell you something.
Second, there's a lot less need for a network like ESPN. Back in the '80s and early '90s, Sports Center was the only way to find out the scores on sporting events (unless you were OK with waiting to see them in the newspaper the next day) and see highlights. With the rise of the internet and smartphones, you simply don't need Sports Center to see all that. You can get all that on demand, and you don't have to waste your time on junk you don't care about. You don't have to get put to sleep with golf "highlights" to see all the NFL scores. Furthermore, there are ways to see most sporting events through the internet without cable and without ESPN.
Third, ESPN's product just isn't that good. About the only thing they offer that you can't get anywhere else are their sports commentators, and frankly, they're not that good - certainly not good enough to warrant buying a cable subscription. Most of them are loudmouths with delusions of grandeur. If you're a sports fan, do you really need some obnoxious Northeastern jackass like Chris Berman (who was actually one of the better ones) yelling at you with shallow commentary to try to make the game interesting? Personally, I don't. In fact, if I ever watch a game on ESPN again, the first thing I'll probably do is mute the sound.
So the bottom line is that ESPN is in a dying business, and they're going to go the way of other dying businesses like printed newspapers and for the same reasons. They simply aren't necessary. So even if they drop the silly political commentary, it'll only delay the inevitable.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
I just cut mine back to basic because my DirecTV decided that Longhorn Network would only be included in the premium lineup - you know... the one with ALL the pay channels. That thing's days are numbered.
I think the theory used to be "hey, people tune in because they're loud and obnoxious." Turns out, they tuned in because there wasn't any other alternative and they just put up with it.
That racket is definitely going away. If cable companies want to stay in business, they're going to have to offer full a la carte options or certainly close to it. The days of making customers pay for 50 channels of crap to get 2 channels of that they want are definitely numbered.
Furthermore, the days of prohibiting real satellite TV are also numbered. Here in Germany, most people have a satellite dish and a decoder box (costs about €150) that can access hundreds of channels for free. I literally don't know a single human being who pays for a full service tv subscription like cable or bogus satellite service like Dish Network or Direct TV. Kabel Deutschland nominally provides cable TV service, but they're an internet and phone service provider first, not a tv service provider.
I'm not sure when the loudmouth style became "cool," but I always thought it sucked and felt very contrived and inauthentic. I remember watching the 1988 World Series between the Dodgers and A's when Kirk Gibson hit a game winning pinch hit home run with a leg injury so bad he could barely walk and did it off of current Hall of Famer Dennis Eckersley who was in his prime and damn near unhittable. The play by play guy was Vin Scully, who was an old man at the time but didn't retire until last year. His voice got a little animated and raised because it was one of the biggest home runs in history. However, once the ball reached the stands, he went silent and turned up the mic on the crowd, effectively letting 55,000 screaming fans narrate the story and communicate the excitement of the moment with sincerity. He did that for a solid minute before speaking again. I was just a 12 year old kid back then, and I remember the moment and how Scully handled it to this day. To me, that's quality sports broadcasting. These hacks who work for ESPN aren't worthy to polish Scully's mic.
Recent Threads
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 622
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 834
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
