President Donald Trump: The Thread

[StrangeSox]

lmao the idea that the mainstream media has revolutionary leftist views

[StrangeSox]

"revolutionary leftist views"

 

 

Is the media being run by Maoists?

we see the war between third world Maoists and old school marxist-leninists play out daily in the pages of the NYT and WaPo, not the mention the tankie Stalin revisionism constantly spouted on the airwaves!

 

nothing close to actual leftist thought is given airtime/column space in the mainstream media. unless you're counting things like Democracy Now!, but even then that's a tiny fraction of a percent of "the media." The multi-billion dollar media industry is liberal on social issues, generally speaking, and hard line corporatist otherwise.

Edited September 14, 2017 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Trump humiliated Sessions after Mueller appointment

 

Trump berated and humiliated Sessions, calling him an idiot and saying he should resign back in May. Sessions turned in a resignation letter, but Trump ultimately rejected it based on the advice of other senior members. Trump talked about firing Sessions again back in July, but it didn't go anywhere.

[Brian]

All this talk about bias making people in here sound like some snowflakes.

[bigruss]

I wasn't talking about the physical standing of the corporate media HQs. Media is served through the medium of social media. Facebook, twitter, google, YouTube, etc.

 

Good grief.

I honestly didn't pick that up from what you wrote, just an FYI. I inferred it was around geo location and political influence from that area.

[Soxbadger]

I wasn't talking about the physical standing of the corporate media HQs. Media is served through the medium of social media. Facebook, twitter, google, YouTube, etc.

 

Good grief.

 

If you want people to understand your posts, you should take care in writing them in a way that they are easily understandable.

 

That being said, I am still not sure what your saying. Media is not just "social media", media includes television, radio, etc. I also am not sure what Facebook, Twitter, Google (Google owns youtube so somewhat superfluous to state them twice) have to do with mainstream media as none of them are primarily media "creators". I can just as easily find conservative media on each of those platforms as I can find liberal media.

 

Rush Limbaugh has a twitter, facebook and youtube. Is he liberal?

 

Or are you saying that since social media leans more to a younger generation that there is likely more users who are liberal?

Edited September 14, 2017 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

Its like arguing that the reason there are more Disney stores in Chicagoland area than in Kansas is political, while discounting the fact that there is more money to be made in the Chicagoland market.

 

There are more Chik Fil A in Los Angeles than the entire state of Montana, I guess Chik Fil A has a hidden liberal agenda.

Exactly. Even centrist views are considered "liberal leaning" so of course EVERYTHING is going to be viewed as biased toward liberals. It's most of the population.

 

On the plus side There is a gigantic media presence for far right beliefs that the left doesn't get. There are tons of religious and far right channels on every platform.

[Soxbadger]

Exactly. Even centrist views are considered "liberal leaning" so of course EVERYTHING is going to be viewed as biased toward liberals. It's most of the population.

 

On the plus side There is a gigantic media presence for far right beliefs that the left doesn't get. There are tons of religious and far right channels on every platform.

 

You mean like how Joel Osteen is on every Sunday morning?

 

A fun one is that Duck Dynasty was on A&E which is owned by Disney. Because again, Disney cares about money, not politics.

 

And did you know that Freeform, who is owned by Disney, broadcasts 700 Club which is Pat Robertson's talk show.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Did you mean to direct this at me? I stated this hours before you did.

 

Their force feeding of politics just exacerbated their viewership loss. If ESPN was right wing they'd be losing viewers too. It's more the inclusion of politics in their content in general than it is the fact that their bias is leftwing.

 

Impossible to tell, but I am going to defer to Disney's opinion that it is not hurting their viewership. Because I simply dont believe Disney is going to take any action that it thinks will hurt its bottom line. It is a faceless corporation that doesnt care about anything but how to make more money.

[bigruss]

Did you mean to direct this at me? I stated this hours before you did.

 

Their force feeding of politics just exacerbated their viewership loss. If ESPN was right wing they'd be losing viewers too. It's more the inclusion of politics in their content in general than it is the fact that their bias is leftwing.

Is that ESPN's fault or are they just feeding off of trends? Because of the social media platforms, politics have gone into essentially everything. Is ESPN not supposed to talk about Kaep when hundreds of thousands if not millions are arguing online about it?

 

Because if they are "supposed" to talk about it, then where is the line drawn about what they should and should not touch?

 

The fact is, politics has seeped into everything. It doesn't mean they should go fully into it, but fully ignoring the issues of today doesn't seem like the best idea either.

 

And I really don't think that's ESPN's problem, there is a much larger issue when it comes to sports coverage. I do think there is still a market for a SportsCenter type platform, but moreso there is a growing market for better analysis and writing. It's why we see platforms like The Athletic growing so rapidly, and hiring the best writers away from companies like ESPN and CBS. The fact is, that whole media spectrum is going through a lot of painful changes, many of them were exacerbated because of a refusal to change earlier.

[RockRaines]

You mean like how Joel Osteen is on every Sunday morning?

 

A fun one is that Duck Dynasty was on A&E which is owned by Disney. Because again, Disney cares about money, not politics.

 

And did you know that Freeform, who is owned by Disney, broadcasts 700 Club which is Pat Robertson's talk show.

Correct. Sirius (HQ in NYC) broadcasts religious AND extreme right wing shows.

[RockRaines]

So with all the cord cutters, why has MLB Network, NFL Network, FS1 and NBCSN all have increases in viewership since 2012?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulannounc...a-playoffs.html

Because they have nowhere to go but up now that they've finally contracted mainstream events. They've also enjoyed a much larger audience due to increased carriers. Zero of those listed by you have been on basic cable or sat packages

[bigruss]

So with all the cord cutters, why has MLB Network, NFL Network, FS1 and NBCSN all have increases in viewership since 2012?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulannounc...a-playoffs.html

Because, IMO, sports viewership has become segmented.

 

There is an absolute desire to watch games where you want, when you want. And those platforms fit that model.

 

But that's only a fraction of what ESPN is and has been. I don't have the data around their game viewership but I would imagine that hasn't been hit as hard as their additional programming. SportsCenter can be consumed in 5 minutes on your social media platform now, there isn't any need for a 6 hour loop of a "what happened yesterday in sports" show. Too many people have access to that for free, in more places then just their TV now. So what does ESPN do to keep viewership when games aren't on? That's the big question.

[Soxbadger]

So with all the cord cutters, why has MLB Network, NFL Network, FS1 and NBCSN all have increases in viewership since 2012?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulannounc...a-playoffs.html

 

Your statement isnt even factually correct. Every channel you listed besides NFL Network lost viewers last year and in 2016.

 

The more correct statement is that ESPN is losing viewers "faster" and its because all of those channels increased content at the expense of ESPN and other companies.

 

X years ago ESPN basically had a monopoly on live television. Over that time period contracts have shifted and channels like the ones you listed have begun to broadcast live programming. So if in 2010 MLB Network had 0 games and now it has 100, of course its viewership will go up.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Read my post again. You're off here. I didn't say anything about 2016.

 

Youre right. Since 2012 (besides for GOLF) ESPN is the only one who in total has lost. But every network listed has lost viewers since 2016. 2012 is just an arbitrary number, but it does show that those smaller channels breaking up ESPN's monopoly on live sports was one of the major reasons for viewer loss.

[RockRaines]

I have basic cable and have all the networks listed.

Yes, now.

[Quin]

Just an FYI, the hub of the US media is actually DC.

 

Not directed at anyone, just an aside.

[Dick Allen]

So with all the cord cutters, why has MLB Network, NFL Network, FS1 and NBCSN all have increases in viewership since 2012?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulannounc...a-playoffs.html

 

A lot more games being shown than before, and available on more systems than before. Either that or Curt Schilling started scaring them away

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/2...book-pos/205146

Edited September 15, 2017 by Dick Allen

[greg775]

How many wild statements are we going to allow? At some point the fighting words will be answered. With Trump as president don't be surprised at some vicious USA response at some point.

China? How bout stepping up before we drop a few nukes on N. Korea. Them are fighting words from N. Korea ... again. How long can we just ignore them?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-korea-thre...-045536190.html

[illinilaw08]

How many wild statements are we going to allow? At some point the fighting words will be answered. With Trump as president don't be surprised at some vicious USA response at some point.

China? How bout stepping up before we drop a few nukes on N. Korea. Them are fighting words from N. Korea ... again. How long can we just ignore them?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/north-korea-thre...-045536190.html

 

When it's just words? Forever. Do you really want to start World War III because North Korea said some provocative stuff?

[Heads22]

Yup, forever. If they want to start a war, we can and will finish it. No reason to fire a shot before a shot needs to be fired.

[greg775]

When it's just words? Forever. Do you really want to start World War III because North Korea said some provocative stuff?

Their first strike could wipe Hawaii off the map or even parts of the mainland if our defense system doesn't do its job.

 

Yup, forever. If they want to start a war, we can and will finish it. No reason to fire a shot before a shot needs to be fired.

But who gets hit by the first nuke if they fire a few? Their words are fighting words. If we were saying this type of crap to say, China, that North Korea is saying to us, you don't think they'd strike us?

[pettie4sox]

Their first strike could wipe Hawaii off the map or even parts of the mainland if our defense system doesn't do its job.

 

 

But who gets hit by the first nuke if they fire a few? Their words are fighting words. If we were saying this type of crap to say, China, that North Korea is saying to us, you don't think they'd strike us?

 

greg NK will not launch nukes... right now they are on thin ice with even their allies. If they launch anything at anyone, there will be destructive consequences and Kim Jong-un definitely likes to breathe... he isn't suicidal.

[Brian]

Clay Travis really showing how much of a dipstick he is.

[Soxbadger]

Here is an article about ESPN and bias:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/espn-bec...-174132864.html

 

It clears up some of the myths, such as Schilling was treated differently (he was given multiple chances) and that also ESPN commissioned a survey to see if this alleged bias was hurting their ratings ( https://www.espnfrontrow.com/2017/06/espn-r...ias-viewership/ )A few ESPN antagonists (notably people from Fox Sports who have an economic interest in hurting ESPN) have been pushing the narrative about ESPN and liberal bias.

 

But this article goes to pretty much what most people were saying here, Disney is about money. If they thought "bias" was hurting their bottom line they would fix it.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Soxbadger