mtutiger

There are legitimate questions around land use, I know we've had cases where villages near where we live have intervened in areas which are agricultural in nature but could be developed for future subdivisions and housing for instance. But at the same time, we have seen instances of people complaining when these developments are happening on land that it isn't conducive to farming as well, and that just strikes me as people signaling their politics more than any actual legitimate complaints. Good example is that we had an announcement in the village I live in about a month ago of a solar farm development on a swampy piece of land with land that has seen farm activity in the past but isn't necessarily the most ideal for it (zoned Industrial, adjacent to the Illinois River/I&M Canal). And not only is the company coming in to develop the solar farm, they are also funding the reconstruction of a road that had been abandoned for 15 years that would provide a better connection for some residents to access the town adjacent (Morris, IL) and vice versa. Despite the obvious benefits of this development both in terms of tax revenue, energy generation and reconstruction of a village/county road connection being paid for by the development, the usual people on Facebook still whined and cried about it.

Worth noting that listening to the radio this morning, I heard another car dealership hawking "tariff free" deals.... months after Liberation Day This is the kinda stuff that I'm talking about....

Conservatives will argue (not totally incorrectly) that mainstream media leans left and is adversarial toward Trump, but it's pretty clear there is a Sam and Ralph dynamic to it. (ie. The old Looney Tunes cartoon where they'd punch in, go at each other, and clock out at the end of the episode) At the end of the day, Trump drives ratings and makes the media a lot of money... Conventional politicians don't. Hard to ignore when evaluating how the media covers him

Case in point: the trade deals he's cut being framed as "wins" despite the end result of you and I having to pay more for goods. The thing dogging Trump is that "Liberation Day" cemented the idea with the public that tariffs are bad for consumers and make things more expensive, and given that tariffs are a big part of his political identity, as well as his subsequent actions, the public largely has negative vibes toward him on the issues. Not hard to figure out. The media or column inches or what have you matter less than his own actions. Which have even chaotic and incoherent from the jump on trade

I understand his numbers, but given that he's already wildly unpopular on the issue of tariffs, I don't know that I agree with the premise that more columns about tariffs is going to further drive down his approval ratings... it stands to reason that you have to wedge him on other issues. Whether that's Epstein, immigration, detention camps, etc. Or perhaps weave a broader narrative from all of these issues into one cohesive message. Either way, even if it isn't top of mind for most Americans, I don't think it's helpful to Trump... and it plays into some broader narratives that are exemplified by things like tariffs, such as that he's all about the billionaires and not about the average American.

Unironically yes

The numbers with Hispanics are notable given how he performed in 2024 with that group... it would set off alarm bells for a normal political party

The degree to which Trump has lost popularity because of tariffs and the economy to-date probably has less to do with column inches and more to do with people's actual finances. As far as the Epstein stuff is concerned, no it doesn't help him and Nate, like many people, equates Trump's base with the entire universe of Trump voters, not all of whom are Trump's base. I don't think any of this stuff helps with the latter group.

The NFL package will hold up, but I have doubts about the other programming... particularly on the news side of the business. We shall see.

Yeah, it can't go ignored that they spent literal years cultivating this story. Only to now pivot that it isn't expedient and doing so in the least transparent and most suspicious ways ever. It shouldn't be surprising that the story isn't going away

Also worth nothing that the "employee" in question was a minor who went on to become a sex slave for his good buddy Jeffrey Epstein. Interesting that Archie glossed over that as if this was akin to a white collar firm poaching a middle manager. I don't even know if I buy the premise (Epstein was a MAL member until 2007) but this stuff is morally indefensible regardless

As bad as the merger is, I wouldn't be surprised if the end result is seeing their ratings tank.

Another reason why the lamestream media (ie. The Times) declaring the controversy over based on the words of Steve Bannon seems a little premature

Oh indeed

In the larger context of Paramount's merger talks, I don't know how anyone can claim with a straight face and with 100% metaphysical certitude that their personnel decision has nothing to do with Trump.

As far as Colbert goes, I am not worried about him, someone will hire him and get a foothold into his viewership. While CBS will be showing 30 minute timeshare ads after the 10:00 news lol

This is exactly right. My only point is there is risk as well insofar that doing things like pushing out the highest rated late night host on television (for transparently obvious reasons), gutting 60 minutes, etc. harms the brand to the point where the pros might not be worth the cons. Washington Post is a good example here - since October of last year, they are largely worse off as a brand and are getting their lunch money taken by the WSJ and the Times. Personally, I think these entities would be better off telling him to go **** off, particularly since he's proven time and again that even if you deal with him, he'll always come back and ask for more.

It's a sign that the people running Paramount don't have any balls or scruples. And we shouldn't be surprised if their business suffers for it in the long run. (see: law firms who settled with Trump vs. those who didn't)

It's meant to be a mock of Vance

I think it's important to remind ourselves that we are not only alone and that, despite him winning in November, the majority of people largely don't approve of this ****. And that success in a political sense needs to be measured; there's never going to be a moment where the scales just magically fall from people's eyes, that's not how our politics has ever been wired... even Bush in 2008 still retained around 30%. But that every little bit does count. As much flak as they got from various elites in social media, that's one of the values that No Kings brought in that it got people out and socializing with others who feel the same way. Probably the most discouraging thing, believe it or not, isn't the American public as a whole and how they have responded since January, it's the elites, particularly in media, who have shown themselves to have zero backbone or scruples. We all knew this was the case, but watching how the Paramount shakedown has played out, how really no price in the negotiation ever seems to be high enough for Trump, and how Shari Redstone keeps saying "thank you sir, may I have another" has been a real blackpill. Bill Paley and Ed Murrow would be rolling in their graves.