Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[ewsieg]

5 hours ago, chasfh said:

I wish I could give you three likes for this one.

The trolliest part of this whole thing was the demand out of nowhere on Sinclair stationery that Kimmel make a substantial personal donation to Charlie Kirk's despicable TPUSA organization. Sinclair has exactly zero direct ties to that outfit, so what the **** was in it for them to demand that?

What's in it is that it helps keep them in the good graces of the FCC and Trump.  They help Trump, Trump will help Sinclair.  

[CMRivdogs]

We have a Sinclair station in our market. I'm going to start keeping a log of commercials during their newscasts. Might even stay up to monitor spot loads during the Kimmel replacement time slot. Then start calling the local car dealers, stores, services I see advertised and let them know I'm starting a campaign to boycott them

It's my first amendment right. Hit them in the pocketbook. Especially if the station's sales reps get told the reason they are no longer getting buys.

[gehringer_2]

15 hours ago, Deleterious said:

1.7 million viewers across 200 affiliates is only 8,500 viewers per affiliate.  Throw an episode of Friends and Seinfeld on and they can do those numbers. 

ABC sells ads based on all 200 affiliates. If a bunch of them no longer show Kimmel they are refunding ad buys while still paying full price to produce his show.  Disney obviously has the means to eat those losses, but they won't want to. 

You also might end up losing some top tier guests. Why go on a show that doesn't reach a good chunk of the country?  

I bet the big affiliates have quiet a bit of power.

but was it the affiliates who wanted it or just Sinclair management?

[VegasTiger]

56 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

We have a Sinclair station in our market. I'm going to start keeping a log of commercials during their newscasts. Might even stay up to monitor spot loads during the Kimmel replacement time slot. Then start calling the local car dealers, stores, services I see advertised and let them know I'm starting a campaign to boycott them

It's my first amendment right. Hit them in the pocketbook. Especially if the station's sales reps get told the reason they are no longer getting buys.

I'm in a bit of a pickle. Mad at ABC, but my NBC station is Sinclair and my CBS station is Nexstar.

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, VegasTiger said:

I'm in a bit of a pickle. Mad at ABC, but my NBC station is Sinclair and my CBS station is Nexstar.

Do what we mostly do - just turn the thing off. You do a lot more living when you stop sitting and watching. And I mean that seriously.

Edited Friday at 09:12 PM by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Wow

Not to worry, he'll repent.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Ted spends more time podcasting than legislating at this point... He understands the precedent being set.

Seriously, how much time do any of those Republican "lawmakers" spend making any law?

[Deleterious]

15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

but was it the affiliates who wanted it or just Sinclair management?

Not sure I understand your question. The affiliates that Sinclair and Nexstar own wanted it because they own them. That equals about 70 combined. No clue what the other 130 wanted. I'm sure quite a few were fine keeping Kimmel on.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

What's in it is that it helps keep them in the good graces of the FCC and Trump.  They help Trump, Trump will help Sinclair.  

Sure, I get exactly why they are doing it. That's not the mystery. The mystery is, how did we as a collective country let everything crash this far this fast.

I think we all intellectually knew that democracy is fragile, but I don't think any of us truly understood that American democracy was this fragile, like an eggshell.

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

We have a Sinclair station in our market. I'm going to start keeping a log of commercials during their newscasts. Might even stay up to monitor spot loads during the Kimmel replacement time slot. Then start calling the local car dealers, stores, services I see advertised and let them know I'm starting a campaign to boycott them

It's my first amendment right. Hit them in the pocketbook. Especially if the station's sales reps get told the reason they are no longer getting buys.

Better hurry, because I don't believe you're going to be able to do that kind of thing for much longer. The regime will designate boycotts as "economic terrorism", or some such rot. And in a very certain narrow sense, it is economic terrorism. But it's not illegal. Not yet.

[LaceyLou]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Do what we mostly do - just turn the thing off. You do a lot more living when you stop sitting and watching. And I mean that seriously.

Time to look at the books thread.

[oblong]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Better hurry, because I don't believe you're going to be able to do that kind of thing for much longer. The regime will designate boycotts as "economic terrorism", or some such rot. And in a very certain narrow sense, it is economic terrorism. But it's not illegal. Not yet.

Musk tried to say when advertisers were leaving twittter. 

[chasfh]

18 minutes ago, VegasTiger said:

I'm in a bit of a pickle. Mad at ABC, but my NBC station is Sinclair and my CBS station is Nexstar.

WGN-TV, the once-vaunted once-superstation once owned by the Chicago Tribune ("World's Greatest Newspaper), is now owned by Nexstar.

How the mighty have fallen. Not unlike WJR-AM.

[chasfh]

Just now, oblong said:

Musk tried to say when advertisers were leaving twittter. 

I remember that, and it's paved the way for the next charge of same.

The argument, specious as it is, has a long history in this country: when black people boycotted offending companies during the wane of the Jim Crow era, they were also referred to as "economic terrorists".

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

but was it the affiliates who wanted it or just Sinclair management?

Sinclair is an affiliate. They are one of the largest ownership groups in the country. It depends on the market what network they pick up.

They were also the one getting the most press on that particular subject.

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Sinclair is an affiliate. They are one of the largest ownership groups in the country. It depends on the market what network they pick up.

They were also the one getting the most press on that particular subject.

right, the question goes to where the decision derived from -- because of feedback to local stations in their system or simply a fiat from corporate management? IOW, who was mad? Local publics or just suits?

Edited Friday at 11:26 PM by gehringer_2

[Deleterious]

35 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

right, the question goes to where the decision derived from -- because of feedback to local stations in their system or simply a fiat from corporate management? IOW, who was mad? Local publics or just suits?

Any public facing phone # or email is going straight to corporate.  I doubt anyone at the local level would have a clue if people were upset or not.  

[CMRivdogs]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

right, the question goes to where the decision derived from -- because of feedback to local stations in their system or simply a fiat from corporate management? IOW, who was mad? Local publics or just suits?

It's the suits. If you look at the political history of Sinclair they tend to go extremely right wing in their editorial view. Also look at political donations from the ownership. 

[oblong]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

right, the question goes to where the decision derived from -- because of feedback to local stations in their system or simply a fiat from corporate management? IOW, who was mad? Local publics or just suits?

Put another way… if the chair of the FCC didn’t say what he said… is there any action by the affiliates?  I don’t think so 

[oblong]

8 hours ago, Deleterious said:

But you are not a big boy, are you?  You are a child with zero self-control that attacks people who disagree with you.  And you don't want to let it go.  The original exchange was over 24 hours ago.  You have posted here since and said nothing, then out of the blue you attack me again.  That isn't letting it go.   That is a child with no self-control.  

Wow so you are a stalker too?  Thats good info to have. I didn’t realize there were rules about time frames and the order in which posts get responded to. I must have been out sick that day in internet school.  
 

What you need to understand is there was no “attacking you again”.  You are not a victim. You directly called me a dumb **** for questioning the foundation of your argument so I responded in kind.  Don’t throw **** if you can handle it being thrown back at you.  That just makes you look weak and feeble.  

[Deleterious]

14 minutes ago, oblong said:

Wow so you are a stalker too?  Thats good info to have. I didn’t realize there were rules about time frames and the order in which posts get responded to. I must have been out sick that day in internet school.  
 

What you need to understand is there was no “attacking you again”.  You are not a victim. You directly called me a dumb **** for questioning the foundation of your argument so I responded in kind.  Don’t throw **** if you can handle it being thrown back at you.  That just makes you look weak and feeble.  

Shocked to see this post.  You said you didn't care to go on with this anymore.  Remember that?  I guess you just meant that as long as you got the last insult in.  You're a man child, so I guess the petulance shouldn't shock me.  

The stalking comment is just odd.  I know you were trying to be funny or whatever.  But you literally replied in threads I was active in.  It's a message board.  People see other people's posts.   It didn't make any sense.  

I do enjoy the lecture about name-calling, though.  From the single biggest name caller on this forum.  I get it, this is the place where you are kind of something.  Nice audience that agrees with you, moderator privileges, you're something here, I guess.  

I will offer an olive branch.  You said you wanted to let it go or move on, whatever you said.  Don't reply and I will forget about it.  You got your last reply, I got mine.  I will leave it up to you if that is the end of it or not.

 

 

[Edman85]

10 hours ago, VegasTiger said:

I'm in a bit of a pickle. Mad at ABC, but my NBC station is Sinclair and my CBS station is Nexstar.

Is this 1974 when those are your only TV options? I don't understand the pickle.

[VegasTiger]

33 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Is this 1974 when those are your only TV options? I don't understand the pickle.

Lol, was in jest. I have no shortage of options.

[mtutiger]

9 hours ago, oblong said:

Put another way… if the chair of the FCC didn’t say what he said… is there any action by the affiliates?  I don’t think so 

Yep, goes back to the point that keeps being made (and ignored) by a different poster: none of this happens without the weight of the federal government pushing to stifle speech

[mtutiger]

4 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Is this 1974 when those are your only TV options? I don't understand the pickle.

Do think you indirectly get at the idea that these actions may be more effective at diminishing the value of legacy media even moreso over anything else.