[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe,
You’ve outdone yourself. This is your moronic best.
Todd[/quote]
Pardon? Because I don’t watch movies?
Todd:
You cannot pick and choose from the source material in your effort to run me down; it only makes you look silly in the end.
Todd - You’re comparing an old dog with a new hungrier, faster one.
No one is denying the profitability of CNN, but they are not as profitable as Fox News now, nor will they be in the future.
I don’t think Fox is trying to be the biggest kid on the block - just the most profitable.
CNN has been on the air since at least the late 80’s. They got their validation during GWI - remember Wolfie hiding under his desk as bombs exploded over head?
Compare that with Fox News - I don’t ever remember watching them until election night in Nov. 2000. After that night they became my go to news channel. I don’t think I’m unique in that either.
While Turner’s revenue may be increasing - his market share is not. At least not at the rate it has. If your little graph is any indication of market share - the are actually losing market share whil at the same time increasing revenue.
I could only hope that Turner would go conservative, but that is only hope - not a business model.
Did you click on the all links such as the one for Ownership?
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_ownership.asp?media=5&cat=5
By asking if you sat still long enough, I was simply wondering if you’d read all the topics in that article; your comments looked as if you may not have. Besides, I have a great deal of compassion for people who can’t sit still, I wouldn’t pick fun of you.
It is ironic, as one point in the article was that Fox viewers tended to watch for longer spans vs. the CNN viewing audience.
no, I just read the article. It was that article we were discussing. One loooong page. Lots of charts. Stuff like that.
The part that seems relevant to the issue we were discussing is what I cut and pasted.
I’ll go read your link now.
[quote]Bodhisattva wrote:
Did you click on the all links such as the one for Ownership?
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_ownership.asp?media=5&cat=5
By asking if you sat still long enough, I was simply wondering if you’d read all the topics in that article; your comments looked as if you may not have. Besides, I have a great deal of compassion for people who can’t sit still, I wouldn’t pick fun of you.
It is ironic, as one point in the article was that Fox viewers tended to watch for longer spans vs. the CNN viewing audience.
[/quote]
BTW, something that strikes me from the link you posted v. what you said earlier about Fox needing to divest themselves of the “talk radio” image–one of the talk shows so called “Fox News Radio” would carry is Alan Colmes, card carrying lefty loon.
How does that square?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Todd - You’re comparing an old dog with a new hungrier, faster one.
No one is denying the profitability of CNN, but they are not as profitable as Fox News now, nor will they be in the future.
I don’t think Fox is trying to be the biggest kid on the block - just the most profitable.
CNN has been on the air since at least the late 80’s. They got their validation during GWI - remember Wolfie hiding under his desk as bombs exploded over head?
Compare that with Fox News - I don’t ever remember watching them until election night in Nov. 2000. After that night they became my go to news channel. I don’t think I’m unique in that either.
While Turner’s revenue may be increasing - his market share is not. At least not at the rate it has. If your little graph is any indication of market share - the are actually losing market share whil at the same time increasing revenue.
I could only hope that Turner would go conservative, but that is only hope - not a business model.[/quote]
I agree. All of the trends suggest that Fox is going to become the most profitable cable news network. The evidence seems incontrovertible on that point.
However, the financial success of Fox is largely due to its much smaller information collecting network (5 agencies compared to CNN’s 26) and reliance on show programs as opposed to drier forms of information reporting. The conservative slant was Fox’s method of getting to the table, but their programming choices and lower budgetary costs are what have driven their successes.
Todd
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Do you really want to offer this article as proof? Even the author admits that the gap between CNN and Fox is all but obliterated.
The graph that is offered only estimates for 2004. I would expect that CNN, after a healthy 10 run as the darling of Cable News will be in a solid 2nd place after 2005.
Were I supporter of your thinking, and I read that report, I would be seeking shelter to avoid the huge crash.
Yeah, the gap is closing. But it is still 110 million dollars wide!
given the reasons for the gap as stated in your article, I don’t think I’d be trumpeting it. But then again, you’ve got a strange thought process…
[/quote]
Joe,
This comment was you at your moronic best. I apologize for the previous ambiguity.
Todd
Talk radio is subjective, leftys and rightys. Fox has a lot of these programs. Talk radio is not news reporting. Which is why it noted that Fox needs to divest themselves of that format.
I read the whole article, all of the headings and links, even the footnotes and references, I thought I should read all the info before posting any feedback. I didn’t realize I was supposed to stop at one page of it, gather a couple facts, and start posting.
Todd,
“So let me get this straight. Massive debt, which is create by budgets that the President either approves or vetoes, is not under the direct control of the President?”
Sure it is.
When did I say it wasn’t?
Deficits, not necessarily.
[quote]Bodhisattva wrote:
Talk radio is subjective, leftys and rightys. Fox has a lot of these programs. Talk radio is not news reporting. Which is why it noted that Fox needs to divest themselves of that format.
I read the whole article, all of the headings and links, even the footnotes and references, I thought I should read all the info before posting any feedback. I didn’t realize I was supposed to stop at one page of it, gather a couple facts, and start posting.
[/quote]
that’s okay, since I didn’t realize we were supposed to read the entire entire thing and the footnotes etc.
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Do you really want to offer this article as proof? Even the author admits that the gap between CNN and Fox is all but obliterated.
The graph that is offered only estimates for 2004. I would expect that CNN, after a healthy 10 run as the darling of Cable News will be in a solid 2nd place after 2005.
Were I supporter of your thinking, and I read that report, I would be seeking shelter to avoid the huge crash.
Yeah, the gap is closing. But it is still 110 million dollars wide!
given the reasons for the gap as stated in your article, I don’t think I’d be trumpeting it. But then again, you’ve got a strange thought process…
Joe,
This comment was you at your moronic best. I apologize for the previous ambiguity.
Todd
[/quote]
Todd, 2 things.
- Did you read the article you posted? I don’t believe you did.
Considering the amount of growth Fox is poised and predicted to do–at the expense of CNN. - Are you the same Todd Jacobs that came home early and found me in bed with his wife and 16 year old daughter…?
Cause if you are, that explains a lot.
Like I tried to tell you at the time, I didn’t know she was married, and they told me they were sisters.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,
“Typically people regard stock market crashes, recession, unemployment, corruption, and massive debt as bad things, just for future reference.”
And educated people typically know that certain economic phenomena are not under the direct control of the President of the United States and judge so accordingly.
[/quote]
You’ve got to be kidding. This was a response to how great the 80’s were. They weren’t. He must of meant the 90’s
http://www.public-i.org/telecom/default.aspx
Interesting article. While it does confirm the liberal bias, it also supports the idea that the media corporations are being funded by politically minded wallets, and that the politicians are being funded by the media corporations.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
JohnGullick wrote:
Are there not more important things to worry about that media bias for Christ’s sake? Trying to paint it as ‘John Kerry was so crap he couldn’t even win with a media bias!’ is so lame. Bush is still sitting in his ranch thinking ‘Ha! I took them to a phony war for oil after a stolen election, repeatedly broke international law and increased the federal deficit but they still voted me in! Ha, the loosers!’
This is it! I found it! THE most ignorant post for the month of March. I’m sure even with a couple of more weeks in the month no one will topple this piece of work…LOL
[/quote]
Oh dear Zeb.
[quote]Bodhisattva wrote:
http://www.public-i.org/telecom/default.aspx
Interesting article. While it does confirm the liberal bias, it also supports the idea that the media corporations are being funded by politically minded wallets, and that the politicians are being funded by the media corporations. [/quote]
I agree whole-heartedly with that without even bothering to read the article!
100meters,
“You’ve got to be kidding. This was a response to how great the 80’s were. They weren’t. He must of meant the 90’s.”
The 80s were so horrible that Reagan got defeated in 1984 after doing such a terrible job in his first four years and because he was responsible for all those awful economic events.
Didn’t he?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
I agree whole-heartedly with that without even bothering to read the article![/quote]
How can you agree with something you haven’t read?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
I agree whole-heartedly with that without even bothering to read the article![/quote]
Didn’t you say that funding sources are market driven? Now you say you whole-heartedly agree with this article you don’t bother to read. You are contradicting yourself.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Todd:
You cannot pick and choose from the source material in your effort to run me down; it only makes you look silly in the end.
[/quote]
Joe,
This would be a good comeback if:
A. I had done that
B. You hadn’t been doing this for the duration of our exchanges
Unfortunately for you, neither is the case!
Sorry!
Todd