06-07-2015 03:48 AM
167 ... 34567
tools
  1. anon8126715's Avatar
    What's the fundamental difference between commercials and underwriting spots? Right now only 5% of their funding comes from government, so clearly not much would change.
    I'd much rather have a media outlet that isn't sponsored by drug companies, big oil, or other influential entities. What good is a news organization that's being influenced in its reporting other than to coral the sheep?
    01-22-2015 12:08 PM
  2. palandri's Avatar
    01-22-2015 12:12 PM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I'd much rather have a media outlet that isn't sponsored by drug companies, big oil, or other influential entities. What good is a news organization that's being influenced in its reporting other than to coral the sheep?
    Add "government" to that list and I would completely agree with you. The job of News stations and the media in general is to keep the powers that be in check. Whether it be private or public entities. Corruption is a universal problem.

    Sent from my XT1096
    01-22-2015 12:25 PM
  4. SteveISU's Avatar
    I'd much rather have a media outlet that isn't sponsored by drug companies, big oil, or other influential entities. What good is a news organization that's being influenced in its reporting other than to coral the sheep?
    That doesn't answer the question. What's the fundamental difference between a commercial and an underwriting spot?
    01-22-2015 12:32 PM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    Add "government" to that list and I would completely agree with you. The job of News stations and the media in general is to keep the powers that be in check. Whether it be private or public entities. Corruption is a universal problem.

    Sent from my XT1096
    Definitely, government needs to stay out of it as well, else we'll start to look like North Korea. One of the problems with news stations like NPR and other media outlets is that reporting the news in a "Vanilla" style doesn't bring in the ratings. People want snippy dialog, they want commentary that agrees with theirs. In the process we have people that will spout off whatever the "quip of the day" is and echo the sentiments of their favorite news station. I'll try to tune into NPR on occasion and I swear it's like taking melatonin.
    01-22-2015 12:48 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    Fox needs to stop employing talking heads whose only mission seems to be topping the other talking heads in some sort of contest of who can say the most outlandish thing.
    Would you recommend that people drop Fox News from their cable TV subscription? Maybe people should also boycott companies that advertise on Fox?

    I've also wondered if Fox News is closely affiliated with the other divisions of Fox, like 20th Century Fox Film Corporation (the company that distributes movies like Life of Pi and Gone Girl) and Fox Television (which distributes shows like Glee and Bones).
    01-22-2015 02:50 PM
  7. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Would you recommend that people drop Fox News from their cable TV subscription? Maybe people should also boycott companies that advertise on Fox?

    I've also wondered if Fox News is closely affiliated with the other divisions of Fox, like 20th Century Fox Film Corporation (the company that distributes movies like Life of Pi and Gone Girl) and Fox Television (which distributes shows like Glee and Bones).
    Boycott companies? Nah. That usually isn't too effective. Stop watching? I wouldn't mind that. Not because I think conservatives shouldn't have a news station, but because Fox is a poor representation of one. I think this stems from being the only conservative game in town when it comes to cable news. It makes them sloppy in their news gathering. It would be nice if there was some more competition out there to keep them on their toes more. I think they'd be better for it.

    This assumes that any competition was decent. If they put crazy on the air too and tried to outdo each other in outlandish claims we'd be right back where things are now.

    Posted via Android Central App
    01-22-2015 03:37 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    Boycott companies? Nah. That usually isn't too effective.
    I thought the threat of a boycott over Arizona SB 1062 was effective. If Governor Jan Brewer didn't veto it, SB 1062 could have allowed people to refuse service to LGBT people due to religious objections. The mere threat of a boycott was too much, which is why Governor Brewer had to veto the bill.
    01-22-2015 06:35 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    That doesn't answer the question. What's the fundamental difference between a commercial and an underwriting spot?
    Well considering that most funding has been stripped away by a certain party, I guess public broadcasting needs to find money somewhere. How would you propose they get their funding while maintaining the integrity of what they report?
    01-22-2015 06:40 PM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    It would be nice if there was some more competition out there to keep them on their toes more. I think they'd be better for it.
    That seems fair. If there were more conservative news channels, you might find one that you would like. More competition is good.
    01-22-2015 06:52 PM
  11. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I thought the threat of a boycott over Arizona SB 1062 was effective. If Governor Jan Brewer didn't veto it, SB 1062 could have allowed people to refuse service to LGBT people due to religious objections. The mere threat of a boycott was too much, which is why Governor Brewer had to veto the bill.
    That was a very different situation. They were afraid of the NFL pulling the Superbowl from their state. Individuals not watching would have a limited effect because not enough would participate. Just not the same impact as losing the most watched sporting event in the country and all the local tax dollar revenue that comes with it.

    Posted via Android Central App
    01-23-2015 01:04 AM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    They were afraid of the NFL pulling the Superbowl from their state.
    Could we use the NFL and the Superbowl to facilitate change? For example, could the NFL say that they will never host a Superbowl in any state that does not legalize gay marriage? Furthermore, if states do not change their laws within 30 days to make gay marriage legal, the Superbowl ban will be in effect for 10 years? I'm only using gay marriage as an example, and we could substitute other issues if necessary.
    01-23-2015 07:47 PM
  13. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Could we use the NFL and the Superbowl to facilitate change? For example, could the NFL say that they will never host a Superbowl in any state that does not legalize gay marriage? Furthermore, if states do not change their laws within 30 days to make gay marriage legal, the Superbowl ban will be in effect for 10 years? I'm only using gay marriage as an example, and we could substitute other issues if necessary.
    Sure. But why the 10 year limit? Although the marriage issue isn't a good example because one, it's well on it's way to being decided and two, because the NFL isn't exactly the most progressive on this issue. But they are on race. And I do see your point.

    Posted via Android Central App
    01-25-2015 03:24 PM
  14. SteveISU's Avatar
    Well considering that most funding has been stripped away by a certain party, I guess public broadcasting needs to find money somewhere. How would you propose they get their funding while maintaining the integrity of what they report?
    That still doesn't answer the question. There is no difference. So to insinuate that somehow one is better than the other because they don't run commercials in the traditional sense (making them beholden to corporations) is a convoluted take on how NPR gets funding. They have been able to stay in business with 5% funding from the government, it's chief fundraising executive was caught on camera stating NPR would be better off without federal funding. It's time to cut the last few fibers of that umbilical cord then.
    01-26-2015 02:35 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    That still doesn't answer the question. There is no difference. So to insinuate that somehow one is better than the other because they don't run commercials in the traditional sense (making them beholden to corporations) is a convoluted take on how NPR gets funding. They have been able to stay in business with 5% funding from the government, it's chief fundraising executive was caught on camera stating NPR would be better off without federal funding. It's time to cut the last few fibers of that umbilical cord then.
    And at that point I'd say they'd be the same as everyone else. I personally wouldn't mind seeing NPR funded 100% by the government. It would let me temper their delivery of the news with that of say Fox or MSNBC. So you're ok with news organizations being beholden to only corporate America? I can see where having a news organization being sponsored exclusively by a government could be fraught with peril, but having corporate greed sponsored media somehow scares me a little more.
    01-26-2015 05:58 PM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    Sure. But why the 10 year limit? Although the marriage issue isn't a good example because one, it's well on it's way to being decided and two, because the NFL isn't exactly the most progressive on this issue. But they are on race. And I do see your point.
    The 10 year limit is an arbitrary number, and we can certainly adjust that. I just wanted to convey a sense that if the states do not reverse their bans on gay marriage, the NFL would impose a punishment (via boycott) severe enough to make the states take notice.

    Going back to Fox News, I found some interesting data that shows that in 2013, Fox took in more advertising revenue ($776.4 million) than CNN ($319.8 million) or MSNBC ($226.7 million).

    Pew Research Center -- Cable TV: Advertising Revenues for Cable News Channels (website link)

    Certainly, it would be difficult to boycott enough companies to have an adverse effect on Fox's bottom line. It makes me wonder if a lot of people like Fox News so much that they buy a lot of products that the sponsors advertise.
    01-26-2015 11:41 PM
  17. SteveISU's Avatar
    And at that point I'd say they'd be the same as everyone else. I personally wouldn't mind seeing NPR funded 100% by the government. It would let me temper their delivery of the news with that of say Fox or MSNBC. So you're ok with news organizations being beholden to only corporate America? I can see where having a news organization being sponsored exclusively by a government could be fraught with peril, but having corporate greed sponsored media somehow scares me a little more.
    Government sponsored or fully controlled media works well in the middle east (present) and in the 1930's and 40's.
    01-27-2015 09:54 AM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    That watching football was more important. Russia, the PLA, and Saudi Arabia were there for god sake. The man's foreign policy has been a joke. There isn't a foreign head of state we can say we have a better relationship with since he's been in office. Extend an olive branch for the love of god.
    True, sometimes it's just better to go in person. While I'm sure John Kerry and James Taylor did their best when they went to France, they are no substitute for the President.

    Hey, did they already have the funeral for King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? I heard President Obama was going to attend the funeral.
    01-27-2015 04:54 PM
  19. palandri's Avatar
    True, sometimes it's just better to go in person. While I'm sure John Kerry and James Taylor did their best when they went to France, they are no substitute for the President.

    Hey, did they already have the funeral for King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? I heard President Obama was going to attend the funeral.
    I read Obama attended along with his wife, but Michelle was was not acknowledged and was blurred out on Saudi TV. There should be a video of it.

    Here's the video. I have no idea if it's authentic:

    Scott7217 likes this.
    01-27-2015 05:31 PM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    I read Obama attended along with his wife, but Michelle was was not acknowledged and was blurred out on Saudi TV. There should be a video of it.

    Here's the video. I have no idea if it's authentic:

    I wonder how many Saudi men looked at that footage the way we used to look at the "nekkie" cable channels when they used to try to scramble the feed...."OMG I think I saw nipple....or some other squiggly line looking thing...."


    Or I wonder if they were all like, "Meh seen that and more in National Geographic"....
    palandri likes this.
    01-27-2015 06:22 PM
  21. SteveISU's Avatar
    True, sometimes it's just better to go in person. While I'm sure John Kerry and James Taylor did their best when they went to France, they are no substitute for the President.

    Hey, did they already have the funeral for King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? I heard President Obama was going to attend the funeral.
    Yes, he attended that funeral. However we're comparing a head of state to a newspaper editor in France. We have vital interests in Saudi Arabia, we have to keep supporting and propping up that family or else things will go from horrifically bad to catastrophic in that region.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    01-28-2015 10:05 AM
  22. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I read Obama attended along with his wife, but Michelle was was not acknowledged and was blurred out on Saudi TV. There should be a video of it.

    Here's the video. I have no idea if it's authentic:

    She wasn't even acknowledged by most of the men there in person. Man after man shook the president's hand, only to walk right past the first lady as if she wasn't even there. She also had to walk slightly behind the president. A truly despicable backwards culture that is centuries out of date.

    Posted via Android Central App
    palandri and Scott7217 like this.
    01-29-2015 01:47 AM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    She wasn't even acknowledged by most of the men there in person.
    Was it a mistake for President Obama to attend King Abdullah's funeral in Saudi Arabia if so many people were ignoring Michelle Obama? Should he have skipped it like he skipped the Charlie Hebdo rally?
    01-30-2015 05:46 PM
  24. A895's Avatar
    Was it a mistake for President Obama to attend King Abdullah's funeral in Saudi Arabia if so many people were ignoring Michelle Obama? Should he have skipped it like he skipped the Charlie Hebdo rally?
    Nope, that oil too precious.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    Scott7217 likes this.
    01-30-2015 07:49 PM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    Nope, that oil too precious.
    This is why the government will propose more offshore drilling in the US.

    CNBC -- White House to Propose Allowing Oil Drilling Off Atlantic Coast (website link)
    01-30-2015 08:47 PM
167 ... 34567

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2014, 06:08 PM
  2. [ICONS][APEX/NOVA/ACTION/GO Launcher] DjSkarpia FREE SUI Icon Theme 1400 Icons
    By Andrea Corvi in forum Wallpapers, Ringtones, and Themes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2014, 02:40 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD