Set your DVR's

[CosmicBills]

Please stop with the videos in every f'n thread. They slow things up.

Noted

[Joe Miner]

Do a google search on who owns NBC.

 

Comcast?

 

You do realize that people that work for Comcast or NBC don't personally fund the programming?

[DC Tom]

Please stop with the videos in every f'n thread. They slow things up.

 

They don't for me.

 

tgreg, please continue with the videos. Anything that !@#$s up 3rd's connection without affecting mine is a net gain.

[CosmicBills]

Comcast?

 

You do realize that people that work for Comcast or NBC don't personally fund the programming?

Absolutely true, in fact they rarely fun any of their projects, that's what the studios are for. Both Comcast and GE are publicly traded which creates a corporate mentality that permeates throughout the entertainment division. What that means in a creative sense, or in this case a bio-pic sense, is that the only thing that matters to the executives who deal with development is not the material but the potential revenue streams it can create. They have a mandate they must adhere to and with these big congloms, it's about creating content that can resonate across platforms (TV, feature, print, news).

 

So why Hillary then? Besides the obvious name recognition and her rabid base, Hillary is a polarizing figure. Any doc about her will incite a response from multiple "news" outlets from people on both sides of the aisle either defending the doc or blasting it. This feeds into all the cable news outlets and gives them material AND ratings for the month before the doc comes out and the first week or two after. This ups revenues not just in one division but three. A Chris Christie doc or a Joe Biden doc, doesn't have the same impact on the ratings because neither of them has the ability to incite like Hillary does just by name alone.

 

That's the macro level of it. On the micro level, the level where the deal gets made and the idea gets formed, it works differently. But not much. On that level you'll find more of the ideologues but they don't have the power to greenlight anything or budget anything. They can only bring the material to front of the line. The men and women who really decide what appears on your TV screen every night, regardless of genre, are the most risk adverse people on the planet. They think about the bottom line first, second and last. Content, in the abstract, is meaningless. It's about what's going to generate the most income for their parent corporations.

 

This mentality is why movies these days suck.

[Joe Miner]

Absolutely true, in fact they rarely fun any of their projects, that's what the studios are for. Both Comcast and GE are publicly traded which creates a corporate mentality that permeates throughout the entertainment division. What that means in a creative sense, or in this case a bio-pic sense, is that the only thing that matters to the executives who deal with development is not the material but the potential revenue streams it can create. They have a mandate they must adhere to and with these big congloms, it's about creating content that can resonate across platforms (TV, feature, print, news).

 

So why Hillary then? Besides the obvious name recognition and her rabid base, Hillary is a polarizing figure. Any doc about her will incite a response from multiple "news" outlets from people on both sides of the aisle either defending the doc or blasting it. This feeds into all the cable news outlets and gives them material AND ratings for the month before the doc comes out and the first week or two after. This ups revenues not just in one division but three. A Chris Christie doc or a Joe Biden doc, doesn't have the same impact on the ratings because neither of them has the ability to incite like Hillary does just by name alone.

 

That's the macro level of it. On the micro level, the level where the deal gets made and the idea gets formed, it works differently. But not much. On that level you'll find more of the ideologues but they don't have the power to greenlight anything or budget anything. They can only bring the material to front of the line. The men and women who really decide what appears on your TV screen every night, regardless of genre, are the most risk adverse people on the planet. They think about the bottom line first, second and last. Content, in the abstract, is meaningless. It's about what's going to generate the most income for their parent corporations.

 

This mentality is why movies these days suck.

 

I agree with pretty much all that.

 

I think our disagreement hinges around the idea that politics plays a larger part in a production idea than money. Outside of the 1 post after our discussion began I don't believe anyone was trying to say that politics trumped money. We might disagree on just what the importance of politics is in this scenario, but the idea that the political leanings of a program or movie would cause a network to air a known financial loss is a bit absurd.

 

NCB, CBS, or even Fox News isn't going to air something that they know is going to lose them money.

 

As big a douche as Immelt may or may not be, he's not going to consider airing a financial albatross.

[OCinBuffalo]

I agree with pretty much all that.

 

I think our disagreement hinges around the idea that politics plays a larger part in a production idea than money. Outside of the 1 post after our discussion began I don't believe anyone was trying to say that politics trumped money. We might disagree on just what the importance of politics is in this scenario, but the idea that the political leanings of a program or movie would cause a network to air a known financial loss is a bit absurd.

 

NCB, CBS, or even Fox News isn't going to air something that they know is going to lose them money.

 

As big a douche as Immelt may or may not be, he's not going to consider airing a financial albatross.

Not to be a bigger douche than Immelt, but, he was CEO of GE. GE sold NBC to Comcast. (GE took a PR hit for their behavior with Obama, and then they took a market share hit = cut their losses and sold NBC.)

 

Comcast has already lowered the boom on the more psychotic/dishonest leftists at NBC News. Look for more heads to roll as Comcast is a quality company, and they aren't about to let a bunch of tools ruin a business line. I'm guessing many of NBC's anchors/hosts will probably get the boot over the next 18 months.

 

There's nothing wrong with liberal analysis shows. In fact, I think it's important, when considering the solution to a problem, to hear from as many...informed...people as you can, and to make that group as diverse as it can be. However, there is plenty wrong with inconsistency, double standards, omission/denial of fact, and outright lies, coming from a small group of people with no interest in solutions.

 

MSNBC had a chance to deliver quality. They delivered crap. Primarily because they lived off of pointing out other people's failings, and not off of doing their own jobs well.

[CosmicBills]

I agree with pretty much all that.

 

I think our disagreement hinges around the idea that politics plays a larger part in a production idea than money. Outside of the 1 post after our discussion began I don't believe anyone was trying to say that politics trumped money. We might disagree on just what the importance of politics is in this scenario, but the idea that the political leanings of a program or movie would cause a network to air a known financial loss is a bit absurd.

 

NCB, CBS, or even Fox News isn't going to air something that they know is going to lose them money.

 

As big a douche as Immelt may or may not be, he's not going to consider airing a financial albatross.

Fair. The element that amuses me the most, and remember this when we get closer to the docs coming out, is the frothing at the mouth from the talking heads on both sides of the aisle. You're going to hear Rush and the Fox News of the world decrying this as dirty politics while the clowns on MSNBC / CNN will be claiming to be completely above the political fray. The reality will be that the Rush's and Fox News LOVE that these docs are being made as much as the MSM that slants left. It's win-win for both sides and a big win for the bottom line of all involved.

 

They like to stir us up. Hell, they focus on that more than they focus on reporting the news these days because an angry audience is an engaged audience.

 

 

Not to be a bigger douche than Immelt, but, he was CEO of GE. GE sold NBC to Comcast. (GE took a PR hit for their behavior with Obama, and then they took a market share hit = cut their losses and sold NBC.)

 

Comcast has already lowered the boom on the more psychotic/dishonest leftists at NBC News. Look for more heads to roll as Comcast is a quality company, and they aren't about to let a bunch of tools ruin a business line. I'm guessing many of NBC's anchors/hosts will probably get the boot over the next 18 months.

 

There's nothing wrong with liberal analysis shows. In fact, I think it's important, when considering the solution to a problem, to hear from as many...informed...people as you can, and to make that group as diverse as it can be. However, there is plenty wrong with inconsistency, double standards, omission/denial of fact, and outright lies, coming from a small group of people with no interest in solutions.

 

MSNBC had a chance to deliver quality. They delivered crap. Primarily because they lived off of pointing out other people's failings, and not off of doing their own jobs well.

All of that was by design. Just as it was for Fox News when Murdoch started up Sky news years ago. There's a market for that kind of "news", someone will always step up (or down depending on your feelings) to fill it.

[DC Tom]

All of that was by design. Just as it was for Fox News when Murdoch started up Sky news years ago. There's a market for that kind of "news", someone will always step up (or down depending on your feelings) to fill it.

 

Also why LarouchePAC, Jeff Rense, and Russia Times are confined to the intratubes.

[OCinBuffalo]

All of that was by design. Just as it was for Fox News when Murdoch started up Sky news years ago. There's a market for that kind of "news", someone will always step up (or down depending on your feelings) to fill it.

Of course it was. The distinction: Fox has better people, who've done the job for years. Fox has talent. You can get all riled up at a guy like Hannity...but then, consider: Hannity riles you up, every single night. That's talent.

 

When I watch MSNBC, all I do is laugh. I laugh at how pathetic they are, and often find myself thinking: "Christ, I could have delivered that better, liberal slant and all. They completely missed what would have been a hard hitting point, and went for the silly cheap shot instead." You see it all the time in their interviews. They are often acting, like how they think Fox "acts". The difference is: Fox people aren't acting, in general, and they are secure in what they say, because they've done their homework. MSNBC people don't have enough talent to do their own thing, and they clearly don't do the homework. They do this weird, off-putting caricature of what they perceive Fox does. This is why MSNBC people keep making headlines for their idiocy.

 

Oh sure, the liberal columnists say that Fox people are acting. But that is because liberal columnists are too narrow-minded to consider that other points of view can be valid, and that Fox people are secure in their POV. It's this fundamental misperception of what a Liberal analysis outfit must be, that keeps them failing.

 

MSNBC basically failed for the same reason Air America did: inferior talent, that they pulled off the street, from other jobs = ex-schills, PR people, comedians, etc. None of these people ever had any real success in news/analysis prior to going on MSNBC besides Chris Mattews. And, because Matthews knows the job, he's currently saying whatever he can to try and get attention, and save his job. He will fail sooner or later.

 

Oh sure, you can say O'Reilly is a witless crumudgeon, but, for the demographic he owns(and he does), he is perfect. 14 years of #1 or whatever doesn't happen by accident. O'Reilly saw an opportunity and he hit it, and, he's changed his style over the years to gather in even bigger audiences.

 

Roge Ailes(Murdoch has little to do with Fox New's sucess) is no fool. He knows that if you put out a quality product vs. a hateful, spiteful, douche-fest, you're going to win.

Edited August 15, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[TakeYouToTasker]

tgreg:

 

The entertainment arms of these massive conglomerates are used as propaganda machines that buy them favor and privlidge with the government entities that regulate them in other areas of their businesses. GE doesn't care that MSNBC runs at a loss as an individual entity, because the content they run buys them preferential treatment which makes them billions of dollars within the larger framework of their business structure.

[OCinBuffalo]

tgreg:

 

The entertainment arms of these massive conglomerates are used as propaganda machines that buy them favor and privlidge with the government entities that regulate them in other areas of their businesses. GE doesn't care that MSNBC runs at a loss as an individual entity, because the content they run buys them preferential treatment which makes them billions of dollars within the larger framework of their business structure.

Until they were busted repeatedly = paying 0 taxes, doing exactly that. Then, MSNBC went from asset to liability.

 

We know what happens to people/products/business lines that do that. Or, at least you and I know.

 

In this case, MSNBC was sold for cheap to Comcast both to clear GE's books, and their name. And, Immelt went elsewhere as well. As far as he is concerned, the man oversaw a significant decrease in GE stock price during his tenure. IIRC, the largest in the history of the company. I don't see how any of this = good.

 

In the final analysis: No. MSNBC was not a good investment, and ended up costing NBC--->GE much more than it was worth.