REAL Whistle Blower FIRED In Act of Retaliation In Violation of Whistle Blower ACT

[easyt65]

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders.

Many, if not most, of America's media / 'news agencies' are owned by foreign entities and / or individuals who have an obvious, non-hidden objective, primarily a liberal progressive intolerant socialist objective, one that more and more pushes 1 narrative, 1 voice, blocks / 'kills' any other voice / message, and which - as we just saw - fires any of its members who dare give the public insight into the truth, whether accidentally or intentionally.

Bullshit.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
- 2018

This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources. That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.

Some things never change.....


How five American companies control what you think
-2014

Heavy distortions and suppressions of information regarding current Ukrainian events are appearing in US media. The explanation is surprisingly simple: There aren't numerous US mass media news sources at all; there are just five. Five giant corporations control 90 percent of US mass media. And direct links connect all five of these media conglomerates to the political establishment and the economic and political power-elites of the United States.

These five conglomerates are Time Warner, Disney, Murdochs' News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS). Their control spans most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, movie studios, and much of the web news content of the United States. These conglomerates are in large measure responsible for inculcating the social, political, economic, and moral values of both adults and children in the United States.

How five American companies control what you think


5 Corporations and THEIR hand-picked puppet-masters / CEOs / Directors control what the majority of the US Population hears and believes.....Welcome to the MSM

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Clinton isn't a Democrat?

Clinton was running for office?

Again, the story wasn't about 'Clinton". It was about "Epstein" and "the British royal family". Clinton is a bit player in it, like Alan Dershowitz and a couple of other lawyers and victims. Nobody cares what the fuck political party they were with.

Except of course on this board where Composition Fallacies are passed around like popcorn.

If thats the case why did they kill the story?

Because they didn't want to get sued? This isn't the GOP propaganda channel or your silly radio demagogues....

Yet they report fake news constantly and never get sued.
I thought the media was protected?

The hell they do, super duper. It's just that your propaganda machine react to suing by saying they are simply opinion and entertainment. Wake up and smell the coffee d******.

I wont bother posting all the fake news your media has put out there since it's well known.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Where's any connection here to "Democrats"? Or to political parties at all?

Or didn't you think of that?

Good gods do I have to think of EVERYTHING around here??

/——-/ You think ABC is run by Tea Party Conservatives and not democRATs???

No. You see, I'm not self-enslaved to that childish binary world where all matter is comprised of either "Republicans" or "Democrats". Rather what I already KNOW is that ABC, like any other network, is run by corporate profit-seekers. The point is not that that leans them conservative, although it does, the point is that what ABC, or any commercial broadcast network exists for, is PROFIT. That means selling commercials. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THEM.

A Clear Channel executive put it this way, after asking one of his Program Directors the definition of "programming" --
"Programming is the shit we run between commercials".

NOBODY IN THE COMMERCIAL BROADACST WORLD makes a dime off their ideology. They make them from selling dick drugs, monster trucks, cosmetics and all kinds of other shit you don't need. That's the system, that's how it works.

And we already did this. Read and learn.

So yes you are claiming that, in your ignorance, because I can tell you right here and now, NOBODY makes a damn dime from "activism", whether "Progressive" or anything else. They make their money from selling you shit you don't need like dick drugs, stupid phones and pickemup trucks big enough to tow a meteorite. And to sell you that shit they will present whatever pap keeps you planted there until the sponsor gets the floor.

THAT is how it works, and that's what ratings are for.

And that leads us directly back to the network pushback of "nobody knows who he (Epstein) is". That means the network has to first EXPLAIN who he is, and that costs viewership, and ratings go down, and they can't charge as much for commercials, as they can when the feature the latest missing white girl or naked people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs.

Your ridiculous paranoia fantasies of "they're all out to get me" are ironically true --- they ARE out to get your money. They don't give a flying shit about what's left of your mind.

TSDR

If ratings were the goal -
News networks would all adopt the FoxNews Playbook.
They would rather be activists than have ratings.
All you need to do is look.
Other than airports - no one is watching CNN
No one is watching MSNBC

No idea what "TSDR" is supposed to mean but yes, so-called "news" networks HAVE adopted the Fox Noise model. That's a perfect illustration. Before Roger What-Ailes-Ya bubbled up Fox Noise, CNN was holding the position of news source with its idea of 24 hour coverage so we didn't have to wait for the 6pm network news.

But doing news -- REAL news -- is expensive. You need to hire reporters, fly them around with production crews, trucks, satellite phones, you need to open and maintain foreign bureaus, all that shit. That's why the old traditional Huntley-Brinkley-Cronkite network news shows were all subsidized by the mindless Gilligan's Islands and Beverly Hillbillies, because that's where the money was. The newscasts were loss leaders. Just there for PR so that a given station, come license renewal time, could tell the FCC, "See? We're serving the public interest as the license requires, look at all these news shows".

And of course being on cable, the Foxes and CNNs don't need broadcast licenses anyway so they're relieved of the mandate to operate "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" as licensees are.

Rupert Murdoch, who made his fortune selling sleazy tabloid rags, bubbled up the idea of, instead of spending all that money on actual news, plopping some talking heads down in a studio to talk ABOUT the news, rather than actually report it. MUCH cheaper. He came up with a gossip channel which, instead of gossiping about celebrities, gossips about politicians. It's always about people, not policy. That's a direct Appeal to Emotion.

Roger Ailes candidly put it this way: "If two guys are on a stage and one guy says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

That's why all those garish Romper Room colors festoon the set. That's why the women are all facing the camera in short skirts. That's why all those suggestive chyrons are dancing across the screen. That's why the talking heads are pounding their fists on the desk and speaking in three octaves. All that shit SELLS. Emotion sells. Sex sells. Suggestive shit plants seeds and the colors keep you awake. And then ---- BAM, buy this dick drug. That's the game, Gumball. It's all manipulative psychology. Commentary --- which is where Fox Noise makes all its money --- is cheap, because as the old maxim says, TALK IS CHEAP.

And that's why ratings exist.

CNN, to its discredit, saw what Fox Noise was doing and adopted some of the same shit. MSNBC came along and switched from its far-right position that Fox already had, to the other side to milk a different audience. ALL of them are in it for the goal of maximizing viewership, simply because the more hypnotized drones you have, the more you can charge the advertiser for time. Ratings measure attention. If my network can deliver more eyeballs than yours, then I can charge more for a commercial. Simple as that. How I get those eyeballs could be bimbos in short skirts in a garishly colored studio with suggestive chyrons running amok, it could be naked people on an island forced to eat bugs, it could be here's the results of the paternity tests, it could be dancing with the who-cares. Doesn't matter, they're all there for the same goal.

THAT, Virginia, is how they work and what they work for. Not fucking "activisim", which makes ZERO money.

There would be no advertising without viewership. The MSM knows that the more outrageous their stories the more suckers they can fool into watching their bullshit opinions which they pawn off as journalism.

yes all respected media and journalists around the world are wrong, only your high school grad ex-cokehead DJ's know the truth. You people are absolutely unbelievable in your ignorance and Duperee... Your whole imaginary planet is about to blow up all your conspiracy theories and the deep State etc etc. Poor America.

/——-/ Progs would kill for Rush's audience and influence.

 

[easyt65]

yes all respected media and journalists around the world are wrong, only your high school grad ex-cokehead DJ's know the truth. You people are absolutely unbelievable in your ignorance and Duperee... Your whole imaginary planet is about to blow up all your conspiracy theories and the deep State etc etc. Poor America.

5 Biggest Lies From Liberal Journalists

One of my favorites:
The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples


Another good one Dems / the MSM / snowflakes will hate:

96 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List | Sharyl Attkisson


Liberal ‘lies’ about President Trump

16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won


Yeah, Liberal anti-Trump rags are the shining example of journalistic integrity and ensured-accurate reporting

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If thats the case why did they kill the story?

Judging by what her producer told her, ratings. That's what "nobody knows who he is" means. Because explaining to an audience who he is, would take up too much time and be too much of a challenge to hold interest, and that means losing viewers, and that means losing money.

So it's not about reporting the news.

Not for a commercial entity, no. What'd I just say? It's ALWAYS about money.

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders. It isn't required to run this story or not run that story. Consequently it will run what sells.

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Bullshit!!!
There primary objective is to pump out propaganda for the dem party.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Clinton isn't a Democrat?

Clinton was running for office?

Again, the story wasn't about 'Clinton". It was about "Epstein" and "the British royal family". Clinton is a bit player in it, like Alan Dershowitz and a couple of other lawyers and victims. Nobody cares what the fuck political party they were with.

Except of course on this board where Composition Fallacies are passed around like popcorn.

If thats the case why did they kill the story?

Because they didn't want to get sued? This isn't the GOP propaganda channel or your silly radio demagogues....

Yet they report fake news constantly and never get sued.

Such as?

You mean like the Weather Channel not disclosing that a Sharpie hurricane was going to wipe out Alabama?

Lame dodge...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Judging by what her producer told her, ratings. That's what "nobody knows who he is" means. Because explaining to an audience who he is, would take up too much time and be too much of a challenge to hold interest, and that means losing viewers, and that means losing money.

So it's not about reporting the news.

Not for a commercial entity, no. What'd I just say? It's ALWAYS about money.

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders. It isn't required to run this story or not run that story. Consequently it will run what sells.

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Fox Rush Savage etc etc make money from propaganda I don't know what you mean. Our television media is pathetic, they don't have foreign offices and foreign reporters anymore for all practical purposes. And fox MSNBC and CNN save tons of money by just having talking heads all day. Extremely divisive and gives way too much air time to conspiracy theories r
and misinformation of the GOP.

I stopped watching FUX a loooong time ago!!!
But show me where they've had to retract stories because they were obviously fake?

 

[Leo123]

yes all respected media and journalists around the world are wrong, only your high school grad ex-cokehead DJ's know the truth. You people are absolutely unbelievable in your ignorance and Duperee... Your whole imaginary planet is about to blow up all your conspiracy theories and the deep State etc etc. Poor America.

"All respected journalists" were making fun of Trump running for President and saying Hillary was a shoo-in.........and guess what? They were all full of shit.

"All respected journalists" were sure of Trump/Russia collusion......and guess what? They were full of shit.

"All respected journalists" thought Adam Schiff's rendition of the Trump/Ukraine call was what really happened......and guess what? They were all full of shit.

You believe all that and guess what?......You become full of shit too.

 

[Pogo]

Where's any connection here to "Democrats"? Or to political parties at all?

Or didn't you think of that?

Good gods do I have to think of EVERYTHING around here??

/——-/ You think ABC is run by Tea Party Conservatives and not democRATs???

No. You see, I'm not self-enslaved to that childish binary world where all matter is comprised of either "Republicans" or "Democrats". Rather what I already KNOW is that ABC, like any other network, is run by corporate profit-seekers. The point is not that that leans them conservative, although it does, the point is that what ABC, or any commercial broadcast network exists for, is PROFIT. That means selling commercials. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THEM.

A Clear Channel executive put it this way, after asking one of his Program Directors the definition of "programming" --
"Programming is the shit we run between commercials".

NOBODY IN THE COMMERCIAL BROADACST WORLD makes a dime off their ideology. They make them from selling dick drugs, monster trucks, cosmetics and all kinds of other shit you don't need. That's the system, that's how it works.

And we already did this. Read and learn.

Not because they are corporate owned
Because they are proven progressive activists.

So yes you are claiming that, in your ignorance, because I can tell you right here and now, NOBODY makes a damn dime from "activism", whether "Progressive" or anything else. They make their money from selling you shit you don't need like dick drugs, stupid phones and pickemup trucks big enough to tow a meteorite. And to sell you that shit they will present whatever pap keeps you planted there until the sponsor gets the floor.

THAT is how it works, and that's what ratings are for.

And that leads us directly back to the network pushback of "nobody knows who he (Epstein) is". That means the network has to first EXPLAIN who he is, and that costs viewership, and ratings go down, and they can't charge as much for commercials, as they can when the feature the latest missing white girl or naked people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs.

Your ridiculous paranoia fantasies of "they're all out to get me" are ironically true --- they ARE out to get your money. They don't give a flying shit about what's left of your mind.

TSDR

If ratings were the goal -
News networks would all adopt the FoxNews Playbook.
They would rather be activists than have ratings.
All you need to do is look.
Other than airports - no one is watching CNN
No one is watching MSNBC

No idea what "TSDR" is supposed to mean but yes, so-called "news" networks HAVE adopted the Fox Noise model. That's a perfect illustration. Before Roger What-Ailes-Ya bubbled up Fox Noise, CNN was holding the position of news source with its idea of 24 hour coverage so we didn't have to wait for the 6pm network news.

But doing news -- REAL news -- is expensive. You need to hire reporters, fly them around with production crews, trucks, satellite phones, you need to open and maintain foreign bureaus, all that shit. That's why the old traditional Huntley-Brinkley-Cronkite network news shows were all subsidized by the mindless Gilligan's Islands and Beverly Hillbillies, because that's where the money was. The newscasts were loss leaders. Just there for PR so that a given station, come license renewal time, could tell the FCC, "See? We're serving the public interest as the license requires, look at all these news shows".

And of course being on cable, the Foxes and CNNs don't need broadcast licenses anyway so they're relieved of the mandate to operate "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" as licensees are.

Rupert Murdoch, who made his fortune selling sleazy tabloid rags, bubbled up the idea of, instead of spending all that money on actual news, plopping some talking heads down in a studio to talk ABOUT the news, rather than actually report it. MUCH cheaper. He came up with a gossip channel which, instead of gossiping about celebrities, gossips about politicians. It's always about people, not policy. That's a direct Appeal to Emotion.

Roger Ailes candidly put it this way: "If two guys are on a stage and one guy says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

That's why all those garish Romper Room colors festoon the set. That's why the women are all facing the camera in short skirts. That's why all those suggestive chyrons are dancing across the screen. That's why the talking heads are pounding their fists on the desk and speaking in three octaves. All that shit SELLS. Emotion sells. Sex sells. Suggestive shit plants seeds and the colors keep you awake. And then ---- BAM, buy this dick drug. That's the game, Gumball. It's all manipulative psychology. Commentary --- which is where Fox Noise makes all its money --- is cheap, because as the old maxim says, TALK IS CHEAP.

And that's why ratings exist.

CNN, to its discredit, saw what Fox Noise was doing and adopted some of the same shit. MSNBC came along and switched from its far-right position that Fox already had, to the other side to milk a different audience. ALL of them are in it for the goal of maximizing viewership, simply because the more hypnotized drones you have, the more you can charge the advertiser for time. Ratings measure attention. If my network can deliver more eyeballs than yours, then I can charge more for a commercial. Simple as that. How I get those eyeballs could be bimbos in short skirts in a garishly colored studio with suggestive chyrons running amok, it could be naked people on an island forced to eat bugs, it could be here's the results of the paternity tests, it could be dancing with the who-cares. Doesn't matter, they're all there for the same goal.

THAT, Virginia, is how they work and what they work for. Not fucking "activisim", which makes ZERO money.

There would be no advertising without viewership. The MSM knows that the more outrageous their stories the more suckers they can fool into watching their bullshit opinions which they pawn off as journalism.

All correct up to the point of "their bullshit opinions". While that might be true of the Fox Noises and MSNBCs, (a) they don't pass those off as journalism --- ask Sean Hannity about that --- and (b) they have many more ways than that to do it, including inane game shows, pseudo-psychoanalytical Dr. Phil shows, and scary monster stories from the Weather Channel about how that tornado will kill you tomorrow. All of them do the same thing --- mine the emotions and get you personally invested. Because once you're invested, you're not going to find out where your investment is going, until you sit through this commercial for this drug you don't need.

But no, journalism is not commentary and commentary is not journalism. Actual journalism, actual news, contains no emotional investment at all. It's simple straightforward facts. That's why it doesn't "sell".

 

[Pogo]

So it's not about reporting the news.

Not for a commercial entity, no. What'd I just say? It's ALWAYS about money.

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders. It isn't required to run this story or not run that story. Consequently it will run what sells.

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Fox Rush Savage etc etc make money from propaganda I don't know what you mean. Our television media is pathetic, they don't have foreign offices and foreign reporters anymore for all practical purposes. And fox MSNBC and CNN save tons of money by just having talking heads all day. Extremely divisive and gives way too much air time to conspiracy theories r
and misinformation of the GOP.

I stopped watching FUX a loooong time ago!!!
But show me where they've had to retract stories because they were obviously fake?

Shirley Sherrod comes immediately to mind. So does Sean Hannity's fake footage busted by Jon Stewart.

Let alone all the fake chyrons...

​

Again --- all mining the emotions.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Not for a commercial entity, no. What'd I just say? It's ALWAYS about money.

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders. It isn't required to run this story or not run that story. Consequently it will run what sells.

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Fox Rush Savage etc etc make money from propaganda I don't know what you mean. Our television media is pathetic, they don't have foreign offices and foreign reporters anymore for all practical purposes. And fox MSNBC and CNN save tons of money by just having talking heads all day. Extremely divisive and gives way too much air time to conspiracy theories r
and misinformation of the GOP.

I stopped watching FUX a loooong time ago!!!
But show me where they've had to retract stories because they were obviously fake?

Shirley Sherrod comes immediately to mind. So does Sean Hannity's fake footage busted by Jon Stewart.

Let alone all the fake chyrons...

​

Again --- all mining the emotions.

So no links?

 

[Pogo]

Such as? You mean like the Weather Channel not disclosing that a Sharpie hurricane was going to wipe out Alabama?

No, like the Director of the CIA, one of the heads of the entire US Intelligence Community Directors, reporting for 2 years that the President is a 'compromised Russian agent'...and when it is proved he isn't that same CIA Director is allowed to say, "Well, I'm glad it was proved he isn't - my bad."

'I'm glad he isn't - my bad for saying so'?!

Talk about horrific Intel and a complete inability to acquire any correct legitimate Intel.....THIS, again coming from possibly the # 2...3...4 Intelligence Directors in the US Govt & he went around for 2 years committing Sedition without knowing if it was true or not.....facilitated by CNN...and he got to keep his job (for a while)...and Dems / snowflakes got pissed he was fired after this?

No, like declaring lies to be true without even attempting to fact-check them, resulting in retraction after retraction, fired employees (warranted and not), and ratings dropping through the floor due to obvious partisanship and a lack of credibility.....

You're actually sitting here telling us the Director of the CIA is the MSM?

Oh do go on please. Don't let me interrupt.

 

[francoHFW]

Clinton was running for office?

Again, the story wasn't about 'Clinton". It was about "Epstein" and "the British royal family". Clinton is a bit player in it, like Alan Dershowitz and a couple of other lawyers and victims. Nobody cares what the fuck political party they were with.

Except of course on this board where Composition Fallacies are passed around like popcorn.

If thats the case why did they kill the story?

Because they didn't want to get sued? This isn't the GOP propaganda channel or your silly radio demagogues....

Yet they report fake news constantly and never get sued.
I thought the media was protected?

The hell they do, super duper. It's just that your propaganda machine react to suing by saying they are simply opinion and entertainment. Wake up and smell the coffee d******.

I wont bother posting all the fake news your media has put out there since it's well known.

Post one thing LOL. Everything you know is garbage breaking Hillary Obama Lerner the FBI the CIA are honest, Trump and the propaganda GOP are the swamp duh.

 

[Pogo]

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders.

Many, if not most, of America's media / 'news agencies' are owned by foreign entities and / or individuals who have an obvious, non-hidden objective, primarily a liberal progressive intolerant socialist objective, one that more and more pushes 1 narrative, 1 voice, blocks / 'kills' any other voice / message, and which - as we just saw - fires any of its members who dare give the public insight into the truth, whether accidentally or intentionally.

Bullshit.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
- 2018

This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources. That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.

Some things never change.....


How five American companies control what you think
-2014

Heavy distortions and suppressions of information regarding current Ukrainian events are appearing in US media. The explanation is surprisingly simple: There aren't numerous US mass media news sources at all; there are just five. Five giant corporations control 90 percent of US mass media. And direct links connect all five of these media conglomerates to the political establishment and the economic and political power-elites of the United States.

These five conglomerates are Time Warner, Disney, Murdochs' News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS). Their control spans most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, movie studios, and much of the web news content of the United States. These conglomerates are in large measure responsible for inculcating the social, political, economic, and moral values of both adults and children in the United States.

How five American companies control what you think


5 Corporations and THEIR hand-picked puppet-masters / CEOs / Directors control what the majority of the US Population hears and believes.....Welcome to the MSM

Gee Wally, thanks for a trip down Memory Lane to a pale imitation of stuff I've been posting about in Media for years here. Takes me back. I'm gettin' all misty.

Unfortunately the only foreign company other than Murdoch's NewsCorp mentioned there is Bertelsmann, which does own a big chunk of music companies as I well know, but nothing in the world of North American broadcasting.

And none of them --- not Viacom, not Time Warner, not Bertelsmann, not even Murdoch --- makes a damn penny from ideology "agendas". Which is what I pointed out in the first place. There ain't no money in that.

 

[Pogo]

Where's any connection here to "Democrats"? Or to political parties at all?

Or didn't you think of that?

Good gods do I have to think of EVERYTHING around here??

/——-/ You think ABC is run by Tea Party Conservatives and not democRATs???

No. You see, I'm not self-enslaved to that childish binary world where all matter is comprised of either "Republicans" or "Democrats". Rather what I already KNOW is that ABC, like any other network, is run by corporate profit-seekers. The point is not that that leans them conservative, although it does, the point is that what ABC, or any commercial broadcast network exists for, is PROFIT. That means selling commercials. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THEM.

A Clear Channel executive put it this way, after asking one of his Program Directors the definition of "programming" --
"Programming is the shit we run between commercials".

NOBODY IN THE COMMERCIAL BROADACST WORLD makes a dime off their ideology. They make them from selling dick drugs, monster trucks, cosmetics and all kinds of other shit you don't need. That's the system, that's how it works.

And we already did this. Read and learn.

TSDR

If ratings were the goal -
News networks would all adopt the FoxNews Playbook.
They would rather be activists than have ratings.
All you need to do is look.
Other than airports - no one is watching CNN
No one is watching MSNBC

No idea what "TSDR" is supposed to mean but yes, so-called "news" networks HAVE adopted the Fox Noise model. That's a perfect illustration. Before Roger What-Ailes-Ya bubbled up Fox Noise, CNN was holding the position of news source with its idea of 24 hour coverage so we didn't have to wait for the 6pm network news.

But doing news -- REAL news -- is expensive. You need to hire reporters, fly them around with production crews, trucks, satellite phones, you need to open and maintain foreign bureaus, all that shit. That's why the old traditional Huntley-Brinkley-Cronkite network news shows were all subsidized by the mindless Gilligan's Islands and Beverly Hillbillies, because that's where the money was. The newscasts were loss leaders. Just there for PR so that a given station, come license renewal time, could tell the FCC, "See? We're serving the public interest as the license requires, look at all these news shows".

And of course being on cable, the Foxes and CNNs don't need broadcast licenses anyway so they're relieved of the mandate to operate "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" as licensees are.

Rupert Murdoch, who made his fortune selling sleazy tabloid rags, bubbled up the idea of, instead of spending all that money on actual news, plopping some talking heads down in a studio to talk ABOUT the news, rather than actually report it. MUCH cheaper. He came up with a gossip channel which, instead of gossiping about celebrities, gossips about politicians. It's always about people, not policy. That's a direct Appeal to Emotion.

Roger Ailes candidly put it this way: "If two guys are on a stage and one guy says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?"

That's why all those garish Romper Room colors festoon the set. That's why the women are all facing the camera in short skirts. That's why all those suggestive chyrons are dancing across the screen. That's why the talking heads are pounding their fists on the desk and speaking in three octaves. All that shit SELLS. Emotion sells. Sex sells. Suggestive shit plants seeds and the colors keep you awake. And then ---- BAM, buy this dick drug. That's the game, Gumball. It's all manipulative psychology. Commentary --- which is where Fox Noise makes all its money --- is cheap, because as the old maxim says, TALK IS CHEAP.

And that's why ratings exist.

CNN, to its discredit, saw what Fox Noise was doing and adopted some of the same shit. MSNBC came along and switched from its far-right position that Fox already had, to the other side to milk a different audience. ALL of them are in it for the goal of maximizing viewership, simply because the more hypnotized drones you have, the more you can charge the advertiser for time. Ratings measure attention. If my network can deliver more eyeballs than yours, then I can charge more for a commercial. Simple as that. How I get those eyeballs could be bimbos in short skirts in a garishly colored studio with suggestive chyrons running amok, it could be naked people on an island forced to eat bugs, it could be here's the results of the paternity tests, it could be dancing with the who-cares. Doesn't matter, they're all there for the same goal.

THAT, Virginia, is how they work and what they work for. Not fucking "activisim", which makes ZERO money.

There would be no advertising without viewership. The MSM knows that the more outrageous their stories the more suckers they can fool into watching their bullshit opinions which they pawn off as journalism.

yes all respected media and journalists around the world are wrong, only your high school grad ex-cokehead DJ's know the truth. You people are absolutely unbelievable in your ignorance and Duperee... Your whole imaginary planet is about to blow up all your conspiracy theories and the deep State etc etc. Poor America.

/——-/ Progs would kill for Rush's audience and influence.

The one that's so flaccid he has to go "SLUT! SLUT! SLUT!" to boost his sagging ratings?

 

[francoHFW]

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Fox Rush Savage etc etc make money from propaganda I don't know what you mean. Our television media is pathetic, they don't have foreign offices and foreign reporters anymore for all practical purposes. And fox MSNBC and CNN save tons of money by just having talking heads all day. Extremely divisive and gives way too much air time to conspiracy theories r
and misinformation of the GOP.

I stopped watching FUX a loooong time ago!!!
But show me where they've had to retract stories because they were obviously fake?

Shirley Sherrod comes immediately to mind. So does Sean Hannity's fake footage busted by Jon Stewart.

Let alone all the fake chyrons...

​

Again --- all mining the emotions.

So no links?

every single one of your scandals are phony dipstick, nobody in the real world pays any attention to them anymore. None of them retracted. Nobody in the real world believes any Democrat is a criminal.law enforcement has no interest in them anymore either -everything's been investigated and immediately it was found that they're total garbage propaganda. Only you idiots believe any of it.

 

[Pogo]

Judging by what her producer told her, ratings. That's what "nobody knows who he is" means. Because explaining to an audience who he is, would take up too much time and be too much of a challenge to hold interest, and that means losing viewers, and that means losing money.

So it's not about reporting the news.

Not for a commercial entity, no. What'd I just say? It's ALWAYS about money.

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders. It isn't required to run this story or not run that story. Consequently it will run what sells.

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Bullshit!!!
There primary objective is to pump out propaganda for the dem party.

If that's what you need to tell yourself as you suck your thumb and rock yourself to sleep, that's on you.
All I can do is lead you to the water.

 

[Pogo]

Clinton was running for office?

Again, the story wasn't about 'Clinton". It was about "Epstein" and "the British royal family". Clinton is a bit player in it, like Alan Dershowitz and a couple of other lawyers and victims. Nobody cares what the fuck political party they were with.

Except of course on this board where Composition Fallacies are passed around like popcorn.

If thats the case why did they kill the story?

Because they didn't want to get sued? This isn't the GOP propaganda channel or your silly radio demagogues....

Yet they report fake news constantly and never get sued.

Such as?

You mean like the Weather Channel not disclosing that a Sharpie hurricane was going to wipe out Alabama?

Lame dodge...

I had one of them once.
It was green.

 

[Billiejeens]

So it's not about reporting the news.

Not for a commercial entity, no. What'd I just say? It's ALWAYS about money.

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders. It isn't required to run this story or not run that story. Consequently it will run what sells.

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Bullshit!!!
There primary objective is to pump out propaganda for the dem party.

If that's what you need to tell yourself as you suck your thumb and rock yourself to sleep, that's on you.
All I can do is lead you to the water.

Can you drown yourself in it?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So it's not about reporting the news.

Not for a commercial entity, no. What'd I just say? It's ALWAYS about money.

ABC, or any other TV network, is beholden to its stockholders. It isn't required to run this story or not run that story. Consequently it will run what sells.

Than [sic] they aren't news agencies they're propaganda outlets.

No, they're commercial whores. Their prime directive is to sell ads for as much money as they can. To do that they'll run whatever they think you'll sit there and get hypnotized over. Conversely they won't run what they think won't do that.

I've been explaining to you klowns all day, NOBODY ANYWHERE makes money from propaganda. The only propaganda that translates to cash is that which tells you to go buy a monster truck that can tow an asteroid.

Bullshit!!!
There primary objective is to pump out propaganda for the dem party.

If that's what you need to tell yourself as you suck your thumb and rock yourself to sleep, that's on you.
All I can do is lead you to the water.

You can lead a liberal to knowledge but you cant make em think.