"Deplorable" says TRUMP, that DirectTV de-platformed Newsmax and OANN

notmyfault2020

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2022
6,542
3,210
893

I didn't know about this but it hardly surprises anyone.

It was supposedly for "cost cutting reasons" but Trump says it was political. Gee... Why would he think that? Hmmmm... Go figure...

:45:

Site:

Newsmax was seeking a small license fee, as the nation's 4th highest-rated cable news channel.

Well, remind me not to ever do business w/ DirectTV
I am joining a growing number of those "cutting the cable" I have been subjected to the same crap by DISH and I've had enough. I can stream, many times for free, everything that DISH is offering. Where I have to pay for the service it adds up to less than half of what DISH is charging per month. These companies are in the process of getting their come uppance.
 
A LOT of people care that conservative voices are being suppressed - and hidden from voters. This is America; not China.

It's good that a baker can refuse to bake a cake but it's bad that a cable service can decide to not carry a channel?
 
Normal Americans doent want to watch the Trump worship stations, so they lose money. I thought you guys were all for the free market.
 
It's good that a baker can refuse to bake a cake but it's bad that a cable service can decide to not carry a channel?
False equivalency. The cable service removed, unilaterally, a channel that was part of the line up that customers had previously contracted for. The baker shared no contract, real or implied. The customer was clearly able to go to another baker. The cable customer, in many instances were locked into potentially years long contracts and forced to pay for a service they were no longer receiving. I know its a tough concept for those who have been indoctrinated by the left.
 
False equivalency. The cable service removed, unilaterally, a channel that was part of the line up that customers had previously contracted for. The baker shared no contract, real or implied. The customer was clearly able to go to another baker. The cable customer, in many instances were locked into potentially years long contracts and forced to pay for a service they were no longer receiving. I know its a tough concept for those who have been indoctrinated by the left.

Channels have always came and went. Especially ones no one watches.
 
It's good that a baker can refuse to bake a cake but it's bad that a cable service can decide to not carry a channel?
A baker is an individual deciding whom to serve.

A media network colluding with the government to silence conservative voices, in order to help Dems win elections, is a violation of the First Amendment.
 
If they were making money, they would not go anywhere. Nothing more disgusting than RWer victimhood.
Among a host of other topics, you also aren't very knowledgeable about, is how contracts work between cable providers and the companies who own the channels that they offer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top