Says John Cassidy, at The New Yorker, about — speaking of conspiratoriality — what is "only a conspiracy theory."
I've been thinking about the same subject, and I go in a different direction.
First, I don't think it would be called Trump Breitbart News. Trump isn't going to share billing with Breitbart. It will be Trump, just like Bloomberg is Bloomberg and just like the way Trump has put his name — which he obviously loves as a vivid, punchy brand — on all sorts of buildings and merchandise.
Second, I don't think Trump would want to just make some money and to do it looking backward at Fox.I think he'd want something forward-looking and surprising and highly profitable.
Now, it's feeling like a challenge on an episode of "The Apprentice" and Cassidy looks like a member of the losing team.
I don't know if I'd be on the winning team, but here are some things I said on the topic in a discussion thread on Facebook:
If this thing happens I don't think it will be "right wing media." I think these people -- including Trump's children, who are not right wing (I don't think) -- will figure out a way to be very successful by providing a new mix, and it will include some very progressive things -- pro-gay, pro-woman, and some serious class politics....
Who would you put on? I'd like to see Scott Adams have his own show.
Posts
37 comments:
Trump TV, or as the 53% who defeated him call it 'Loser TV'
If he loses, I don't expect to see him in a high profile position again. Even he stated that he plans a long vacation after. I bet it is essentially permanent.
That the Crooked Old Lady is considered a candidate for President is how far we have fallen as a nation.
Trump rallies are Sold out rock concerts, and the Crooked Old Lady rallies are half filled snooze fests. Trump has gotten more votes than any Republican in history, while the Crooked Old Lady got 8 million LESS votes than Obama and had to cheat (with "super delegates" ) to beat the an old Communist. There is no enthusiasm for the crooked Old Lady, and Trump will wipe the floor with her.
The media lies, and the "polls" mean nothing.
Trump Landslide.
How does one ignore the evil acts of the Crooked Old Lady, who has been selling America out to foreign interests for years through her "Foundation"; Who killed an Ambassador (let him be killed and then blamed it on a silly movie) because he knew to much about the weapons running to the "Anti Assad" factions that became ISIS; Who started wars all over the Middle East so that secular Muslim leaders could be replaced with Muslim brotherhood (She and the Usurper Hussein Obama are the creaters of ISIS, and she allows direct influence of the Muslim Brotherhood through her "trusted adviser, and "second daughter" Huma Abedine); Who lied about her illegal personal email server, which is a violation of the law, no matter the "intent", and illegally deleted emails that are property of the American people; Who is for the continued allowed and propagated INVASION of our country by unemployable and unknown third worlders?
This is a complete fantasy and distraction spun out by liberal media NYC types.
Just a way to fill air time and space and avoid boring stuff like tax rates, the scam of taxpayer subsidized Green energy, the triumph of ISIS, the bribery scheme of the Clinton Foundation and 450k dead in Syria.
We need to ignore this CRAP.
News is a business and will do whatever makes money.
Honesty and objectivity is a sales gimmick to make the idiot audience feel good about itself. The aura is all you need.
Blog commenters are the only people you can trust. Everybody else has an angle.
I see what you did there.
How about, "The Trump L'Oeil Network"?
(No?)
The Trump Family Network sounds just right. Have The Donald do the opinion commentary with commentator Roger Stone, and Ivanka do the Online Shopping part, and Eric do the Hunting Show, while Don Jr does the next Presidential Run.
His problem will be working in Alec Jones Show segment and its special guests proving the Earth is Flat and is covered by Chem Trails which are real poison, while The moon Landing was unreal and faked by the same Hollywood group that staged 9/11's special effects so well they look like real airplanes.
What happened to the New Yorker? Didn't they used to have pretentious of seriousness?
News is a business and will do whatever makes money.
News is a loss leader that suckles on the teat of the NFL.
The New Yorker was never supposed to be serious. That would be gauche.
But what if Trump wins? It ain't over 'til it's over. What will Hillary do? Command the swarthy legions and dark dollars of the Clinton Foundation? Prepare us for the future ascension of Chelsea?
Professor, you have a disease. You've been infected with a virus, also known as a bad idea. What is your cure when you are confronted with such a sickness? How do you get bad ideas out of your head, once in? What would it take to convince you that this is the ludicrous nonsense it is?
That's assuming you're sincere, of course, and not looking for any stick to beat a bad dog.
What makes them think Trump's plan is to establish this media empire if he loses? Wouldn't it make even more sense to do it if he wins?
From the TV, last night, I got the impression that there may be some Olympic athlete, maybe some decathlon guy, who may be black but he's got a wife who's white.
Maybe pretty good looking.
I can't be sure because I was trying not to pay attention.
He probably would have Roger Stone on the network. I wonder if Stone will repeat last week's claim about Walker and Priebus rigging WI elections when he goes on Trump TV.
That could make a fascinating 2018 Gov race here with Roger Stone's allegations front and center, mentioning how his boss had an election stolen by Walker's games.
"I think he'd want something forward-looking and surprising and highly profitable." Sure, something like his Atlantic City casinos. 'Cuz he's a business genius.
And its anti-thesis would be insular, anti-native, and JournoListic.
You should pitch a show to the new network, Cruel Neutrality. The question is should it be a talk show, or a life in Madison reality show?
I don't doubt that Trump would and has seriously considered this. Trump has a limited but very strong appeal. He could theoretically siphon off a large chunk of FNC viewers who may be angry with certain personalities there and love Trump's somewhat right leaning positive populist bluster.
But this theory only works if you except the premise that his current fervent supporters don't end up blaming him for the loss. It only works if (assuming Trump loses) he is able to effectively shift the blame away from himself and onto the various skeptics and critics of him that exist in the conserv-o-sphere. "I ran a brilliant campaign! The best! If it wasn't for all these so called conservatives people dragging me down I would've won!". It only works if people aren't furious with him at the end of all this.
@ Mick 0714 I think I am falling in love with your attitude. Can't believe that, but when it comes to Hillary my hatred knows no bounds and you express my disdain for her better than I!
khesanh0802 said...
"@ Mick 0714 I think I am falling in love with your attitude. Can't believe that, but when it comes to Hillary my hatred knows no bounds and you express my disdain for her better than I!"
Any person with an ounce of common sense would, but the "law prof" probably finds such expression of disdain "uncivil". Progressives see "civility" as weakness. They must be starkly confronted with their treason. What is the penalty for TREASON?
The notion of a Trump network if he loses makes me hope that Donald J. Trump is our 45th President of these United States of America.
Although I think a Trump network has all the potential of an Al Gore network.
And I definitely see Trump cashing out to sell to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or the Emirates.
Landslide Mick is my new favorite commenter at the Althouse blog.
So Professor Althouse; with his own cable channel, are you suggesting that Trump would be "pro gay" and no longer "cagey about it"?
Landslide Mick gets it. As a Louisiana flood victim shouted to Trump today, " We knew you would be here for us." A man like that gets supported back. And that is the factor that can unite Mick and myself when we don't agree on his Con Law tactics.
Now if only Mick will admit that The Professor has been more than fair with her excellent commentary on Trump's circus, then all will be good.
traditional guy: I agree very, very much that Professor Althouse has been more than fair to Trump. I have little doubt but that it has significantly shaped the Althouse commentariat. Which, on paper, ought to have been in the "tough sell" department for Trump.
My theory, unspoken at first, then voiced by me with no response from Althouse for weeks, then finally an indirect response confirming my suspicions from the start, was that Althouse privately favored Trump as the one Republican who was soft on social issues. A Manhattanite who deep down favored gay rights and abortion rights and other left/Democrat positions.
A month or so ago Althouse verbalized it, writing that she felt that "Trump is pro-gay and is being cagey about it."
Of course, I don't think she is wrong; I think she is very much right. What I do not understand is how that understanding was (a) not more widely accepted and (b) how it didn't turn into a Republican primary bloodbath, with Christian conservatives pulling out all stops to kill the Trump candidacy. How it is that Mike Huckabee and his daughter have been completely sucked into the Trump show is beyond me. Maybe it's because Mike just really needed a new show when he did not have one of his own.
"A month or so ago Althouse verbalized it, writing that she felt that "Trump is pro-gay and is being cagey about it."
"Pro Gay" does not mean "pro gay marriage"
I think Scott Adams may get nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.
"What happened to the New Yorker? Didn't they used to have pretentious of seriousness?"
Not for a very long time. I started reading it when I was eight, thanks to a, likely gay, uncle who gifted my parents with a subscription every year. I have to say that it taught me what quality writing was. While always liberal, it wasn't until the late '80's that it lost all perspective and any pretense of critical thinking.
No response, Chuck? You still haven't answered on the other thread whether you in your election watcher role are going to let Trump get shanked or not.
You really must have no fucking idea what poll watching is really all about, to ask that question. And since I've been involved with the RNLA for more than 16 years, to Trump's zero, I am confident I know more about that subject than he does.
Yes I don't. Why don't you tell us all about it? Since the Democrats seem to do all the fraud they want, however, you, or your peers in those other places, must not be very good at it. In any case, you still haven't answered the question, will you stick up for Trump when the time comes?
In what way do you imagine that I would need to "stick up for Trump"? What is the scenario that you are picturing?
You're there to deter and prevent election fraud, right? Spot ringers and repeaters, block electioneering, check signatures/ID and so forth? Whatever you're going to do, are you going to do it for him?
If a busload of suspect voters rolls up all ready to vote for Hillary, followed by an SUV full of cigarettes and whisky and HRC buttons, are you going to check them out? Make sure they didn't vote earlier? Elsewhere? In the names of the dead? With felony records? Make sure they don't pull out clubs and menace other voters? Make sure that no trunkfuls of extra ballots show up? That nobody is snooping on the voters voting? Spoiling their ballots? Altering their ballots? Replacing their ballots?
Or shrug? Meh, he's a prick, he deserves it. Go home early. Catch some Zs.
This should be pie for you Chuck. It would seem to me that you couldn't let people screw Trump without screwing the down ballot Republicans, so the very idea that you're dancing with me seems to suggest that you would be very tempted. I notice that you don't even bother to plead your own honor.
Hello hello hello? Chuck Chuck Chuck? Echo echo echo? Not answering not answering not answering?
Post a Comment