Could the new channel include stars like the ousted Bill O’Reilly, who didn’t waste much time hitting the podcast waves after he was fired amid a sexual harassment scandal? Could Tomi Lahren, the conservative mega star, who was recently sidelined at The Blaze also take on a prominent role?...
“I just don’t see Fox News and Sean [Hannity] aving a long relationship. If Sean becomes available, you have 100 percent turnover in primetime and a huge opportunity,” a television executive, who didn’t want to be identified, but is involved in some of the talks, told Mediaite.
“I’m working on it (the new conservative channel) hot and heavy,” the source said. “It’s live, it’s real.” The new channel could come to fruition within the next 10 to 12 months, the executive said.
२८ एप्रिल, २०१७
The NYT profile of Rupert Murdoch’s sons, James and Lachlan, seems to have spurred talk about starting a new conservative cable news channel.
"The piece struck fear into the minds of some Fox News’ hardcore conservatives with talk of the sons wanting to rid the company 'of the old-guard culture on which their father built his empire' and bringing 'a warmer and fuzzier workplace' that would move away from an 'anti-politically correct environment,'" Mediaite reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
Yes because it would provide an additional channel that was not MSM. You left that one out.
I don't see what there is to gain from turning Fox into CNN. Fox became successful precisely because it was the one network that wasn't all PC all the time.
The Murdoch boys will pay a high price for wanting to be "respectable" in the eyes of the Manhattan and Hollywood elites.
But then the desire to conform to liberal conventional wisdom seems to override business concerns. Witness how Hollywood can't keep itself from preaching left wing verities to us, despite the dismal showing of films like "Redacted" and the drop in interest in the awards shows.
I have no idea why anyone watches television news for any reason other than entertainment.
There might be some value in watching local news (though I don't see it) whereas network news is just 3 (or 4 or 5) variations of the very same set of stories. If this trend continues you will soon be able to switch from one network news show to the next and not miss a word as they will all be reading from the same script.
All TV news is crap as over half of each story is dedicated to sticking a microphone in some clown's face and asking them for their thoughts. Sorry but I don't give a rat's behind what some local thinks about anything. Just give me the facts, straight up and leave your snarky slanted opinions and some local's opinions out of it. I prefer to make up my own mind. That there is #3 (out of many) that I don't watch TV news.
This would be, if done right, an "Overton Window" situation.
I'd do it, and fast. When you have cable's #1 money machine sitting out there essentially doing nothing, it's a no-brainer.
It would just be doing to Fox News what Fox News did to CNN.
There's an opportunity to seize and Fox News showed how well that worked.
For that matter, I wish there was a tech giant that actually was conservative. You know, supporting the family and hard work and not cramming leftist identity politics down our throats all the time.
Steve Jobs was a liberal, but he knew not to piss off Apple's customers who didn't worship Mao. Tim Cook doesn't know that lesson. Google, Facebook, Microsoft: all are leading Democrat factories. Tesla, too.
There's such a huge market opportunity here.
--Vance
If it's a Fox clone, why bother? What I would be interested in is a mostly international news network. There's plenty of time in a day to cover American news without descending to the absurdity we have now - the same stories regurgitated every hour until the cycle begins again the next day. For example, I'd like to see deeper coverage of the French election, or Brexit negotiations or Venezuela's death throes. There's a lot of news out there that can be tied together by the right framing.
One channel to rule them all, One channel to find them,
One channel to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
This is one of those major differences between liberals and conservatives, although those two words have almost become meaningless.
Liberals think if you tear down fox news, or tear down George Bush, or get rid of fast food chicken restaurants, you've won.
Conservatives think ideas last longer than television stations, individual people and fast food restaurants.
"There's plenty of time in a day to cover American news without descending to the absurdity we have now"
There's not much money in news-news anymore, foreign or domestic. US news operations are subsidized by political players for political purposes, which is why you have what you have.
"all are leading Democrat factories."
They all know how to cater to the powers-that-be in their neck of the woods.
I'm very ambivalent about Bill O'Reilly. I watched him regularly about 15 years ago, not really at all since. He's the loudest echo in a closed chamber. What I'd love to see is a new approach that brings in real conversation and thoughtful commentary. In other words something other than the 90s model of political/news coverage.
I listen to Radio Japan news every day.
http://www.nhk.or.jp/rj/podcast/rss/english.xml (which offers a mp3 link)
I think they have two podcasts a day. I always get the late night one.
They seem to "correct" for your time zone, meaning it's most of a day back.
It's lefty but Japanese lefty.
You left off the "Yes, because competition improves quality" answer. Except looking at MSNBC and CNN, not to mention NBC, ABC, and CBS, I'm not so sure that's true.
What Jack Wayne said at 4:25.
Chris Wallace is the only real thing on Sunday morning political shows. Brett Baier is also good. Fox can keep going.
One area where diversity for its own sake is a positive good for all.
competition improves quality
Not if the only paying audience for news is soap opera women.
Conservatives think ideas last longer than television stations, individual people and fast food restaurants.
Indeed eric and perhaps one day very soon,if we keep at it, we will have one of our own.
Fox no longer cares about their core audience. Like every other "news" they are almost 100% Trump reports, commentaries, reactions and observations. Bleh. What other news is happening around the country, the world or wherever?
"All TV news is crap as over half of each story is dedicated to sticking a microphone in some clown's face and asking them for their thoughts."
A dozen years or so ago, there was a massive blizzard in SE Wisconsin and it was almost impossible to go anywhere. I couldn't go to work and found to my annoyance that I was out of coffee. Well, caffeine withdrawal is a nasty thing, so at about 10 am, I slogged a couple of blocks though the snow and sleet to get to a coffee shop. Luckily it was open and there was a news van outside - almost the only vehicle out there. Inside Contessa Brewer, in her pre-MSNBC days, was trying to find someone to interview about the blizzard. She approached me with her professional smile.
"Hi. We'd like to interview you for the news story about the blizzard."
"No."
"What?"
"I don't want to be interviewed."
"But it will be on the news tonight."
"I don't care."
I hadn't had any coffee and I had no desire to stand there and say utterly predictable stuff. "I couldn't go to work this morning, oh, yeah, it's terrible out there." What else can you say about a blizzard?
One other person straggled in and also turned her down, so I wasn't the only one who felt that way. But I remember the look of utter bafflement on her face, as it dawned on her that there are Americans who actually don't get excited at the thought of being on TV.
"What I'd love to see is a new approach that brings in real conversation and thoughtful commentary." Same here. Of course, money talks louder than real conversation.
Tucker Carlson is an improvement over any of the others, and I do enjoy the gotcha aspect. But why not Glenn Loury vs. Robbie George? Charles Kessler & friends? Give an hour to Mark Steyn, to be your O'Reilly and pull in the masses. Plenty of room for actual Trumpists in the niche as well.
@Sebastian:
But why not Glenn Loury vs. Robbie George? Charles Kessler & friends
Because they want viewers. And I don't think people largely watch partisan media in order to engage with "real conversation and thoughtful commentary." They want mostly what every partisan wants: to be told how right they are and how wrong (and dumb) the other guy is.
What I'd love to see is a new approach that brings in real conversation and thoughtful commentary. In other words something other than the 90s model of political/news coverage.
4/28/17, 4:41 PM
You know what would be great? How about panels who interview public figures while asking real questions, not snarky "gotchas" and without allowing for any talking over anybody else (unless a pol is going on too long and dodging the question).
I've watched a few old "Meet the Press" episodes from that era and I'm impressed with how adult they all seem. I think "The McLaughlin Group" started that "let's all shout at once" business. It might have seemed cutting edge in the '80's. Now it's just tiresome and silly.
I find Al Jazeera very good for most things.
Even its opinion pieces.
I could go a long time in complete comfort if I never heard (or heard of) Bill O'Reilly, Me Again Kelly, Sean Hannity or Frank Luntz--not wild about Juan Williams either.
And I'd need to Van Gogh my ears, and bleach my eyeballs if Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, or Larry O'Donnell accidentally appeared on my home television screen.
Other than that, I'm good.
The poll should also have included the skinflint answer:
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other since I've never had cable or dish and am quite unlikely to pay for same in the future.
(Free OTA HDTV rules in NYC.)
Not that I watch TV news, but a piece of free advice anyway:
Headquarter the new channel in Fort Worth. It's a reasonably-big city (16th nationally) in a big metro area (4th largest nationally), while simultaneously being well-outside of the standard media bubble in a red county in a red state. Yes, there are some practical disadvantages to being based outside of the usual big media cities, but CNN survived them just fine.
@exiledonmainstreet:
How about panels who interview public figures while asking real questions, not snarky "gotchas" and without allowing for any talking over anybody else (unless a pol is going on too long and dodging the question).
The BBC airs a show of a similar formative that you're probably aware of called Question Time, named for the questioning the Prime Minister must submit to by the opposition party in Parliament every Wednesday. It is based on an old radio show called Any Questions and is hosted by David Dimbleby. Once a week, there are usually five guests from the various political parties and a couple of political or cultural commentators. They took questions from the audience and then debate among themselves. It's criticized in the UK for having a left-wing bias, but it's one of the few politically-oriented things on television I watch regularly, though courtesy of the BBC iPlayer.
It appears Fox News learned nothing from ESPN, who also thought any problems they were having were the viewers' fault, not theirs. ESPN took a global brand name at the peak of their success, and decided that the viewers were not sophisticated enough to understand what the real issues were, and ran it into the ground. Fox News is not far behind. THey built a global empire dominating cable news business on a simple theory of "We Report, You Decide" and "Fair and Balanced." They are rejecting that theory, and (like ESPN) taking for granted that their viewers would still be there and growing. Not a good assumption.
If they do start a new network of current FOx News journalists and pundits, the new network would be successful enough to bring Fox down to the level of its competitors.
What happened to all the rumors and speculation that Trump was only running so he could start a Trump channel and kill Fox News?
How does Fox come to the conclusion they need to be more politically correct? Will they change the slogan from "Fair and Balanced" to "More In Line With the Main Stream"?
"How does Fox come to the conclusion they need to be more politically correct?"
Very likely because Fox News is just one small piece of a much larger business (21st Century Fox, one of two entities in the Murdoch empire), and that there is some value judgement upstairs that other business relationships would be enhanced by adopting a more pleasing line in Fox News.
Trump has scared enough powerful people that there is a very well-funded effort ongoing to de-platform conservative and populist media.
@ buwaya
I think Murdoch is trying to get approval to buy Sky in Great Britain. There's probably lots of politics around that deal.
I think Murdoch is trying to get approval to buy Sky in Great Britain. There's probably lots of politics around that deal.
I think that's likely, and Fox News is in a new media environment than when it started back in the mid-90s. It has an old demographic that it wants to replace with younger ones to woo more advertising dollars, but the younger demographic is also abandoning paid cable TV in droves.
Culture abhors a vacuum.
If Fox goes drool sandwich with the crusts cut off, somebody will start up DTV, The Deplorables Channel.
No, on its own hamstringing Fox News is poor business. Cable is declining as you say, and they know very well that making Fox CNN isn't going to bring in any new viewers, and it destroys the Fox niche. Long term it will make a declining asset decline faster.
This does not pass the smell test.
There is another reason.
They can only get the Deplorables Channel effectively going if they can get it on a large number of cable menus, which I suspect will be made difficult.
And I think there will be problems with advertisers, which will be leant on to avoid giving them business in spite of high ratings. This has been Fox and Limbaughs problem for many years. They underperformed their ratings with ad revenues, even with superior demographics vs their rivals.
Politics dominates media economics. There is a mighty thumb on the scale.
"They want mostly what every partisan wants: to be told how right they are and how wrong (and dumb) the other guy is."
I think that is a lot of it but it is also a reaction to the steady diet of left wing spin that the old networks have gone to the past 15 years.
I don;t watch TV news and I read British newspapers to find out about US politics.
"it destroys the Fox niche. Long term it will make a declining asset decline faster.
This does not pass the smell test.
There is another reason."
I agree with this. But it may just be the effort to kill off Trump and the country party that supports him.
My middle daughter who is very bright but a lefty, does not get cable. She only has NetFlix.
I think that is pretty common.
I was skeptical about comments I'd read online about how FOX News was changing, but I seldom watch TV anymore so I couldn't really judge. I'm traveling for business right now and had turned on the hotel room TV earlier for background noise. It happened to be while Trump was making his speech to the NRA. I then noticed there's not much difference between FOX and the other stations anymore.
I think most of the media is short-sighted. Without any real difference among them, they're just speeding up their demise. It really is becoming all fake news. (Fake news isn't telling lies, it's lies of omission.)
This is so absurd. Fox somehow getting less conservative?
That's not the issue at all. It's Trumpists (and whores) versus conservatives.
So Fox lost Greta van Susteren. She's just a media whore; stumping for Trump when she was at Fox, and now a Trump critic when she's at MSNBC. Greta was never even good as a fake conservative.
Megyn Kelly has some conservative instincts. But if she's selling out to a bigger network for a few more millions, and even better makeup, she's no conservative. She's a beautiful fake.
Bill O'Reilly is a professional demagogue, not a conservative. Bill O'Reilly seems to have gotten one of the great conservative writers of our time -- George Will -- kicked off Fox for the sin of having called out O'Reilly's fake and phony writing about Ronald Reagan. I am really looking forward to Will's triumphant return to a conservative Fox News Channel.
Fox now has Tucker Carlson (a real conservative, despite now also being a semi-pro Trump apologist) and an extra hour of Bret Baier, with no more O'Reilly, or Greta, or Megyn. Fox is well-positioned to become MORE CONSERVATIVE without them. Not less.
And really; the best thing that could happen to the Republican party now, would be a plane crash with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on board. They are the worst and most hostile critics we have these days. MSNBC can't keep up with Hannity on GOP-bashing.
These people -- Greta, O'Reilly, Hannity, Megyn -- all have ZERO conservative credentials. What they are, is popular. Popular populists. Clean them all out, and maybe you could build a truly conservative cable news channel.
Hmm,
Popular populists get watched. Popular is the important thing here I think. Conservative but unwatched is not nearly as good. Or rather, no good at all. Such a thing might as well be the model railroad channel.
Sturm und drang, bombast, drama and slinky women (maybe a bit too slinky, in retrospect) made Fox what it is.
Is that the babe "Rachel Lauren Stockman" who wrote that article?
She's the smoking hot daughter of David A. Stockman, the guy who Reagan took to the woodshed. The guy who Reagan screwed royally. Is there such a thing as royally screwed? I think so...
Alas, I wish I was 30 again, but I will survive...
If Chuck thinks anything is good for the GOP then it is not.The GOPe is not conservative and FOX's viewers tend conservative.which is why Hannity and Limbaugh survive but not squishy O'Reilly.Fire Ryan.
If Mark Steyn is available, I'd consider watching. The last attempt, CRTV, was full of "conservative" poppinjays and was unwatchable.
"antiphone said...
One channel to rule them all, One channel to find them,
One channel to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
In the land of Breitbart where the shadows lie.
No one in the comments seems to have mentioned the B-word yet, but a cable network would be a natural extension to the Breitbart brand, with perhaps Steve Bannon running it after he leaves the White House.
I can see the network logo now: Not the Network of the Faux Right, but of the Alt-Right!
Romney would have done well to forget the campaign commercials & buy NBC.
We really don't need another network reporting the same stuff as the other networks but from a slightly different point of view. One would still have to vet everything they report, just like now. I'd like to know what the facts are, but where can that be found? For me, it's an unhappy conundrum as I'm somewhat of a political junky.
Consequently, I "watch" Rick Steves travelogues if background noise other than music is desired.
George Will is a dork who is long past his prime. And his writing on baseball is even worse than his writing on politics. Fox was smart to dump him.
George Will is a supercilious frimp; He went out of style with bow ties. He's about as conservative as a weather vane.
Chuck is, as usual a Soros sock puppet. Remember, Chuckie, the numbers 622; they hold your future.
You left out "Yes, because more options in the news are inherently better."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा