No, no, and hell no. We don't got no thought police, "Hey, Mister leave those kids alone"..... But, political rants are verboten.
RIP: Strange Events
- Thread starter toobfreak
- Start date
- Status
I'm reading this but I don't understand what I'm reading. We have met the enemy and they is us. :
:
:
Moran's decline has been documented over the years. O'Reilly, I think, thought he was too big to fail.
"Feminist" is also used an epithet. Words mean nothing sometimes, even in context.
This thread will not have a happy ending of course, But, it'll be fun while it lasts.
"Feminist" is also used an epithet. Words mean nothing sometimes, even in context.
This thread will not have a happy ending of course, But, it'll be fun while it lasts.
I did find one thing about Moran where she was having depression and not getting jobs and was kicked out of a trailer park for excessive partying.
But then, would it be a good party without being excessive? :
:As to Billy Boy, he will do alright if he was getting 25-40 million a year and got around that much leaving Fox. The exact number doesn't matter to me. I doubt we will see him again or for a long time. I would see him with Fox guests on his show and while nice on the surface, you could often see a certain amount of nervousness and fear in his fellow Fox compatriots faces like he could squash them like a bug if he wanted to, and I'm sure he thought he was too big to fail. I guess I did too.
I guess no more cushy spots for Miller and no more Miller, O'Reilly and Watters comedy tours. No one is laughing now (except maybe Bill on his way to the bank--- he still made out good).
Wouldn't that be a hoot now if he turned up on CNN?! :rofl:
va Sustern was an Ailes ally. She left because of the changes going on at Fox. To some degree, all of this relates to Ailes, who looks disturbingly like Jabba the Hut. Fox is looking to keep its audience share, and that does mean a younger demographic as well. At some point the double standards of behavior become a threat to the business. Ailes was too arrogant to see it and got the boot. O'Reilly refused to read the notice as well and new he's got the boot as well.
Didn't realze you worked there, toob. Maybe they're on drugs or maybe they're looking forward to million dollar payouts, kind of a bonus for working for people who have an outsized sense of personal entitlement and no common sense.
Can you explain this to me as it doesn't seem to make any sense. Not the part about Bill. I think he provided a valuable service, the dummy. The part about smoke and fire. Remember, no politics.
Playing the PC card is getting really old. What do you mean you don't appreciate me walking into your dining room, climbing onto your dining room table, dropping my pants and shooting off all over it. You're so PC! Anyone who complains about my having impregnated your dog is so PC! Anyone who bitches about me acting out in any manner is so PC. Anyone who bitches about my refusing to grow up is so PC. Jeez, spare me.
OK, your turn.
Ash,
although I appreciate your opinion, as it relates to my ability to rationally discuss facts or working theories, vs how I feeeeeel about such things, and your obvious efforts for me or others to use pc dialogue, I did in fact use the word that I had actually intended.
Feminists are not by definition radical in nature. The a fore mentioned group, however, is by definition radical.
So, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread, I'm not trying to evoke any political tension, just trying to offer a different point of view, seeking no approval from the entitled generation or those that would call for the end to free speech if it happens to be be incongruous with their world-view-de-jour.
although I appreciate your opinion, as it relates to my ability to rationally discuss facts or working theories, vs how I feeeeeel about such things, and your obvious efforts for me or others to use pc dialogue, I did in fact use the word that I had actually intended.
Feminists are not by definition radical in nature. The a fore mentioned group, however, is by definition radical.
So, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread, I'm not trying to evoke any political tension, just trying to offer a different point of view, seeking no approval from the entitled generation or those that would call for the end to free speech if it happens to be be incongruous with their world-view-de-jour.
A person can be smart, talented, photogenic and still behave in a boorish manner off air.
O'Reilly still has hacks employed, churning out books he "co-authors". He has a loyal following and, likely, won't notice the income reduction. He's very "politically correct" to his ever loyal base and will continue to speak.
Some other network, needing a boost, will hire him if he wants to continue on TV. His viewership increased as he lost money for Fox for crying out loud! Fox is looking to its bottom line and shareholder/owners. He became a liability to his employer. He'll soldier on though as much as he wants with his "book of the week", tours, columns, etc.
O'Reilly still has hacks employed, churning out books he "co-authors". He has a loyal following and, likely, won't notice the income reduction. He's very "politically correct" to his ever loyal base and will continue to speak.
Some other network, needing a boost, will hire him if he wants to continue on TV. His viewership increased as he lost money for Fox for crying out loud! Fox is looking to its bottom line and shareholder/owners. He became a liability to his employer. He'll soldier on though as much as he wants with his "book of the week", tours, columns, etc.
Thanks, Jesse. You told me some things I didn't know about Fox. Another name I've heard bandied was Gretchen Carlson. I guess she's gone too. I have never heard exactly what were the charges in these complaints though, comments, ludeness, groping?
As to the smoke thing, accusing someone is one thing, proving it is another. And conversely, not seeing any smoke doesn't mean there isn't anything there. Sure, it seems odd that Fox has been hit with several sex/harassment charges, but they are apparently between two people, both gone now, but nothing was ever proven in court with evidence, but that doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. But I won't convict someone based on accusations and circumstances alone, whatever my suspicions, there is probably some truth in there, but there are also many who would like to destroy Fox. The real truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
All I know is that if I wanted to harass anyone there, it would not be any of those who left, but some of the ones still there! :: Greg Gutfeld better watch himself, he might be next!
As to the smoke thing, accusing someone is one thing, proving it is another. And conversely, not seeing any smoke doesn't mean there isn't anything there. Sure, it seems odd that Fox has been hit with several sex/harassment charges, but they are apparently between two people, both gone now, but nothing was ever proven in court with evidence, but that doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. But I won't convict someone based on accusations and circumstances alone, whatever my suspicions, there is probably some truth in there, but there are also many who would like to destroy Fox. The real truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
All I know is that if I wanted to harass anyone there, it would not be any of those who left, but some of the ones still there! :
: Greg Gutfeld better watch himself, he might be next!
Bonanza, I'm PC?? Lol. Have some more Kook-Aid. You can say whatever you want in person, but this is a pipe Forum. So keep that in mind when you post. But hey, I'm too PC to pay attention too.
Ahha, Jack! Evidence! First I'm hearing this stuff, I guess I thought I was getting the news by turning on the TV when all along it was going on behind the set! ::
Still, I never thought Gretchen was that pretty. If you are going to chase a skirt there, I'd be more apt to go after the likes of Sandra Smith, Joanne Nosuchinsky (left), or Katherine Timpf.
:Still, I never thought Gretchen was that pretty. If you are going to chase a skirt there, I'd be more apt to go after the likes of Sandra Smith, Joanne Nosuchinsky (left), or Katherine Timpf.
I stopped watching all TV "news" shows approximately 13 years ago.
In fact I stopped watching all TV period around the time Seinfeld went off the air. Haven't had any cable or satellite service or seen anything at all on TV since then. I only still have a TV in order to watch DVD's.
As for all of the teleprompter readers they call journalists on TV...IMO...none of them are worth even 1/10th of what they're paid. The primary reason why the networks can still charge so much money for commercials is because the pharmaceutical companies are willing to pay it. The audience size for the news shows does not justify the revenue.
In fact I stopped watching all TV period around the time Seinfeld went off the air. Haven't had any cable or satellite service or seen anything at all on TV since then. I only still have a TV in order to watch DVD's.
As for all of the teleprompter readers they call journalists on TV...IMO...none of them are worth even 1/10th of what they're paid. The primary reason why the networks can still charge so much money for commercials is because the pharmaceutical companies are willing to pay it. The audience size for the news shows does not justify the revenue.
@Warren- You know, I may just be being my cynical old self, but I've always suspected that O'Reilly's "co-author" pretty much did the heavy lifting on the "Killing ______" series of books. I have read a few of them, and enjoy the way they are written; I have always assumed O'Reilly lent the big-name value and the other guy (Martin Dugard, IIRC) was the actual author.
I lost any respect I may have had for O'Reilly's veracity with the George de Morenthschild bullshit. He was there when De Morenthschild offed himself like Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia and J. Edgar Hoover arrested Alvin Karpis.
I lost any respect I may have had for O'Reilly's veracity with the George de Morenthschild bullshit. He was there when De Morenthschild offed himself like Hillary was under sniper fire in Bosnia and J. Edgar Hoover arrested Alvin Karpis.
He was always a bit too bombastic for my tastes.
Watters is always fun. I'm an old fart and his shows always reinforce my belief that our education is sadly lacking in substance. It's what old folks do. We do not like becoming irrelevant. Miller? I'm too old to get his references.
Viewer numbers, in the right demographic, translates directly to sales/profits. Advertising is a deductible business expense. The older demographic loves to have the latest and greatest meds. especially if insurance or government is paying the tab. O'Reilly's demos trended old so certain companies purchased ads. Successful companies do not "shotgun" their ad dollars, they use them skillfully, with a lot of research behind their decisions.
One of the reasons he used Watters and Miller was to get the age down. On his own he attracts older viewers and road show customers. The addition of the two skews his demographics a bit younger, attracting more advertisers. Hisw older, less affluent viewers bumped up his viewer numbers but, he was still a liability to his employer and to advertisers. Who needs the added headache?
Watters is always fun. I'm an old fart and his shows always reinforce my belief that our education is sadly lacking in substance. It's what old folks do. We do not like becoming irrelevant. Miller? I'm too old to get his references.
Viewer numbers, in the right demographic, translates directly to sales/profits. Advertising is a deductible business expense. The older demographic loves to have the latest and greatest meds. especially if insurance or government is paying the tab. O'Reilly's demos trended old so certain companies purchased ads. Successful companies do not "shotgun" their ad dollars, they use them skillfully, with a lot of research behind their decisions.
One of the reasons he used Watters and Miller was to get the age down. On his own he attracts older viewers and road show customers. The addition of the two skews his demographics a bit younger, attracting more advertisers. Hisw older, less affluent viewers bumped up his viewer numbers but, he was still a liability to his employer and to advertisers. Who needs the added headache?
Aldecaker, if you've ever read any of Martins earlier works, you'd definitely see his hand all over the killing books. His books Chasing Lance (about Lance Armstrong) and Surviving the Toughest Race on Earth (about the Raid Gaulioses) come to mind BUT his book Farther than any Man: The Rise and Fall of Capt. James Cook seals the deal. O'Reilly is the name and Dugard is the author raking in the dough.
Warren, what you state has been substantiated, to my satisfaction, by an individual who was in the network news business as a "writer/formatter", whatever they call them, and said they were instructed to keep the audience tuned in to get them from one commercial break to the next using sensationalism, fear mongering, etc. You're right, it's all about the money and keeping viewer numbers up and the advertising customer's money rolling in. That individual got a belly full and found another line of work that allowed himself a clear conscience.
I also gave up on talking heads and TV cutting the cord six years ago. I stay involved with periodicals and a few other sources that are, in my opinion, objective and of no party or clique.
I also gave up on talking heads and TV cutting the cord six years ago. I stay involved with periodicals and a few other sources that are, in my opinion, objective and of no party or clique.
IMO, the advertising budget of pharmaceutical companies is grossly over-inflated due to the nature of the so-called health care system (but that's a whole other discussion that can't be had here).
And, IMO, a large portion of what they are actually paying the corporate, TV news for is to not report the truth about their "products".
And, IMO, a large portion of what they are actually paying the corporate, TV news for is to not report the truth about their "products".
- Status