• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ooooooooooooh Fox News : Bloomberg

I've thought of that. What if some rich liberal bought Fox News. The thing is, if they changed the format, it would lose a ton of business because the premise of Fox News is that it corners the market on conservative viewers while all the other outlets compete for the rest.

And I think the fact it would lose money makes it unlikely anyone will buy it and try to change it. There's an economic underpinning to the whole concept of it which has been critical in its longevity. The only way to get rid of the Fox News that we know is to somehow cause it to lose money.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I've thought of that. What if some rich liberal bought Fox News. The thing is, if they changed the format, it would lose a ton of business because the premise of Fox News is that it corners the market on conservative viewers while all the other outlets compete for the rest.

And I think the fact it would lose money makes it unlikely anyone will buy it and try to change it. There's an economic underpinning to the whole concept of it which has been critical in its longevity. The only way to get rid of the Fox News that we know is to somehow cause it to lose money.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about changing it? Buy it and just gut it. Use the assets for something like educational public tv.
 
ivwshane said:
Who said anything about changing it? Buy it and just gut it. Use the assets for something like educational public tv.
Click to expand...

In which case, the buyer would lose even more money.

The thing about billionaires, be they liberal or conservative, they just don't do things like that. Or they wouldn't be billionaires in the first place.
 
woolfe9998 said:
In which case, the buyer would lose even more money.

The thing about billionaires, be they liberal or conservative, they just don't do things like that. Or they wouldn't be billionaires in the first place.
Click to expand...


He's 77 years old, he can't take it with him when he dies and he could do a lot more for America and his legacy by spending a few billion to rid us of the propaganda network.

Sometimes its not about making money but rather making things right.
 
ivwshane said:
He's 77 years old, he can't take it with him when he dies and he could do a lot more for America and his legacy by spending a few billion to rid us of the propaganda network.

Sometimes its not about making money but rather making things right.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think it will happen. If Bloomberg wants to buy Fox News, I'll vote for him in the primary. But I'm not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
Rupert and the Sauds would just start a new fascist propaganda channel with Bloomberg's money. It's whack a mole and the billionaires can crank out moles faster than anyone could produce hammers. Until advertisers stop paying the bills, there will be a Fox or Fox-like network. Once the billionaires have vacuumed enough money out of the Fox audience that they aren't worth the advertisers' money, I suppose the network would be diminished.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I don't disagree with that. I just don't think it will happen. If Bloomberg wants to buy Fox News, I'll vote for him in the primary. But I'm not holding me breath.
Click to expand...

Oh it absolutely won’t happen but we can dream right?
 
Last edited:
No way Murdoch would sell. It's his source of power and ability to influences the masses, that's why he split it off and didn't sell it to Disney. Maybe once he croaks his kids will sell, not sure what their politics and level of zeal are.
 
it's publicly traded, right, there can always be a hostile takeover.

that's the problem with trumps business, it's private and doesn't have to account to anyone but the trumps.
 
The real problem is that we have many mainstream outlets that have given up any pretense of objectivity. For example, MSNBC's straight news (not opinion) is as far left now as Mother Jones(!). News bias is insidious, because if it agrees with your own personal bias, it's almost impossible to detect.

]
AllSidesMediaBiasChart-Version1.1_0.jpg
 
Haha a presidential candidate owning a news company is laughable. Look at the blow back that President Trump has received over him owning real estate can you imagine the shit Bloomberg would get if he attempted to purchase a news organization. ha
 
The difference in the 2 is quite astounding....
Trump has never divested himself of managing his properties.....even though his son is supposedly manaing them!
Bloomberg if elected president would immediately place his network in the hands of people he trusted and would not meddle with the network!!
Huge difference in the two.
 
bbhaag said:
Haha a presidential candidate owning a news company is laughable. Look at the blow back that President Trump has received over him owning real estate can you imagine the shit Bloomberg would get if he attempted to purchase a news organization. ha
Click to expand...
the blowback wasn't over him owning a business while a candidate, it was not putting in a blind trust while he is president creating a confict of interest.

swing and a miss.
 
JEDIYoda said:
The difference in the 2 is quite astounding....
Trump has never divested himself of managing his properties.....even though his son is supposedly manaing them!
Bloomberg if elected president would immediately place his network in the hands of people he trusted and would not meddle with the network!!
Huge difference in the two.
Click to expand...
And you know that how? You and little Mike good friends that he promised to you he would?
 
dawp said:
the blowback wasn't over him owning a business while a candidate, it was not putting in a blind trust while he is president creating a confict of interest.

swing and a miss.
Click to expand...
S----T------ R------- I ------ K------ E !!!!!!!!!!
 
dawp said:
the blowback wasn't over him owning a business while a candidate, it was not putting in a blind trust while he is president creating a confict of interest.

swing and a miss.
Click to expand...
So a candidate out right purchasing a news company while running for the office is ok but once he's elected he will put that company and all his other assets in trust is ok......Got it.🙄

EDIT:On a side note is the forum running slow for anyone else?
 
bbhaag said:
So a candidate out right purchasing a news company while running for the office is ok but once he's elected he will put that company and all his other assets in trust is ok......Got it.🙄

EDIT:On a side note is the forum running slow for anyone else?
Click to expand...
if he doesn't put it in a blind trust before taking office.

if he used like trump would, as a personal bullhorn, I think a lot of folks would object to that.

trump has no integrity, he's proven that over and over.
 
dawp said:
if he doesn't put it in a blind trust before taking office.

if he used like trump would, as a personal bullhorn, I think a lot of would object to that.
Click to expand...
And you obviously have no objection to a presidential candidate owning a news company that he could potentially bend to his will. Now I trust little Mike as much as the next guy and I know he would never use that affiliation to leverage an advantage over his political opponents.....:neutral:
 
bbhaag said:
And you obviously have no objection to a presidential candidate owning a news company that he could potentially bend to his will. Now I trust little Mike as much as the next guy and I know he would never use that affiliation to leverage an advantage over his political opponents.....:neutral:
Click to expand...
if he used like trump would, as a personal bullhorn, I think a lot of folks would object to that.

owning it is one thing, using it to go after rivals is a totally a seperate issue.
 
Last edited:
Heh......I'm sure many would and I'm sure just as many would not. This thread objectifies everything wrong with American politics. The capital letter behind the name means more to people than anything else. We can justify anything a candidate does as long as that little letter behind their name is one we can associate with. It's fucking sad man.
 
bbhaag said:
Heh......I'm sure many would and I'm sure just as many would not. This thread objectifies everything wrong with American politics. The capital letter behind the name means more to people than anything else. We can justify anything a candidate does as long as that little letter behind their name is one we can associate with. It's fucking sad man.
Click to expand...

What’s fucking sad is your inability to follow the conversation. No one has said or implied that a president or a candidate owning a network and using it for political purposes is ok. What’s been talked about and understood as complete fantasy is a billionaire buying a propaganda network and destroying it, either by turning it into the opposite of what it is or by gutting it.
 
ivwshane said:
What’s fucking sad is your inability to follow the conversation. No one has said or implied that a president or a candidate owning a network and using it for political purposes is ok. What’s been talked about and understood as complete fantasy is a billionaire buying a propaganda network and destroying it, either by turning it into the opposite of what it is or by gutting it.
Click to expand...
plus the fact no one was talking about him until he brought trump up as a diversion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top