Noteworthy News

[Belacqua]

You have to demonstrate both of your claims before you'll get any deeper reply from me. You're projecting "huge" profits. Let's see your numbers. You're saying Kimmel is not very popular. Neither is Trump. Firing Kimmel to appeal to Trumpeteers is of necessity a limit on your market base, because some people will take umbrage because they're Kimmel fans, and some people will take umbrage because the network caving to government pressure.

True, I'm assuming that the directors of multi-billion dollar corporations know how to make a profit. Disney, for example, seems to have a track record. Nexstar owns more TV stations than any other company. Maybe they enter into deals worth over $6,000,000,000 carelessly. 

So I guess we can wait and see whether the backlash from Kimmel fans outweighs the company's business decision. 

So let's your balance sheet on this transaction. Are you really going to gain more viewers? What are the properties, what do their balance-sheets look like, are they for sale because founders are cashing out, or are they for sale to flesh out the revenue-stream for the seller?

Here is what Reuters says about what Nexstar will gain:

Acquiring Tegna (TGNA.N) will expand Nexstar's presence in nine of the top 10 U.S. markets, covering 80% of TV households across key geographies, including Atlanta, Phoenix and Seattle.

That could give Nexstar (NXST.O), the largest U.S. regional TV station operator, more leverage with advertisers and pay-TV distributors at a time when local media is grappling with falling revenue and subscriber loss because of the popularity of streaming services.

I am skeptical that the loyalty of Jimmy Kimmel's fans outweigh the benefits of this deal, but as I say we should wait and see.

And, aside from that, you still haven't explained how capitalism is not driven by consumers. So if you could spare a few neurons for that hanging and overdue answer, I'm sure you'll get plaudits and acclaim for actually answering a goddamned question. Why does a boss's taste matter more than his customers' taste? Be specific.

The goal of every corporation is to maximize profit for shareholders. If they can do this by providing quality product for happy consumers they will do it that way. If they can do it by providing lowest-common-denominator dreck they will do it that way. If they can do it by selling carcinogens and getting away with it, they will do it that way.

For example, free market approaches to news don't seem to have improved the accuracy of what gets reported. So the idea that consumers gravitate toward quality doesn't seem accurate in this field. 

In addition, much US capitalism in recent years is largely financial. That is, banks and corporations sell each other financial instruments or other companies. The only customers here are other corporations. In many cases the quality of the consumer goods produced by the companies, if any, declines after it has been purchased by venture capitalists. Sometimes the venture capitalists will buy a company, sell off any profitable parts, and gut the rest. The purchased company goes out of business, any loyal customers it had are ignored, and the capitalists walk away with lots of money. 

In the case of the fired comedian, this was a free market decision based on maximizing profit. His job was to tell enough jokes to keep the few remaining viewers watching long enough so that his guests could advertise their latest media product. He was an emcee for advertising, and that's what Nexstar wanted him to do. He seemed to think he was an important political commentator, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect highly-paid corporate-employed comedians to provide this service. 

For purposes of maximizing profits, it makes sense that while Trump is in power a corporation will want to appease Trump. Capitalism is amoral. If Kimmel's employers had principles, they would keep him on, give up their Tegmark deal, and feel good about their morals. But that's not what capitalists do. Nobody forced them to fire Kimmel. They made the decision that the Tegmark deal is more important.

[Belacqua]

oops, duplicate post

[The Grand Nudger]

Funny thing is -- the consumer will decide that, your boss's taste in humor notwithstanding. That's capitalism, baby.

OK, so the directors of these companies have the choice to

1) get approval for a multi-billion dollar deal and make huge profits, or 

2) keep a not-very-popular comedian on the air.

And you think that 2) is the wise business choice.

Yup.  Because trying to wring profits out of the mad kings approval is a bet that only a sucker would make.  He's just going to sue them for eleventy gajillion dollars next week no matter what they do. Maybe he has their funds frozen on accident, but no one can admit the mad king made an accident, so they stay that way. Maybe he's sufficiently pleased and greenlights the deal, with the condition that he gets a 90% cut.

I'd market off of the whole thing, personally. The mad king wouldn't be able to stop talking about it if they poked that bear, he'd be a 24/hr babbling infomercial for the network - and every other network would have to talk about it because it's the fucking president of the us, lol.

They need to do something to get the youngs back. Cable subscribers are dying off at an alarming rate. But who cares, right? Because the problem isn't what some dipshit company full of mentally challenged lickspittles do, it's that the us government is being used to both silence and force us speech, period. Donald the dove, just casually making war on american thought as he invades american cities.

[Paleophyte]

They're all business decisions.

Remember these words when they come for you and your church.

[Paleophyte]

I am skeptical that the loyalty of Jimmy Kimmel's fans outweigh the benefits of this deal, but as I say we should wait and see.

Which shouldn't even be a consideration unless a corrupt and thin-skinned head of the executive branch holds up the deal for personal reasons.

[Angrboda]

The political analyst fired by MSNBC over his Charlie Kirk commentary says his former employer agreed with him that his remarks were being misconstrued as “insensitive” – but said “it didn’t matter” to the network, and they dismissed him anyway.

“I said: ‘I think you guys are making a huge mistake,’” Matthew Dowd recounted on Katie Couric’s podcast in an episode launched Friday that addressed his purported pre-firing discussions with MSNBC. “I said: ‘You know and I know that’s not anything what I meant. You know it’s been misconstrued,’ and they agreed with that.

“They agreed it had been misconstrued. But they said it didn’t matter. The decision’s been made.”

MSNBC pundit ousted over Kirk talk says network agreed comments were misconstrued

[Alan V]

“They agreed it had been misconstrued. But they said it didn’t matter. The decision’s been made.”

Cowards.

[Thumpalumpacus]

True, I'm assuming that the directors of multi-billion dollar corporations know how to make a profit.

Repeating your claim doesn't provide evidence for it. Do you have someone in Disney's corporate boardroom who is feeding you info on this decision process?

That's right, no, you don't.

As for the rest of your stuff, market penetration doesn't matter if the content you provide is not in demand. It's not enough to own TV stations, you have to provide shows people want to watch.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Funny thing is -- the consumer will decide that, your boss's taste in humor notwithstanding. That's capitalism, baby.

OK, so the directors of these companies have the choice to

1) get approval for a multi-billion dollar deal and make huge profits, or 

2) keep a not-very-popular comedian on the air.

And you think that 2) is the wise business choice.

And you seem to think it’s a coincidence that Kimmel was fired the day after he said some things that were less than flattering about Kirk and Trump, even though Kimmel’s ratings have been slumping for almost a year. Here’s how it goes:

1) Kimmel showed that Trump loves his latest vanity project more than he loves Charlie Kirk.

2) Trump gets butt hurt over these facts.

3) Trump tells Carr to lean on the network.

4) Carr, ever loyal, does so by telling the network to fire Kimmel or he won’t approve the deal.

5) Trump completes the circle-jerk by telling the press that Kimmel was fired because of low ratings.

Ta da.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

And you seem to think it’s a coincidence that Kimmel was fired the day after he said some things that were less than flattering about Kirk and Trump, even though Kimmel’s ratings have been slumping for almost a year. Here’s how it goes:

1) Kimmel showed that Trump loves his latest vanity project more than he loves Charlie Kirk.

2) Trump gets butt hurt over these facts.

3) Trump tells Carr to lean on the network.

4) Carr, ever loyal, does so by telling the network to fire Kimmel or he won’t approve the deal.

5) Trump completes the circle-jerk by telling the press that Kimmel was fired because of low ratings.

Ta da.

Boru

Did you forget? --

6) Uncritical observers will repeat Trump's claims without examining them for veracity.