Are you arguing the other side of Fox News is not far reaching to the left?
For crying out loud, MSNBC is a joke even to my hard core liberal friends.
I think the whole "media is left leaning" thing is overplayed by some in this country, but I also think there is some truth to it as well.
On msnbc, you know when someone's sharing a liberal opinion. Hannity and rush(not fox) tell there followers what to think even when they know its untrue. Its where the ignorant get there talking points "opinions". Racheal Maddow will never pretend she isn't a very progressive thinker however, she won't lie to you. You get the news with typically left leaning commentary, but you do get the actual news unlike fox and freinds.
Intelligent conservatives know fox news is manipulative and dishonest. They also know it helps their party get elected.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
I'll slink back into the shadows now.
OK, that is enough of political talk. Anymore posts that contain political talk will be deleted.
I want a sports network with some journalistic integrity. We see it over and over and over again why ESPN has none.
My wife is a writer. When the whole Manti Te'o story broke, as a journalist she was amazed by something that most people including me ignored. The take-home message should have been in part about BAD SPORTS JOURNALISM.
summary: ESPN had reported on Te'o grieving his "girlfriend's" (non)death. The reporter doing the story actually tried to find newspaper accounts of her death. No luck. He looked into the existence of any reports of her supposed car accident months before. No luck. Since the story said she was a volleyball player, he looked for a volleyball player by that name at Stanford. No luck.
So after doing some fact-checking (taking maybe about 15 minutes on google, these days!), they found no facts to support anything. The logical conclusion? Something is wrong here!
Did that matter? Nope. Report it and move on, and if If proved wrong, certainly don't apologize for anything.
Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 03-06-2013 at 02:46 PM.
The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!)
Now we just need something to challenge MTV. LMAO!!!
I laughed. Nicely played. It's good to see that some people still have a sense of humor and can make intentionally hilarious statements just to squeeze a chuckle out of others. You're a good man, hoosierguy.
In the off chance that you were being serious, here's a list of therapists in Indiana. Please seek help immediately.
Going after smaller markets, as shags said, is like trying to profit by locking up the TV rights to division-III conferences. There is simply not enough money to make there to turn a significant profit.
If all of Indiana watched the FOX channel, and all of New York watches ESPN, ESPN wins.
remember the fox sports local sports report shows? Yeah, those hemorrhaged money.
Last edited by Kstat; 03-06-2013 at 09:02 PM.
2013 Pacers Digest NBA 2K13 Champion (Xbox 360)
I don't see how FOX will be able to come close to competing in big markets with ESPN, who already has an insane following and a very high quality product. How do they make up for that? Spread the coverage around more to places like Indy where we won't care about the lesser quality of product because we we're hardly being covered in the first place by ESPN.
I want to be clear, spreading the coverage does not mean abandoning New York and LA, that's just stupid. A little balance is what I think makes them competitive.
They cover the same stories espn does, but they'll do it with a playboy playmate giving her take on the Dwight Howard trade, and then follow up with a comedy segment from larry the cable guy. That's their way of giving the guy in Mississippi a reason tune in.
Last edited by Kstat; 03-06-2013 at 09:14 PM.
2013 Pacers Digest NBA 2K13 Champion (Xbox 360)
I understand exactly what you're saying, bshall.
KStat and shags are both committing the false dichotomy fallacy, wherein, FOX Sports must choose between either big-market or small-market coverage. Reality is, they can, and almost certainly will, cover both.
What bshall is actually saying is that he'd like the network to spend less time covering big markets, and more time on smaller markets. If ESPN 's coverage is currently 80/20, then FOX could go with, say, 60/40. He's not saying they should give up big-market coverage completely, or even make it a minority of their coverage.
If they go more towards the Gametime style analysis that NBATV has, I'll be a happy camper.
Then again, I liked Best Damn Sports Show Period....
"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca
I wanted to add one more thing about ESPN. I think the reason people are so disgusted with ESPN is because it really has a chance to be great and yet they shoot themselves in the foot constantly. They have so much talent but give some of their most important positions to really lazy, untalented people. It's that squandered potential that makes ESPN so frustrating.
Fox Sports will be terrible, I'm sure, just because almost everything Fox produces for television is terrible (Not a comment on their politics, just the quality of the programming which has nothing to do with their ideology). I won't watch Fox Sports and won't think twice about it because there's no way it can't NOT be bad, but ESPN will continue to be disappointing because I know they can do better.
So do you ignore the Super Bowl when it's on FOX every three years? Do you ignore the NFC Championship every year? Do you ignore all of the other big NFL games that they broadcast throughout the regular season? You're a fellow Yankee fan, but did you not tune in to any of the recent World Series championships that were played on FOX?
Last edited by Sollozzo; 03-08-2013 at 08:19 AM.