Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The networks should tell these Sinclair/Nexstar affiliates that is they will not air the networks shows en mass,  then they no longer have exclusivity to that market and providers such as Comcast/YouTubeTV can offer alternative non-local station streams.  Drives these fuckers out of business if need be.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The blatant disregard - if not disdain - for consumers in this country right now is incredible. 

 

If the populace is too stupid to push back, or too disconnected to pay attention, this is what will happen. These companies care about profit in any way possible. Whatever it takes to hit their quarterly projections. 

Posted
6 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

The networks should tell these Sinclair/Nexstar affiliates that is they will not air the networks shows en mass,  then they no longer have exclusivity to that market and providers such as Comcast/YouTubeTV can offer alternative non-local station streams.  Drives these fuckers out of business if need be.

Funny you mention that:

 

More:

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
On 9/22/2025 at 3:16 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Huh.  Maybe outrage DOES have an effect.

Regarding PBS:  I may be old, but I will go to my imminent grave saying Austin City Limits, Antiques Roadshow, America's Test Kitchen, Cook's Country, Pati's Mexican Table (mmm Pati) and Samantha Brown all kick ass.

Samantha Brown can get it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
9 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The blatant disregard - if not disdain - for consumers in this country right now is incredible. 

 

Its not. Its been standard for nearly 6 years now. 

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The blatant disregard - if not disdain - for consumers in this country right now is incredible. 

 

Consumers? Don't you mean profit extraction units?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

If the populace is too stupid to push back, or too disconnected to pay attention, this is what will happen. These companies care about profit in any way possible. Whatever it takes to hit their quarterly projections. 

30% too stupid.  20% complicit.  That 20% gets to the root of our problem. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
On 9/22/2025 at 3:16 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Huh.  Maybe outrage DOES have an effect.

Regarding PBS:  I may be old, but I will go to my imminent grave saying Austin City Limits, Antiques Roadshow, America's Test Kitchen, Cook's Country, Pati's Mexican Table (mmm Pati) and Samantha Brown all kick ass.

No love for this old house? Or motor week?  Or Nova? 

Posted

To the best of dotards knowledge, a network that airs content that is majority positive for a particular political party is in jeopardy of having made illegal campaign contributions to said party. 
PLEASE baby SCOTUS…make this so! 

Posted
12 hours ago, The Dog said:

Funny you mention that:

 

More:

 

Zero chance ABC does anything to exacerbate the situation. They’re just praying for this one to pass.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
58 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Zero chance ABC does anything to exacerbate the situation. They’re just praying for this one to pass.

Exactly.  They didn't do this because they had a change of heart and realized it was a blatant first amendment violation.  They did it because of the blowback.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Exactly.  They didn't do this because they had a change of heart and realized it was a blatant first amendment violation.  They did it because of the blowback.  

First time I've watched Kimmel in years last night. I was kind of surprised they let him go all in.  I'm sure Jimmy told them he was going to have his say or wasn't doing the show.  Was pretty solid.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Zero chance ABC does anything to exacerbate the situation. They’re just praying for this one to pass.

 

37 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Exactly.  They didn't do this because they had a change of heart and realized it was a blatant first amendment violation.  They did it because of the blowback.  

they did it for dollar signs, and if Sinclair wants to fuck around they'll find out. 

anyway Sinclair will keep up the performance until they get their merger approved then quietly add Kimmel back without fanfare. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

anyway Sinclair will keep up the performance until they get their merger approved then quietly add Kimmel back without fanfare. 

That's now how this works. Once you bend the knee to Trump, he owns you. He will go after Sinclair if they try to pull that stunt. 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

That's now how this works. Once you bend the knee to Trump, he owns you. He will go after Sinclair if they try to pull that stunt. 

 

and do what? Trump will have his "win" and then focus on something else.

Posted
12 hours ago, immamac said:

Its not. Its been standard for nearly 6 years now. 

Longer than that for anyone who's ever had the displeasure of dealing with COTA. Fuck Bobby Epstein.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

they did it for dollar signs, and if Sinclair wants to fuck around they'll find out. 

anyway Sinclair will keep up the performance until they get their merger approved then quietly add Kimmel back without fanfare. 

Sinclair is like the Fox News of local TV.  No way they would turn their backs on MAGA. 

Nexstar , on the other hand, is probably gaming this.  You are correct that Trump will hammer them if they turn on him, though.  While the merger may go through, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump had Carr reverse any changes to their rules and say, "Actually, the limit should be back down at 39% instead of 80%, so you're going to have to divest - or assume the position again."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, C-Man said:

Kimmel pretty much nailed it last night.

Absolutely. It's not like he's my kid or anything, but got dammit, I was very proud of him. Say what you want about the guy, but it takes big swinging cojones to do what he does and then come right back and do it again after this fiasco. What he did and what TDS continues to do gives me a bit of hope.

Edited by wood
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, wood said:

BTW, we saw it here in Austin, but how, when Nexstar was supposed to be pre-empting it?

KVUE is owned by TEGNA, the company Sinclair wants to buy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, wood said:

Absolutely. It's not like he's my kid or anything, but got dammit, I was very proud of him. Say what you want about the guy, but it takes big swinging cojones to do what he does and then come right back and do it again after this fiasco. What he did and what TDS continues to do gives me a bit of hope.

BTW, we saw it here in Austin, but how, when Nexstar was supposed to be pre-empting it?

ABC affiliate here is a Tegna station, not Nexstar (although they will be merging soon, thanks to sucking up to the FCC by taking Jimmy off the air).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

KVUE is owned by TEGNA, the company Sinclair wants to buy.

Oh, great. Thanks! I think I misread the earlier post about who owns what.

Edited by wood
  • Haha 1
Posted

Just to reset:

  • KVUE - owned by Tegna (which is under contract to merge with NexStar, subject to regulatory approvals)
  • KXAN - owned by Nexstar
  • KEYE - owned by Sinclair
  • KTBC - owned by Fox

Honestly, I'd rather Tegna be owned by Nexstar than Sinclair, but the merger really should be blocked - which means it will absolutely go through.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
On 9/23/2025 at 1:12 PM, Horn Dog said:

The networks should tell these Sinclair/Nexstar affiliates that is they will not air the networks shows en mass,  then they no longer have exclusivity to that market and providers such as Comcast/YouTubeTV can offer alternative non-local station streams.  Drives these fuckers out of business if need be.

Outside of live sports, I don't understand how local TV makes much money or attracts viewers. I understand the basics of the advertising market but ad buyers are becoming smarter about the local TV audience is not part of any desired demographic unless you're selling catheters or asbestos class action lawsuits. 

And live sports could leave broadcast TV relatively quickly. Netflix's annual income is closing in on $40B per year. Fox and CBS both pay a little north of $2B annually to the NFL. Netflix could take on that cost which would add subscribers + get the advertising dollars. And not share them with any local stations. I realize the NFL has a financial stake in ESPN but that can be worked around. (Or replace Netflix in those sentences with Amazon.)

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

I was expecting data to back the claim that "most of the right thought the cancellation was bullshit." This only gives six names.

Edit: How many names do you think you could come up with if you searched for reichwingers who supported it?

Edited by bolverk
Posted
52 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I was expecting data to back the claim that "most of the right thought the cancellation was bullshit." This only gives six names.

Edit: How many names do you think you could come up with if you searched for reichwingers who supported it?

Those seem pretty prominent trumpys no?  If you’re asking me what the junior senator from Nebraska said then I don’t know 

 

Here’s a couple more

 

Joe Rogan

Drew Schultz

 

so far McConnell, Cruz, Paul, Rogan , Travis   I’ll look up Mike pence thoughts after lunch fella   

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

We're going to end up with Red Target and Blue Target, aren't we?  Extend to other retailers as necessary.

 

On 9/24/2025 at 5:18 PM, Willfully Horn said:

image.thumb.png.61ef73f59aa1266f629e6c491a9c307c.png

I get the pragmatic and strategic value in messaging it this way, but isn't 90% of the pain Target is facing due to to the economy and tariffs and inflation and changing consumer shopping behaviors as the world around us falls apart? Versus a boycott from moving lgbtq merch from the front to the back and that is not top of mind anymore and hasn't been for a while?

Posted
7 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

 

I get the pragmatic and strategic value in messaging it this way, but isn't 90% of the pain Target is facing due to to the economy and tariffs and inflation and changing consumer shopping behaviors as the world around us falls apart? Versus a boycott from moving lgbtq merch from the front to the back and that is not top of mind anymore and hasn't been for a while?

The tariffs have a jumbled history, and of corse they have contributed to Target’s financial loss, but the stock was falling well before the tariffs were imposed.

Quote

The price fell from a 2023 average of approximately $168.51 to about $137.91 by February 2025. 

AI result asking about stock price from the start of the boycott to the beginning of the tariff mish mash.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The tariffs have a jumbled history, and of corse they have contributed to Target’s financial loss, but the stock was falling well before the tariffs were imposed.

AI result asking about stock price from the start of the boycott to the beginning of the tariff mish mash.

Quote

 

shoppers have made a massive flight to lower prices, which Walmart has more of, as low- and high-income consumers alike protect their pocketbooks. Walmart's size and cash also give it the advantage in handling e-commerce deliveries more quickly and ensuring that things people want are on the shelves.

"The biggest reason that Target has not been [able] to compete with Walmart is due to pricing," David Wagner, head of equities at Aptus Capital Advisors, told MarketWatch by email. "We've seen multiple third-party studies showing that a similar basket at Target costs 12-15% more than the same basket at Walmart."

He added: "At the end of the day, customers focus on consistency of receiving products, especially in the new world of Amazon, alongside being price-cognizant."

Then, there are bigger questions about whether Target - which over the years has gotten by on livening up the big-box retail universe with "Tarjay" aesthetics - truly knows what it is in an expanding era of online delivery and convenience.

 

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20250822168/target-is-getting-crushed-by-walmart-here-are-the-reasons-why

And this is interesting: https://powercommerce.com/blogs/ecommerce-hub/targets-struggle-for-relevance-the-fall-of-a-retail-giant

Quote

 

A Shift in Consumer Behavior

The Impact of Inventory Challenges

The Erosion of Brand Identity

Leadership Challenges and Strategic Responses

Addressing Customer Concerns

The Competitive Landscape

 

No doubt there is some impact from a boycott. But to act like the boycott is the reason when it's OVERWHELMINGLY, like 90%+ because of macroeconomics and shifting consumer behavior for retail in general, seems....less than honest?

Posted
58 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Those seem pretty prominent trumpys no?  If you’re asking me what the junior senator from Nebraska said then I don’t know 

 

Here’s a couple more

 

Joe Rogan

Drew Schultz

 

so far McConnell, Cruz, Paul, Rogan , Travis   I’ll look up Mike pence thoughts after lunch fella   

 

 

More Americans disapprove than approve of Jimmy Kimmel being taken off the air, a new Economist/ YouGov/ poll reveals. A majority of those polled also believe the government has no place pressuring broadcasters to remove content it finds objectionable.

The survey — conducted Sept. 19-22 with 1,551 U.S. adults — comes after ABC News’ parent company announced on Sept. 17 that it was removing Kimmel’s show “indefinitely.”

*****

In the survey, 48% of respondents said they disapprove of ABC’s decision to pull Kimmel’s show from television. Thirty-six percent said they approve and 16% said they were not sure.

On this question, a massive partisan divide emerged.

The vast majority of Democrats, 83%, and 51% of independents said they opposed the network’s decision, while 73% of Republicans said they favored it.

Respondents were also asked: “Do you think it is acceptable or unacceptable for the government to pressure broadcasters to remove shows that include speech it disagrees with?”

A decisive majority, 68%, described this behavior as unacceptable, while just 13% said it is acceptable and 19% said they were undecided. Here, again, a noticeable divide emerged across the political spectrum.

Most Democrats and independents — 88% and 74%, respectively — characterized this type of pressure as unacceptable, while a 42% plurality of Republicans said the same.

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article312232886.html#storylink=cpy

Posted
1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20250822168/target-is-getting-crushed-by-walmart-here-are-the-reasons-why

And this is interesting: https://powercommerce.com/blogs/ecommerce-hub/targets-struggle-for-relevance-the-fall-of-a-retail-giant

No doubt there is some impact from a boycott. But to act like the boycott is the reason when it's OVERWHELMINGLY, like 90%+ because of macroeconomics and shifting consumer behavior for retail in general, seems....less than honest?

Since February, the stock has dropped from approximately $138 to $89. Roughly a 35% loss. They had lost around 20% of their value in the year before that. Tariffs were an additional drag, but the boycott has endured. If raw numbers and timelines are less honest than the “mostly factual” Morningstar, then fine, but I don’t follow your math.



×
×
  • Create New...