Media Thread

berbatrick said:
Click to expand...


Well as much as she's wrong in terms of every place there's diversity it does pose the question. More diversity means more opinions and perspectives and given human beings really don't like other people's opinions or perspectives there's more chance for clashes. Does diversity cause war?

Obviously people have every right to live where they want to live and diversity should be celebrated but our very basic nature goes against us in that regard.
 
matherto said:
Well as much as she's wrong in terms of every place there's diversity it does pose the question. More diversity means more opinions and perspectives and given human beings really don't like other people's opinions or perspectives there's more chance for clashes. Does diversity cause war?

Obviously people have every right to live where they want to live and diversity should be celebrated but our very basic nature goes against us in that regard.
Click to expand...

Does diversity cause war? I believe that in most cases a conflict for resources causes war. There was a war between settlers and the British empire in the US. The people involved were pretty similar, genetically. There were continuous wars among the people of Europe, many of whom would be put under the umbrella term 'white' by nationalists today. There can be conflict within people of the same "race". Italy was a series of warring small kingdoms for centuries, despite consisting of what we today see as 'Italians'. In Russia in the 1910s, disparities in economic power between people of the same 'race' created conflict.
 
It is fascinating and frightening to see an implicit call for homogenisation get a shrug and a maybe from liberals. The window is shifting, rapidly.
 
matherto said:
Well as much as she's wrong in terms of every place there's diversity it does pose the question. More diversity means more opinions and perspectives and given human beings really don't like other people's opinions or perspectives there's more chance for clashes. Does diversity cause war?

Obviously people have every right to live where they want to live and diversity should be celebrated but our very basic nature goes against us in that regard.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's quite the opposite. People that come into contact with other perspectives and cultures tend to have broader minds. At least in my experience. Not everyone's a bigot like she is. People that have been brought up as dogmatic and resistant to change, and then come into contact with those same other perspectives? Sure, then you'll probably get some conflict. But diversity is not the cause in that scenario, or really any scenario I can think of.
 
berbatrick said:
Does diversity cause war? I believe that in most cases a conflict for resources causes war. There was a war between settlers and the British empire in the US. The people involved were pretty similar, genetically. There were continuous wars among the people of Europe, many of whom would be put under the umbrella term 'white' by nationalists today. There can be conflict within people of the same "race". Italy was a series of warring small kingdoms for centuries, despite consisting of what we today see as 'Italians'. In Russia in the 1910s, disparities in economic power between people of the same 'race' created conflict.
Click to expand...

Well diversity doesn't have to be mixed races, just mixed people from different backgrounds.

Human beings live and breathe for war because it feeds our primal instincts. Kill or be killed. Look after your own clan before everyone else.

@Ubik I'd like to think you're right in terms of broader minds. I always think of, as a plain example, the sheer number of US folk (especially older types) that never leave their state, perhaps not even their hometown, they isolate themselves from the world just by doing that and then they get fed Fox News talking points and see Muslims running people over/shooting/blowing people up on the news too and that's enough for them to shirk ever leaving their 'nest' as it were.

But like I said, more opinions means more people trying to shout each other down. Perhaps I'm just being cynical and negative.

Just a thought, I'm completely for diversity and multiculturalism in any case and completely disagree with Kellyanne and her bigotry.
 
23376342_1695563287169403_4970695452415323738_n.jpg
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Eek. Can he really weather this??
Click to expand...
Probably. There's more chat about it in the other US politics thread, mainly just aghast at how many republicans can say abhorrent things in such a small period of time.
 
Silva said:
Imagine the shit-slinging if Soros buys it.
Click to expand...

On the one hand I don't want him to, it's good to have a news station with at least impartial intentions. On the other hand the more news stations owned by progressives the better.

I think this is one of the troubles the left is facing at the moment, inherently they try to play things to clean. Going high instead of low is great for giving yourself a pat on the back and holding your head high but when the other side is using misinformation, propaganda and rhetoric to great effect - perhaps it's time to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty to get a balanced grip on the narrative.

The more news corporations pumping out progressive messages the better. God knows there's enough platforms for the other side right now.
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...

It will be a wonderful day on planet earth when this guy finally goes tits up. I hope his lads clear house and bring some rational political conversation to the right leaning viewers of their network. I can deal with the war on Christmas but the defending of Roy Moore is fecking sickening. Fox and Friend currently sets the daily agenda for our idiot in chief so hopefully the Murdoch boys see that as an opportunity to calm shit down.
 
GiddyUp said:
It will be a wonderful day on planet earth when this guy finally goes tits up. I hope his lads clear house and bring some rational political conversation to the right leaning viewers of their network. I can deal with the war on Christmas but the defending of Roy Moore is fecking sickening. Fox and Friend currently sets the daily agenda for our idiot in chief so hopefully the Murdoch boys see that as an opportunity to calm shit down.
Click to expand...

From everything I’ve read, James and Lachlan didn’t care for Ailes and O’Reilly, and since they are both gone I’d imagine that would make Hannity next in the crosshairs. But ideally, a lot of the current right wing surge in American politics has been undergirded by daily propaganda from Fox News and talk radio, so if someone were to buy them or if the old man were to expire, then that would have a massive effect on the political equilibrium in the US.
 
Pexbo said:
On the one hand I don't want him to, it's good to have a news station with at least impartial intentions. On the other hand the more news stations owned by progressives the better.

I think this is one of the troubles the left is facing at the moment, inherently they try to play things to clean. Going high instead of low is great for giving yourself a pat on the back and holding your head high but when the other side is using misinformation, propaganda and rhetoric to great effect - perhaps it's time to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty to get a balanced grip on the narrative.

The more news corporations pumping out progressive messages the better. God knows there's enough platforms for the other side right now.
Click to expand...

Especially with Sinclair buying up local affiliates across the country, the propaganda and misinformation campaign will only deepen, and further to the right.
 
Dunno what this is about really, but got to love the classic destruction-of-own-property aspect

 
Any chance Hannity will be be squeezed out? I guess he'll just be picked up by Bannon and be the flagship anchor for America Today.
 
Raoul said:
From everything I’ve read, James and Lachlan didn’t care for Ailes and O’Reilly, and since they are both gone I’d imagine that would make Hannity next in the crosshairs. But ideally, a lot of the current right wing surge in American politics has been undergirded by daily propaganda from Fox News and talk radio, so if someone were to buy them or if the old man were to expire, then that would have a massive effect on the political equilibrium in the US.
Click to expand...

A liberal monopoly from shore to shining shore. :drool:
 
Ubik said:
Dunno what this is about really, but got to love the classic destruction-of-own-property aspect

Click to expand...

Yep, really hurting Keurig there what with the destruction of stuff they already paid for.
Buchan said:
Hannity averages, what, ~3.5m viewers per show? I doubt very much Fox will push him out the door.
Click to expand...
I mean, it depends on what Hannity ends up involved in doesn't it?

How many did O'Reilly have?
 
Carolina Red said:
Yep, really hurting Keurig there what with the destruction of stuff they already paid for.

I mean, it depends on what Hannity ends up involved in doesn't it?

How many did O'Reilly have?
Click to expand...

Of course. I was just making an observation that Hannity, by the numbers, appears to have to highest viewership of shows of that type.

I have no clue about O'Reilly to be honest. The only reason I know about Hannity's numbers is because I read about it a couple of weeks back.
 
Silva said:
The point of measuring viewership is to price advertising. And if you're losing advertisers 3.5 million are the same as 0.
Click to expand...

Sure, but with the viewership of that show, for the time being, would still command replacement advertisers, you'd imagine. Hypothetically speaking, has a show with viewership figures like that ever lost all advertisers?
 
Buchan said:
Sure, but with the viewership of that show, for the time being, would still command replacement advertisers, you'd imagine. Hypothetically speaking, has a show with viewership figures like that ever lost all advertisers?
Click to expand...
That's not how advertising works. It's not a case of "ooh, there's a spot there", if you have the money to buy ad space on major TV networks you buy the spots through an agency and the shows are usually chosen indiscriminately except in cases where the buyer say "not here", as happened to Bill and is now happening to Sean. So there being fewer advertisers on Hanity doesn't mean someone else can say "I want that space", it just means that of the people buying ad space some have said "not there".

You can buy ads on specific time slots and shows. But that's usually done with chump change, the networks would rather court major ad buyers who advertise everywhere.
 
Silva said:
That's not how advertising works. It's not a case of "ooh, there's a spot there", if you have the money to buy ad space on major TV networks you buy the spots through an agency and the shows are usually chosen indiscriminately except in cases where the buyer say "not here", as happened to Bill and is now happening to Sean. So there being fewer advertisers on Hanity doesn't mean someone else can say "I want that space", it just means that of the people buying ad space some have said "not there".
Click to expand...

Okay, that makes sense but what can ultimately happen here? All advertisers chose not to be associated with that show and then what? The show is pulled because of a lack of advertising, even though it regularly pulls in ~3.5m viewers a week? I doubt every business out there would say no to that kind of exposure.
 
Buchan said:
Okay, that makes sense but what can ultimately happen here? All advertisers chose not to be associated with that show and then what? The show is pulled because of a lack of advertising, even though it regularly pulls in ~3.5m viewers a week? I doubt every business out there would say no to that kind of exposure.
Click to expand...
He's on air talking about a child consenting to a grown man. Most people/companies don't want to be associated with that.
 
Buchan said:
Hannity averages, what, ~3.5m viewers per show? I doubt very much Fox will push him out the door.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly had the biggest viewership of anyone on American TV and he was kicked to the curb by Fox. Losing advertisers and bringing bad press to the network will do that.
 
Silva said:
He's on air talking about a child consenting to a grown man. Most people/companies don't want to be associated with that.
Click to expand...

Raoul said:
O'Reilly had the biggest viewership of anyone on American TV and he was kicked to the curb by Fox. Losing advertisers and bringing bad press to the network will do that.
Click to expand...

If Hannity has to go, he has to go. There's no denying that. I'm not condoning his remarks and find them abhorrent (I didn't even know about them until @Silva posted them above) but it is different to the O'Reilly scandal, which was much worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.