That's pretty ******.

The manufactured news cycle is a major problem.

(07-27-2015 08:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I hate ESPN with the passion of ten thousand suns.

How do you follow sports without them?

(07-27-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I hate ESPN with the passion of ten thousand suns.

How do you follow sports without them?

Actually I follow sports pretty well despite not having any form of cable.

Interwebs. Digital antenna allows me to watch most of the big sporting events.

(07-27-2015 11:39 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I hate ESPN with the passion of ten thousand suns.

How do you follow sports without them?

Actually I follow sports pretty well despite not having any form of cable.

Interwebs. Digital antenna allows me to watch most of the big sporting events.

How do you follow southern miss? Do you buy the season pass from cusa?

(07-27-2015 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think PBS is better than any of the others, though I like to get outside viewpoint, like the BBC or something. For Fox, the on-air personality makes no difference, so that's different than PBS. Probably the same for the other fake news that's on nowadays, but I gave up on watching it. Maybe I'm biased towards PBS because they have educational programming.
I mean really, it's so stupid. All the stuff that's going on in the world, and they spend a whole bunch of time discussing something Obama did that has nothing to do with national security, or the economy even. That isn't news, sorry.

One reason why I like The Economist for print and BBC for on-air is that they cover the whole world. I'm far more interested in what went down in Africa or Asia today than I am about what some witness said in some murder trial. BBC does lean very hard left, as do PBS and NPR, but if you discount for that you can get good information from them. The Economist is probably closer to a libertarian point of view, and probably closer to the center than any US media.

You definitely would not like Memphis local news... it's all about murder and mayhem of the night and day before.

I agree with you.

(07-27-2015 11:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:39 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I hate ESPN with the passion of ten thousand suns.

How do you follow sports without them?

Actually I follow sports pretty well despite not having any form of cable.

Interwebs. Digital antenna allows me to watch most of the big sporting events.

How do you follow southern miss? Do you buy the season pass from cusa?

Honestly, I haven't gone out of my way to watch them in a couple years. If they're at home or easily accessed I will.

But really.....when the outcome is inevitable, one stops caring that much.

(07-27-2015 11:05 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think PBS is better than any of the others, though I like to get outside viewpoint, like the BBC or something. For Fox, the on-air personality makes no difference, so that's different than PBS. Probably the same for the other fake news that's on nowadays, but I gave up on watching it. Maybe I'm biased towards PBS because they have educational programming.
I mean really, it's so stupid. All the stuff that's going on in the world, and they spend a whole bunch of time discussing something Obama did that has nothing to do with national security, or the economy even. That isn't news, sorry.

One reason why I like The Economist for print and BBC for on-air is that they cover the whole world. I'm far more interested in what went down in Africa or Asia today than I am about what some witness said in some murder trial. BBC does lean very hard left, as do PBS and NPR, but if you discount for that you can get good information from them. The Economist is probably closer to a libertarian point of view, and probably closer to the center than any US media.

I used to like The Economist as well, for that very reason - it covers the whole world. I can learn more in a couple paragraphs than I learn from multiple hours of TV "news". I don't have time to read that weekly anymore but if I could get it monthly that would be about right.

I don't know how far left BBC is - if you're on the right, everything seems "left". I haven't watched it in a while though as I haven't seen it on TV lately.

Just as if you are on the left, then what leans left seems centrist and everything else seems right.

(07-27-2015 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were sufficiently wealthy, one investment I would try to make would be one of the big 3 networks, and one change I would make would be to direct the news to the center-right/libertarian point of view. I think there's a significant unserved or underserved potential clientele there. Fox is more neocon, the others lean hard left. ALL of the others lean hard left.

Fox Business is trying to do this. They've had in the last 5 years hands down the most libertarian shows to ever air on cable news: Stossel, Freedom Watch (now gone), The Independents (now gone), and Kennedy. Oddly enough the one that has run the longest is the most hardcore of the libertarian shows in Stossel. That one gets really into the weeds on some topics.

(07-27-2015 04:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were sufficiently wealthy, one investment I would try to make would be one of the big 3 networks, and one change I would make would be to direct the news to the center-right/libertarian point of view. I think there's a significant unserved or underserved potential clientele there. Fox is more neocon, the others lean hard left. ALL of the others lean hard left.

Fox Business is trying to do this. They've had in the last 5 years hands down the most libertarian shows to ever air on cable news: Stossel, Freedom Watch (now gone), The Independents (now gone), and Kennedy. Oddly enough the one that has run the longest is the most hardcore of the libertarian shows in Stossel. That one gets really into the weeds on some topics.

Unfortunately, those with moderate views don't make good viewing. That goes for moderate liberals, conservatives, or libertarians. You get viewers by riling them up, by pumping out fear or outrage, not with reasoned and rational discussions over the legitimacy of the Bail Bond system or restructuring of corporate taxes in a reasonable manner.

(07-27-2015 02:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:05 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think PBS is better than any of the others, though I like to get outside viewpoint, like the BBC or something. For Fox, the on-air personality makes no difference, so that's different than PBS. Probably the same for the other fake news that's on nowadays, but I gave up on watching it. Maybe I'm biased towards PBS because they have educational programming.
I mean really, it's so stupid. All the stuff that's going on in the world, and they spend a whole bunch of time discussing something Obama did that has nothing to do with national security, or the economy even. That isn't news, sorry.

One reason why I like The Economist for print and BBC for on-air is that they cover the whole world. I'm far more interested in what went down in Africa or Asia today than I am about what some witness said in some murder trial. BBC does lean very hard left, as do PBS and NPR, but if you discount for that you can get good information from them. The Economist is probably closer to a libertarian point of view, and probably closer to the center than any US media.

I used to like The Economist as well, for that very reason - it covers the whole world. I can learn more in a couple paragraphs than I learn from multiple hours of TV "news". I don't have time to read that weekly anymore but if I could get it monthly that would be about right.

I don't know how far left BBC is - if you're on the right, everything seems "left". I haven't watched it in a while though as I haven't seen it on TV lately.

Just as if you are on the left, then what leans left seems centrist and everything else seems right.

So what kind of stuff have they said on the BBC that indicates that it's left? Stations like ABC, NBC, etc. don't provide enough actual news to indicate a slant. Many on this board seem to think they are left also because they don't spend every minute on anti-Obama rants.

It doesn't affect me whether the Espys want to give an honor to a pervert. I never watch espin unless they're showing a game from the conference I'm interested in, CUSA. One thing that entered my mind is I wonder how many of those athletes and others agree with the Asspy award. I know that the athletes wouldn't dare come out anti-PC and get punished by their respective league commissioner.

Yet, the Pervs in this country disagree that they're not pushing this agenda down our throats.

(07-27-2015 06:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So what kind of stuff have they said on the BBC that indicates that it's left? Stations like ABC, NBC, etc. don't provide enough actual news to indicate a slant. Many on this board seem to think they are left also because they don't spend every minute on anti-Obama rants.

They will cover an issue and give considerable time to the arguments from the left, and little or none to the arguments from the right. Kind of the opposite of what Fox does from the right. There's also a lot of pro-left bias in the choosing of what issues to cover. Again, kind of the opposite of what Fox does from the right. Subtle things, like if they are interviewing someone from Heritage or Cato, they will be described as from "conservative" think tank Heritage or Cato, but if it's someone from a left leaning think tank there will be no reference to slant, or it will be described as "non partisan" think tank XYZ. If you watch Fox and one of the others, you start to get a pretty balanced view.

(07-27-2015 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 06:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So what kind of stuff have they said on the BBC that indicates that it's left? Stations like ABC, NBC, etc. don't provide enough actual news to indicate a slant. Many on this board seem to think they are left also because they don't spend every minute on anti-Obama rants.

They will cover an issue and give considerable time to the issues from the left, and little or none to the issues on the right. Kind of the opposite of what Fox does from the right. There's also a lot of pro-left bias in the choosing of what issues to cover. Again, kind of the opposite of what Fox does from the right. If you watch Fox and one of the others, you start to get a pretty balanced view.

If the BBC is like Fox except on the left, then neither one is worth watching. You might as well read some average Joe's blog to get your info.

(07-27-2015 06:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the BBC is like Fox except on the left, then neither one is worth watching. You might as well read some average Joe's blog to get your info.

I would describe BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, PBS, and CNN all as "like Fox except on the left." That's why I say you watch one from Column A and one from Column B to get a balanced view.

I would say that BBC is somewhat different from the others in that 1) it doesn't have the American bias, and 2) it at least lets people with opposite points of view get air time, although the presenters normally go out of their way to denigrate and marginalize the views expressed by such participants.

(07-27-2015 07:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 06:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the BBC is like Fox except on the left, then neither one is worth watching. You might as well read some average Joe's blog to get your info.

I would describe BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, PBS, and CNN all as "like Fox except on the left." That's why I say you watch one from Column A and one from Column B to get a balanced view.

Would you describe Fox as "right" or "centrist"?

I would describe Fox as right of center. In a scale of 1-10 with 5 being the center I would rate them an eight. The liberal ones going the opposite direction I would rate them a one. Even their reporters are trained to provide the slanted news in favor of the liberal viewpoint. I have even seen them smirking when presenting a certain new item pertaining to the Republican Party.

ESPN has been manufacturing stuff for a long time. They create and destroy their own hype. And you can clearly see the "corporate" agendas in all of their programming from their news shows, to their debate shows, to their sport specific shows, to Sportscenter, to the on-air personalities tied to the sports they do show.

And what about the sports?

They never cared for soccer highlights from international competition till they started televising it.

Once they dropped doing NHL games they basically give Barry Melrose and Steve Levy a 5m or less segment 3x a week for hockey highlights.

If you aren't in a conference they televise good luck seeing any highlights...

(07-27-2015 07:29 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  ESPN has been manufacturing stuff for a long time. They create and destroy their own hype. And you can clearly see the "corporate" agendas in all of their programming from their news shows, to their debate shows, to their sport specific shows, to Sportscenter, to the on-air personalities tied to the sports they do show.

And what about the sports?

They never cared for soccer highlights from international competition till they started televising it.

Once they dropped doing NHL games they basically give Barry Melrose and Steve Levy a 5m or less segment 3x a week for hockey highlights.

If you aren't in a conference they televise good luck seeing any highlights...

I liked when they just reported on sports news, rather than creating it.

(07-27-2015 07:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 07:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 06:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the BBC is like Fox except on the left, then neither one is worth watching. You might as well read some average Joe's blog to get your info.

I would describe BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, PBS, and CNN all as "like Fox except on the left." That's why I say you watch one from Column A and one from Column B to get a balanced view.

Would you describe Fox as "right" or "centrist"?

Right, clearly.

(07-27-2015 11:39 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:14 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I hate ESPN with the passion of ten thousand suns.

How do you follow sports without them?

Actually I follow sports pretty well despite not having any form of cable.

Interwebs. Digital antenna allows me to watch most of the big sporting events.

ESPN is not even 36 years old. We did just fine before then, and we'll do fine afterwards. Ironically, ESPN has more competition than ever as all of the other Big 4 Networks have sports cable channels.

If ESPN were to fold tomorrow, my guess is the SEC or CBS purchases the other half of the SEC Network. Monday Night Football gets rebid, or perhaps even moves to the NFL Network. Fox probably winds up with the NBA, although I could see a CBS/Turner collaboration there. I don't know how deep pocketed the Tennis Channel is, but they would obviously want the upgrade in content. NBC (Golf Channel) and Fox would go after ESPN's golf content. Some conferences might even wind up with equity portions of various ESPN Networks, and the ACC and XII probably each wind up with a network.

Of course if ABC survives the death of ESPN, they may have a real sports department again. They could possibly even take a downsized ESPN and mandate their affiliates carry it as a digital sub channel - it might be a way to clear the games for minor conferences, smaller professional sports (like Lacrosse, Bowling, etc.), without completely starting over. If SportsCenter goes away, live content could be programmed all the way to 2:00 AM Eastern (assuming a 9:00 PM Pacific start time for certain events on the West Coast) pretty much every night.