• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Is Glenn Beck the next Ted Turner? Is he starting his own "CNN"?

So you don't trust the "big networks". Do we have any reason to assume we would trust, we would like a Glenn Beck network? Will his network be a "good network" until it get big... and then it too will wake up one day on our "bad network" list?

My first reaction is to think: Glenn Beck can't create a good network, a successful network... and then I remind myself that I don't know that anyone who knew a young Ted Turner ever expected him to do something big, something successful.

So I guess we just all go for the ride and enjoy the new network.
 
True.

Bigness corrupts.

He's far from big yet though, with a long way to go.

But I think he has VERY big plans. He's not lacking in the 'vision thing' department.
 
My prediction is that Beck will be gone from radio at the end of his next syndication deal...he will be doing his own online network full time at that point. At $10 a month if you can keep 100k fanatics coming back month after month that is all you need. That would not count what he would be getting from book sales, events and advertisers etc. Beck will actually get smaller in reach but has the ability to get more revenue. I think he has the dream to be another network but in reality it will be a glorified fan site...where his strongest supporters gather to perpetuate the Beck agenda.
 
I think you can still get it for around 5 bucks (not all areas usable). But that's about 5 bucks more than I would pay for anything of this nature.

I also get the feeling that without the radio gig it would be really hard to drum up subscribers....unless he can actually break news that no other networks want to report.

But....if he can dig up and expose the corruption in politics then I'm all for it. It just has be legitimate news that would expose the mess our political system is in and not just cherry picked stories.

I don't have the bandwidth to bother with it so all I can do is observe from the sidelines.
 
brian65 said:
If he is, good for him.

I haven't trusted any of the big networks for years, including Fox News.
Click to expand...

Really?

This is such a great commentary of how the press in the U.S. has devolved into a style-championing endeavor rather than one founded on substance.

I work for a "big network." I travel the country and even beyond to cover stories; I attend events myself, seeing things with my own eyes, interviewing other attendees, presenting what I've learned in packaged form in the most honest and fair way I possibly can. When out at stories, I meet all sorts of journalistic colleagues from newspapers and networks around the globe.

I have yet to run into a reporter from GBTV or "The Blaze."

Seems to me, that without our work that they repost and comment upon, they don't have much in the way of newsgathering. GBTV isn't alone in this paradigm. But for all the lack of reporting "we" are accused of, the chest-thumping newbies don't seem to do any at all.
 
All he would have to do is make GBTV 24 hours much like headline news. It's already available on iphones, ipads, apple tv and others.
I do believe he has to eventually move to an advert model and make it extremely cheap or free. That will increase his scale. It might have growing pains but he will be on the leading edge when it does succeed.
 
koolestcat said:
All he would have to do is make GBTV 24 hours much like headline news. It's already available on iphones, ipads, apple tv and others.
I do believe he has to eventually move to an advert model and make it extremely cheap or free. That will increase his scale. It might have growing pains but he will be on the leading edge when it does succeed.
Click to expand...

I watched some of the introductory videos that were on the GBTV homepage yesterday. It seems like a subscription-based politics/current affairs-focused version of what Leo Laporte has done with TWiT.
 
How would Glen Beck's network cover what is happening in Egypt for example? Repeat what another reporter says? Have there own reporter? A "citizen reporter or stringer? Just make-up something. Even the big outfits have cut back. Small can be better or not. I wonder if the Glen Beck net will work? He has lost ground since he left FOX. Someone ran the numbers and they said he did not have enough subscribers to cover his overhead. Look at all the problems Al Gore and Oprah are having.
 
I think Beck has less of an issue with reporters on the street than he does with the News Directors who decide what stories get on the air....and if it does go on the air, if it is spun in a particular manner (away from straight news).

I'm always curious why Beck doesn't name names.

These network newscasts don't appear out of thin air or get spit out of a computer.

They are put together in offices by real people with real names.

I think anymore the only way to change things is to bring in the element of shame..... with names included.

Just saying "NBC news is biased" or blaming Rupert Murdoch isn't going to do anything. The individual news directors are the ones spinning everything. They should be called out.
 
I don't know what kind of work you do, brian65, but I gather you are not part of a "corporate team"... whether designing a large software system, manufacturing appliances or cars, or running a large insurance agency.

Very few reporters, editors, managers get to play "cowboy" and do their own thing these days. It tends to be a team effort. Sometimes there is humor and teasing as the news is harvested, threshed, dried and sorted. Sometimes there is shouting and screaming. But in the end, I suspect there are very few individuals in any significantly sized news organization who get to be Marlboro Man or Dirty Harry or The Godfather and have total, absolute content control.

If you are an outsider on another network... say The Glenn Beck Network, and you want to comment on what you believe is a biased story on another channel or in a metro newspaper, how do you "call some individual out by name if you were not in the room watching the sausage being made?
 
Beck and his equally slimy ilk likely don't name names because there are likely no names to name ! It's just the familiar right wing talking point of the 'liberal media' when the right hears any inconvenient truths, such as climate change and animals going extinct because of those changes are FACTS and not OPINIONS !
 
I am no industry insider and have no connection at all with Beck other than listening to him occasionally.

I just agree with him that most network news has a bias towards not ruffling certain feathers.

Just place me in the crowd who stood up and applauded Newt when he shamed that CNN host for his idiotic opening question at the SC debates Thursday night.

A storm is brewing against biased newscasting...and I suppose Beck is just at the forefront.
 
If a person (a listener, a reader)... if a person has a bias...

then listening to or reading news from a source that shares your bias seems UNBIASED.

then listening to or reading news from a source that has the opposite bias (conservative or liberal) certainly seems biased to the person.

But here is where we as a nation can get tripped up: If a person has a bias, and listens to or reads from a NON-BIASED source, it will SEEM TO BE BIASED in the mind of that person. After all, it doesn't match up with that persons built in bias. And that person can never come to the point where they can accept NON-BIASED reports as being the norm.

Part of our human nature is to think that WE, ME, I... have the ability to evaluate and judge what is biased and what is un-biased. Some of us do, some of us don't.

A lot of us don't want to have a good understanding of what the un-biased truth is. We are much too happy wallowing in our own little wack-a-doodle world.

When it comes to the John King opening question.... I would guess that thoughtful journalists will not argue whether the question was a fair question to ask... but will argue whether it should have been the lead question or asked on a second or third round of questions.
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:
When it comes to the John King opening question....
Click to expand...


It was unfair to ask this question at a debate between candidates. A debate should be a debate. It is not a four-person press conference.

This was not a question posing a debatable topic of ideology or policy. How do you do this at a debate?

"Mr. Gingrich, please respond to your ex-wife..."
"Mr. Romney, please respond to Mr. Gingrich's ex-wife..."
"Dr. Paul..."
"Mr. Santorum..."

Secondly, ABC had a lot of nerve doing this two days before a primary... not because it was potentially damaging information, but because this information is a) not news and b) not corroborated or refuted.

Even if what the former Mrs. Gingrich had to say were true, she told it time and again before to other journalists. This all ran in Esquire magazine a year ago, and the stories of Newt's wifey-drama were always public. He never refrained from discussing it.

It had no news value at all this time. ABC ran it very close to a primary election in a state where family matters are mingled with politics. Only someone at ABC can say whether or not this was lazy, sensational, or an attempt to sway the outcome of a major contest in the run up to a presidential election.

Either which way, it's shameful.
 
Does anyone really think that Beck is mentally stable enough to manage his own network. The guy is off his rocker.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom