• 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

It launched...it crashed!

I don't know if Sun News' lowsy showing may be either a bad omen; if so, it might be the first indication. On the other hand, lowsy ratings doesn't mean that the channel will cease to exist so quickly after beginning operations, in light of the buzz.

In other words, the jury's still out, but that's just my opinion.
 
It depends on how deep Sun's pockets are. Here in the States, Fox News has operated at a loss for most of its life. But Rupert insisted on keeping it on-air because it's a propaganda vehicle, not a money maker.

If Sun wants to keep the Far-Right Pseudo-Tories in power bad enough, it will keep pumping in the cash.
 
I wouldn't declare Quebecor's pockets to be deep, but it's a good point to wait a bit and see.
They covered the Royal wedding along with everyone else in Canada, so it'll be interesting to see how that went.
 
Pab Sungenis said:
It depends on how deep Sun's pockets are. Here in the States, Fox News has operated at a loss for most of its life. But Rupert insisted on keeping it on-air because it's a propaganda vehicle, not a money maker.

If Sun wants to keep the Far-Right Pseudo-Tories in power bad enough, it will keep pumping in the cash.
Click to expand...

Please provide a citation for your statement. Even such a "right-wing" resource as the Huffington Post has Fox News as profitable. Enough so that they actually carried the rest of the portfolio in 2009. Perhaps in the first 2-5 years they weren't profitable. Then again, few such outlets are. News channels are expensive to operate and take a lot of up-front money to establish. It can take many years to break even. Surely Quebecor knows this.
 
Pab Sungenis said:
Here in the States, Fox News has operated at a loss for most of its life. But Rupert insisted on keeping it on-air because it's a propaganda vehicle, not a money maker.
Click to expand...

PROPAGANDA ???? OK... so you're NOT a fan of FNC. But how can you say they're not a money-maker when most of the regular, and recent ratings from last week, show FNC as #1 in EVERY daypart, against CNN, MSNBC & CNBC ???
 
Even if Fox is profitable now (and considering the amount they have to pay their talent, plus operating costs, plus shows like Beck which shed advertisers like mad, ratings numbers that are still a small fraction of even Katie Couric's newscast) it still operated at a loss for most of its life.
 
It's better to be #2 with lower cost than to be #1 with higher costs to run the station...the only problem with this very way of thinking, it that it's easy to fall to #3...4...
 
The thing I find to be VERY funny, is their claim that Bell is scared their ratings for CTV national news will go down.

Sun TV has such poor ratings all around, so that's a silly claim to make.
They may have had a higher than normal ratings count for the Federal election, but that's only one detail of the station, and it's only every four years! The rest of the time has to gain ratings too!
 
Yeziknoradio said:
The thing I find to be VERY funny, is their claim that Bell is scared their ratings for CTV national news will go down.

Sun TV has such poor ratings all around, so that's a silly claim to make.
Click to expand...

If that's Bell's rationale, why aren't they making an orchestrated effort to cancel "The National" and "Global National", and to get "CBC New Network" closed down? It seems that they have ill will against a new news channel, all for a sole sake of a newscast on a national network that Bell owns.

Yeziknoradio said:
They may have had a higher than normal ratings count for the Federal election, but that's only one detail of the station, and it's only every four years!
Click to expand...

Or less, if an election is called early before the four-year cycle is up -- such a thing that Canadians have seen too many times in recent years.
 
azumanga said:
Yeziknoradio said:
Yeziknoradio said:
Or less, if an election is called early before the four-year cycle is up -- such a thing that Canadians have seen too many times in recent years.
Click to expand...

Given that Harper won a majority in the election last week, I can't see it happening, but stranger things have happened in Canadian politics :D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
One word: Bi-election! :D
However, that would be an awful lot of Bi-elections to break the Majority! :D
I also doubt there will be all that many stepping down.

The thing that shocks me, is a riding in Toronto, Canada that had the Conservatives win by only 26 votes! There must be quite a few Liberal "I don't vote" fans kicking themselves over that one! lol
Somehow it kinda reminds me of politics in Florida 10 or so years ago! lol
"It won't make any difference..." :D
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom