When will Comcast come around?

[upstate29651]

Comcast is not in the entertainment or cable business. They're in the money making business. Period.

With that said, I do wonder when or if they will start exercizing more editorial control over some of their more left leaning properties: MSNBC, "30 Rock", The Weather Channel, etc. Alec Baldwin (who still hasn't relocated to France) opened his fat gob the other day & made disparaging comments about Michele Bachmann. MSNBC is.....well, themselves, and TWC still seems to waive the junk science climate change flag.

Owning channels like these and employing certain loudmouthed nobodys is seen by most businesses as a risk. With FiOS/U-Verse and satellite as just a few alternatives, Comcast must know they stand to lose a significant portion of their subscriber base by not taking control of the ship. The question remains, will they?

G

 

[KeithE4]

Comcast is not in the entertainment or cable business. They're in the money making business. Period.

With that said, I do wonder when or if they will start exercizing more editorial control over some of their more left leaning properties: MSNBC, "30 Rock", The Weather Channel, etc. Alec Baldwin (who still hasn't relocated to France) opened his fat gob the other day & made disparaging comments about Michele Bachmann. MSNBC is.....well, themselves, and TWC still seems to waive the junk science climate change flag.

Owning channels like these and employing certain loudmouthed nobodys is seen by most businesses as a risk. With FiOS/U-Verse and satellite as just a few alternatives, Comcast must know they stand to lose a significant portion of their subscriber base by not taking control of the ship. The question remains, will they?

Your first paragraph answered your own question. They won't do that any more than News Corporation will pull in the reins on Fox's mostly non-conservative entertainment programming.

 

[mnradiofan]

Comcast is not in the entertainment or cable business. They're in the money making business. Period.

With that said, I do wonder when or if they will start exercizing more editorial control over some of their more left leaning properties: MSNBC, "30 Rock", The Weather Channel, etc. Alec Baldwin (who still hasn't relocated to France) opened his fat gob the other day & made disparaging comments about Michele Bachmann. MSNBC is.....well, themselves, and TWC still seems to waive the junk science climate change flag.

Owning channels like these and employing certain loudmouthed nobodys is seen by most businesses as a risk. With FiOS/U-Verse and satellite as just a few alternatives, Comcast must know they stand to lose a significant portion of their subscriber base by not taking control of the ship. The question remains, will they?

G

Wow, they are doing all of that? Sweet, I should send Comcast more money as a "thank you" for allowing free speech to continue.

If you guys on the far right get free speech, so do those on the far left. Wanna shut down MSNBC? We should probably shut down Fox News too. Wanna shut down 30 Rock? OK, might as well silence The 700 Club too then.

 

[KeithE4]

If you guys on the far right get free speech, so do those on the far left. Wanna shut down MSNBC? We should probably shut down Fox News too. Wanna shut down 30 Rock? OK, might as well silence The 700 Club too then.

I shut all of them down all the time, and I do it the right way: I use my channel selector.

I believe every American has the absolute right to make a total a** of themselves on TV, courtesy of the First Amendment. I also have the absolute right to not watch them make a total a** of themselves on TV, again courtesy of the First Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Bachmann are both very good at making total a**es of themselves on TV. I'm also very good at changing the channel when either of them shows up on my screen.

 

[LKellerIII]

Comcast is not in the entertainment or cable business. They're in the money making business. Period.

With that said, I do wonder when or if they will start exercizing more editorial control over some of their more left leaning properties: MSNBC, "30 Rock", The Weather Channel, etc. Alec Baldwin (who still hasn't relocated to France) opened his fat gob the other day & made disparaging comments about Michele Bachmann. MSNBC is.....well, themselves, and TWC still seems to waive the junk science climate change flag.

Owning channels like these and employing certain loudmouthed nobodys is seen by most businesses as a risk. With FiOS/U-Verse and satellite as just a few alternatives, Comcast must know they stand to lose a significant portion of their subscriber base by not taking control of the ship. The question remains, will they?

G

Really - are you kidding? NBC Universal made a conscious decision to employ left wing pundits on MSNBC as a way to counter-program Fox News and attract more viewers. Given that MSNBC now beats CNN in the evening ratings, this strategy is working. That WAS a business decision, and as you say, new owner Comcast's mission is to make money. Given that, they won't likely exercise any "editorial control" over MSNBC pundits.

As for Alec Baldwin - whether you like him or not, he has free speech rights like any American and he's within his rights to express his political opinions when he's not at work. Comcast has no right to try to silence him, and I doubt they would want to in any cause.

I doubt many people are petty enough to cancel their subscriptions based on political views. I'm a liberal, but I don't get angry at ABC because Patricia Heaton "opens her gob" and expresses conservative political views from time to time. I like her and enjoy her work - likewise Kelsey Grammar and Tom Selleck.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Here in their home state of Pennsylvania, Comcast was always seen as being very tight with
the Democratic Party, and in particular the local Democrat machine in Philadelphia. I don't
see any reason why they should have a major problem with the ideological leanings of MSNBC
or 30 Rock.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

It' always good to have some properties that make money and some that don't. That way a company can write things off and keep their taxes down.

 

[whit979]

I shut all of them down all the time, and I do it the right way: I use my channel selector.

As much as I'd love to see idiots banished from the airwaves anyway, you're absolutely right. 99 percent of my complaints about TV content went away when I dropped cable.

 

[mnradiofan]

If you guys on the far right get free speech, so do those on the far left. Wanna shut down MSNBC? We should probably shut down Fox News too. Wanna shut down 30 Rock? OK, might as well silence The 700 Club too then.

I shut all of them down all the time, and I do it the right way: I use my channel selector.

I believe every American has the absolute right to make a total a** of themselves on TV, courtesy of the First Amendment. I also have the absolute right to not watch them make a total a** of themselves on TV, again courtesy of the First Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Bachmann are both very good at making total a**es of themselves on TV. I'm also very good at changing the channel when either of them shows up on my screen.

You are absolutely right, and that's the same thing I do all the time. I don't agree with either extreme, so I don't turn them on. I watch, listen to, and read, whatever entertains ME. What bugs me is that it seems like Republicans are always touting "letting the free market work" but they don't participate at the most basic level. ALL of these services exist, to some extent, on having people actually watch, listen, or read, their content. Just like Radio-Info wouldn't be around if nobody visited the site, Alec Baldwin wouldn't be on TV if nobody liked what he had to say. The same is said of any channel on cable.

What further baffles my mind is that people think that these companies even care about politics. The only degree that they do is the degree to which it makes them money. If Rupert Murdoch really believed that conservatism to the level that is preached on Fox News was a money maker in entertainment, Fox would look more like Pax. But people don't WANT that, they want edgy entertainment.

 

[LKellerIII]

Here in their home state of Pennsylvania, Comcast was always seen as being very tight with
the Democratic Party, and in particular the local Democrat machine in Philadelphia. I don't
see any reason why they should have a major problem with the ideological leanings of MSNBC
or 30 Rock.

If you carefully check the lists of corporations who donate to political parties, you'll find that most donate to both parties. On the whole, they tend to donate more to the Republicans because the GOP is more pro-business, but when they need to grease some Democrats, they don't hesitate.

I know little about Pennsylvania politics, but if Philly has a "Democrat machine" that controls the city - that's very likely why Comcast donates to the Dems there. Ideology has less to do with it than buying influence.

 

[Markxxx]

I shut all of them down all the time, and I do it the right way: I use my channel selector.

I believe every American has the absolute right to make a total a** of themselves on TV, courtesy of the First Amendment. I also have the absolute right to not watch them make a total a** of themselves on TV, again courtesy of the First Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin and Ms. Bachmann are both very good at making total a**es of themselves on TV. I'm also very good at changing the channel when either of them shows up on my screen.

I agree up to a point. The problem with this is, there's no fairness to it.

Look if you say something stupid on this forum, pretty much anyone can reply. Even if I'm broke and homeless, usually there is a public library or something where I can get on the Internet and tell you why you're wrong and express my opinion.

But this isn't the case with TV/Radio and other such mediums.

Because only CERTAIN people have the right to express views and counterviews can be snuffed out.

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember Usenet in its heyday. There was a TON of traffic to Holocaust denial groups. There was a time when there was a movement to stifle them. But Ken McVay saw that this was not only unfair, but wrong. He let them go ahead and spout off whatever they wanted. And then he calmly replied to the posts, and explained WHY they were INCORRECT.

If Usenet were TV he never would've gotten the chance. Merely turning off the TV does nothing to correct the misinformation.

Furthermore, unless you're a Nielsen family, turning off the TV only prevents you from hearing it. It doesn't lower the rating any. Because unless you're part of Nielsen no one knows what you watch or don't watch.

Even Oprah stopped having groups like the KKK on her show. She said, all it did was give them exposure, and allowed more people to join up than would normally.

Now stopping the KKK is a good thing, but Oprah was able to simply cut the flow of information.

Since this is a TV forum I'll close with a quote from The Fact of Life, when Tootie asked Cousin Gerri a question about her CP. While the rest of the girls were horrified, Gerri, replied, "Questions don't hurt, ignorance does."

So turning off the set isn't going to help anyone but you, and it will allow this ignorance to be spread to those people who don't know any better

 

[KeithE4]

I agree up to a point. The problem with this is, there's no fairness to it.

Look if you say something stupid on this forum, pretty much anyone can reply. Even if I'm broke and homeless, usually there is a public library or something where I can get on the Internet and tell you why you're wrong and express my opinion.

But this isn't the case with TV/Radio and other such mediums.

Because only CERTAIN people have the right to express views and counterviews can be snuffed out.

That's because the owners of the program/station/network have the right to decide what is put on their property. That does for Radio-Info and other message boards as well.

Newsflash: Owners have absolute rights to their property. If that property is open to the public, then certain laws apply (prohibiting racial discrimination, for example). But for the most part, if you don't like the owner's product, don't use it. In TV, that means changing the channel.

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember Usenet in its heyday. There was a TON of traffic to Holocaust denial groups. There was a time when there was a movement to stifle them. But Ken McVay saw that this was not only unfair, but wrong. He let them go ahead and spout off whatever they wanted. And then he calmly replied to the posts, and explained WHY they were INCORRECT.

If Usenet were TV he never would've gotten the chance. Merely turning off the TV does nothing to correct the misinformation.

If Ken McVay wanted to, and if he owned or controlled those newsgroups, he could have. But really, you're talking apples and oranges. Usenet (or what's left of it nowadays) groups are normally not accessed by the general public.

Furthermore, unless you're a Nielsen family, turning off the TV only prevents you from hearing it. It doesn't lower the rating any. Because unless you're part of Nielsen no one knows what you watch or don't watch.

That's life. If you have a problem with how Nielsen does its surveys, complain to them.

Even Oprah stopped having groups like the KKK on her show. She said, all it did was give them exposure, and allowed more people to join up than would normally.

Now stopping the KKK is a good thing, but Oprah was able to simply cut the flow of information.

That's because she had the power to do so, as the owner of her show. If she still worked for WLS-TV, as she did in the early days, she might not have had that power. She was an employee of ABC when she took over what had been called AM Chicago. She might have convinced her bosses that having Klansmen on the show was a bad idea if it had been proposed, but they also could have overruled her. Once she gained ownership of her show, it was her decision.

Since this is a TV forum I'll close with a quote from The Fact of Life, when Tootie asked Cousin Gerri a question about her CP. While the rest of the girls were horrified, Gerri, replied, "Questions don't hurt, ignorance does."

So turning off the set isn't going to help anyone but you, and it will allow this ignorance to be spread to those people who don't know any better

Anything that Michelle Bachmann or Alec Baldwin spew can be checked via other sources. And if somebody is fool enough to want to join the Klan, the lack of info from Oprah won't make one bit of difference.

Television is not the sole source of anything. And if anyone bases their views of life on what they see on TV, hear on talk radio, or read in a particular publication (doesn't matter which one - could be The Weekly Standard, Time, or Popular Mechanics), they are, by definition, ignorant to begin with.

 

[LKellerIII]

I

Furthermore, unless you're a Nielsen family, turning off the TV only prevents you from hearing it. It doesn't lower the rating any. Because unless you're part of Nielsen no one knows what you watch or don't watch.

Even Oprah stopped having groups like the KKK on her show. She said, all it did was give them exposure, and allowed more people to join up than would normally.

Now stopping the KKK is a good thing, but Oprah was able to simply cut the flow of information.

If you're trying to compare Oprah cutting off the KKK to the suggestion that Comcast censor Alec Baldwin, that's truly a specious analogy. Oprah was not trying to hinder the right of Klan members to express their opinions, she was just exercising her right not to have them on her show. Klan members are still free to spew their poision in other forums - Oprah can't prevent that.

I'm sure Comcast has no plans to give Alec Baldwin any airtime on NBC to express his poltical views - though I guess he could appear as a guest on Rachel Maddow's show, or something similar. But firing him, threatening him, or cancelling his show because he expressed his political views on his own time is an entirely different matter.

 

[FilmCritic3K]

Comcast is not in the entertainment or cable business. They're in the money making business. Period.

With that said, I do wonder when or if they will start exercizing more editorial control over some of their more left leaning properties: MSNBC, "30 Rock", The Weather Channel, etc. Alec Baldwin (who still hasn't relocated to France) opened his fat gob the other day & made disparaging comments about Michele Bachmann. MSNBC is.....well, themselves, and TWC still seems to waive the junk science climate change flag.

Owning channels like these and employing certain loudmouthed nobodys is seen by most businesses as a risk. With FiOS/U-Verse and satellite as just a few alternatives, Comcast must know they stand to lose a significant portion of their subscriber base by not taking control of the ship. The question remains, will they?

G

Really - are you kidding? NBC Universal made a conscious decision to employ left wing pundits on MSNBC as a way to counter-program Fox News and attract more viewers. Given that MSNBC now beats CNN in the evening ratings, this strategy is working. That WAS a business decision, and as you say, new owner Comcast's mission is to make money. Given that, they won't likely exercise any "editorial control" over MSNBC pundits.

As for Alec Baldwin - whether you like him or not, he has free speech rights like any American and he's within his rights to express his political opinions when he's not at work. Comcast has no right to try to silence him, and I doubt they would want to in any cause.

I doubt many people are petty enough to cancel their subscriptions based on political views. I'm a liberal, but I don't get angry at ABC because Patricia Heaton "opens her gob" and expresses conservative political views from time to time. I like her and enjoy her work - likewise Kelsey Grammar and Tom Selleck.

Exactly. It's like when I worked at a video store and a lady said she didn't want to rent The Interpreter because of Sean Penn's politics or when I worked in Electronics at Target and a guy didn't want to buy a G.E. DTV antenna because they'd done business with Iran. I explained that they were ceasing business with that country. He then went into an off-topic tirade about Jane Fonda and Alec Baldwin and I told both him and the aforementioned lady customer that I don't censor my entertainment options due to the political beliefs of others. I don't like Bruce Willis's politics but that doesn't mean I won't see one of his movies. I may despise FOX News and everything it stands for, but that doesn't mean I won't watch a TV series on FOX (the network) or go see a movie 20th Century Fox or Fox Searchlight Pictures releases. If you do, you're limiting yourself and missing out on potentially very rewarding entertainment.

By the way, the guy bought the G.E. antenna. ;D

 

[vchimpanzee]

Alec Baldwin (who still hasn't relocated to France) opened his fat gob the other day & made disparaging comments about Michele Bachmann. MSNBC is.....well, themselves, and TWC still seems to waive the junk science climate change flag.

As for Alec Baldwin - whether you like him or not, he has free speech rights like any American and he's within his rights to express his political opinions when he's not at work. Comcast has no right to try to silence him, and I doubt they would want to in any cause.

No wonder he wins so many Emmys. He's completely convincing as an uptight conservative.

 

[JeeperOne]

Comcast is not in the entertainment or cable business. They're in the money making business. Period.

With that said, I do wonder when or if they will start exercizing more editorial control over some of their more left leaning properties: MSNBC, "30 Rock", The Weather Channel, etc. Alec Baldwin (who still hasn't relocated to France) opened his fat gob the other day & made disparaging comments about Michele Bachmann. MSNBC is.....well, themselves, and TWC still seems to waive the junk science climate change flag.

Owning channels like these and employing certain loudmouthed nobodys is seen by most businesses as a risk. With FiOS/U-Verse and satellite as just a few alternatives, Comcast must know they stand to lose a significant portion of their subscriber base by not taking control of the ship. The question remains, will they?

Your first paragraph answered your own question. They won't do that any more than News Corporation will pull in the reins on Fox's mostly non-conservative entertainment programming.

Actually Keith, it was the last paragraph

Seriously Upstate, do you REALLY believe you'll be relieved of seeing MSNBC on the channel lineup by switching to one of those alternatives? If so, you're DELUSIONAL

As long as channels like MSNBC have audiences & advertisers, there will always be providers willing to carry them

Besides, you don't REALLY expect Comcast to NOT carry channels which THEY OWN, do you? That would be like expecting Time Warner Cable to not carry CNN, TBS, TNT, TCM, TruTV & all their other properties

In short, your analogy doesn't hold water

JMO.....

Cheers

 

[JeeperOne]

If you guys on the far right get free speech, so do those on the far left. Wanna shut down MSNBC? We should probably shut down Fox News too. Wanna shut down 30 Rock? OK, might as well silence The 700 Club too then.

May as well shut down ESPN & all the league O&O sports networks too I suppose.....

Cheers (??)

 

[JeeperOne]

Really - are you kidding? NBC Universal made a conscious decision to employ left wing pundits on MSNBC as a way to counter-program Fox News and attract more viewers. Given that MSNBC now beats CNN in the evening ratings, this strategy is working. That WAS a business decision, and as you say, new owner Comcast's mission is to make money. Given that, they won't likely exercise any "editorial control" over MSNBC pundits.

Aside from the preserving decency in broadcasting? No, they won't

I doubt many people are petty enough to cancel their subscriptions based on political views. I'm a liberal, but I don't get angry at ABC because Patricia Heaton "opens her gob" and expresses conservative political views from time to time. I like her and enjoy her work - likewise Kelsey Grammar and Tom Selleck.

THANK GOD people don't make subscription decisions based on political beliefs. Instead we do it based on a little something called AFFORDABILITY

You DID learn this in High School - DID YOU Upstate?

Tea Partiers - SHEESH !!!

Why do I have a feeling on where Lance & Co. are going to stick this thread ??

Cheers

 

[JeeperOne]

Here in their home state of Pennsylvania, Comcast was always seen as being very tight with
the Democratic Party, and in particular the local Democrat machine in Philadelphia. I don't
see any reason why they should have a major problem with the ideological leanings of MSNBC
or 30 Rock.

Here in Denver, we're home to one of THE BOLDEST PBS affiliates in America in KBDI 12, who is WIDELY known for taking such BOLD risks when it comes to programming

An example of this was just last night when they showed the controversial Loose Change documentary on 9/11 which goes into possible government conspiriacies. Did Comcast yank KBDI off the system? NO !! In fact, they went on to add ALL the KBDI subchannels to its digital lineup as well

Why? Because Comcast doesn't believe in silencing FREE SPEECH !!! In fact, I happen to think they believe in OPEN DIALOGUE so people can make up their own minds. NOT HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP FOR THEM LIKE A BUNCH OF BORG DRONES !!!

That's why I'm with Comcast & THE ONLY reason I will ever leave them is if/when I FEEL I CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THEIR SERVICES !!!

JMO.....

Cheers