Beasley gets paid by the Wolves

[AbeVigodaLive]

Ironically, it's often the people belying fake news or promoting conspiracy theories who selectively use "fake" mainstream media sources to substantiate their claims.

"They were lying when I didn't like what they said. But you know they're telling the truth if it supports my take."

Rinse. Repeat.

The level of disingenuous online discussions is mind-boggling. The world is not nearly as black-and-white as many people want it to be. It's ok to live in the gray area -- that's how the real world operates.

[Wolvesfan21]

So CBS (And Fox) from their own networks that carries sports Is hoping this elaborate plan is gonna help them create more overall revenue? Who watches CBS news anyway? So the average sports fan is going to watch CNN and drive the advertising dollars for that network? I'm sorry but I don't see the money coming in from this situation to those media outlets like you say. Honestly the idea of people not watching sports and soaking up CNN makes me laugh. You know that people that own these types of media empires have other business interests right? Lots of people don't even watch any kind of televised news at all. If you have numbers that show otherwise I'd like to see them. There is simply a lot of lost revenue in the pandemic and a lot of it to people that have A LOT of money. I haven't seen anything You have presented that convinced me for this scenario to be real. Thanks for your responses.


Monster- Here is a trust in media poll. It was a record low in 2016 at 32% of people who trusted the media a fair to great amount.

Democrats are the most brainwashed with a still 76% trust in media which is astonishing.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243665/media-trust-continues-recover-2016-low.aspx

If people don't trust the media, they are not going to watch the media either since they know it's crap.

You kind of help my point is that the people that own these media conglomerates do also own or invest in other large corporations as well which would only benefit from smaller businesses going under during the pandemic.

You just said people aren't going to watch media because it's crap. I thought you said they were going to watch it more and that was the whole point of this whole thing.

That was 2016, so yes the media conglomerates were in serious trouble. I'm simply pointing to a motive as to how they can start to rebuild or boost ratings. It was in a Simpsons episode which was where I got the idea.

[youtube]V5ATxwXSvKo[/youtube]

Do you have any proof in 2020 that it's actually working?

I don't have any poll numbers yet. Being private companies they don't need to share revenue or profitability.

Do you have proof they are not?

You are flat-out wrong on both fronts. Stop peddling falsehoods that feed your fantastical conspiracy theories.

The vast majority of mass media entities are owned by publicly traded companies that report revenue and earnings on a quarterly basis that is easily accessible to the public with a couple of clicks.

- CNN is part of Warnermedia, which is owned by AT&T. AT&T breaks out earnings and revenues by operating segment. Warnermedia is one of those segments.

- Fox is part of the Fox Corporation, another publicly traded company.

- NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC are all owned by Comcast NBCUniversal. They also breakout earnings for their media properties.

Also, there are ratings firms that constantly gauge the viewership of these outlets. That is also accessible to the public.

Also, no, these companies were NOT in trouble in 2016. In fact, they were doing quite well.

From the Comcast earnings report for year-end 2016:
NBCUniversal Revenue Increased 13.0% and Operating Cash Flow Increased 14.0%

From Fox's 2016 earnings release:
The Company reported annual total segment operating income before depreciation and amortization ("OIBDA")3 of $6.60 billion, which was $109 million, or 2%, higher than the adjusted OIBDA4 reported in the prior year

From Warnermedia's 2016 earnings release:
Operating Income grew 10% to $7.5 billion and Adjusted Operating Income grew 10% to $7.6 billion


It's hard to take anything you say seriously about this stuff when you get just basic facts wrong. Yet we're supposed to believe these elaborate conspiracy theories you keep floating!?

They are large conglomerates and even then I thought Fox News was mostly owned by Rupert Murdoch. Just like CNN was owned by Turner.

In July 1985, 20th Century Fox announced Murdoch had completed his purchase of 50% of Fox Filmed Entertainment, the parent company of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation.[29] A year later, 20th Century Fox earned $5.6 million in its fiscal third period ended May 31, 1986, in contrast to a loss of $55.8 million in the third period of the previous year.[30]

So sure they are publicly traded and privately owned at the same time. However did you look up the ratings of all these stations from say 2010 to today? I clearly remember Fox News was one of the highest rated cable news networks back around maybe 2010. Then once they started running all the false flag black ops and really ramping up the propaganda things went south for them and CNN. Which I was happy to see!

I will add that my poll completely illustrates that most people know that "news" is complete crap. As trust in the "news" was down to a record low of 32% in 2016 according to the long time running Gallup poll.

Fox News has been a wild ratings and financial success for many years now. I'm not the one that needs to go research information. You consistently get your facts wrong.

I also find it ironic that you are putting so much faith in the Gallup poll. Gallup is about as much in the mainstream as many of these media companies. Gallup is based in - you guessed it - Washington D.C.. How come you trust their data, but all other news is complete crap?

Perhaps you are cherry-picking data that fits your delusional narrative? Mmmm, that sounds very much like what a Washington D.C. elite would do! You must be part of the elite running a counter-intelligence operation on us ignorant proletariat sports fans! Caught you!!!

It's even MORE credible when a larger media source like Gallup says that most people know the news is crap. It contradicts what they would publish if it wasn't true. It is discrediting their industry so to speak. It's like a whistleblower in a sense.

I would expect to see 90% of people trust the media. But it's the exact opposite. Which is great news that most people are not as brainwashed as I or many people think.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Ha. Right on cue!

I've already shared my take on "fake news" polling. But I'm gonna do it again anyway...

"The "evil enemy of the people media" was turned into a political rallying cry in the past few years.

It was a really smart idea from a genius branding icon who was taking heat from the media. In part, because biases do exist in media circles. But to what extent? And more importantly, what constitutes "media?"

I'd say I don't trust the media, too -- if we're including Gateway Pundit as a viable news source or considering an op-ed piece at the Huffington Post as the media/news.

When we throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, however, we're doing a disservice to ourselves. And sadly... we'd be doing that to serve the self-serving interests of a very rich, very successful, very savvy president and celebrity.

It's fine to rip the media -- as long as we're being specific about it. And honest."

[Wolvesfan21]

Ironically, it's often the people belying fake news or promoting conspiracy theories who selectively use "fake" mainstream media sources to substantiate their claims.

"They were lying when I didn't like what they said. But you know they're telling the truth if it supports my take."

Rinse. Repeat.

The level of disingenuous online discussions is mind-boggling. The world is not nearly as black-and-white as many people want it to be. It's ok to live in the gray area -- that's how the real world operates.

Gallup could be legitimate. Can the CIA afford to pay everyone? I don't think so. They do have a very large billion++++ budget but still. What do you think the CIA does with all that money? Shift propaganda mostly. Here and overseas. Didn't I post here how the CIA creates news stories to achieve GOV objectives? I think I did.

[Wolvesfan21]

Ha. Right on cue!

I've already shared my take on "fake news" polling. But I'm gonna do it again anyway...

"The "evil enemy of the people media" was turned into a political rallying cry in the past few years.

It was a really smart idea from a genius branding icon who was taking heat from the media. In part, because biases do exist in media circles. But to what extent? And more importantly, what constitutes "media?"

I'd say I don't trust the media, too -- if we're including Gateway Pundit as a viable news source or considering an op-ed piece at the Huffington Post as the media/news.

When we throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, however, we're doing a disservice to ourselves. And sadly... we'd be doing that to serve the self-serving interests of a very rich, very successful, very savvy president and celebrity.

It's fine to rip the media -- as long as we're being specific about it. And honest."

"It's easier to fall someone then convince them they have been fooled." -Mark Twain

[AbeVigodaLive]

Ironically, it's often the people belying fake news or promoting conspiracy theories who selectively use "fake" mainstream media sources to substantiate their claims.

"They were lying when I didn't like what they said. But you know they're telling the truth if it supports my take."

Rinse. Repeat.

The level of disingenuous online discussions is mind-boggling. The world is not nearly as black-and-white as many people want it to be. It's ok to live in the gray area -- that's how the real world operates.

Gallup could be legitimate. Can the CIA afford to pay everyone? I don't think so. They do have a very large billion++++ budget but still. What do you think the CIA does with all that money? Shift propaganda mostly. Here and overseas. Didn't I post here how the CIA creates news stories to achieve GOV objectives? I think I did.

I'm not saying it's illegitimate. I'm simply pointing out the type of person who only believes MSM when it fits their own personal narrative.

And you're doing it here.

Again.

[Wolvesfan21]

Abe- Just to be clear, the "news" is much more fictional then you could imagine, your brain would explode if you knew what I did. lol

[Wolvesfan21]

Ironically, it's often the people belying fake news or promoting conspiracy theories who selectively use "fake" mainstream media sources to substantiate their claims.

"They were lying when I didn't like what they said. But you know they're telling the truth if it supports my take."

Rinse. Repeat.

The level of disingenuous online discussions is mind-boggling. The world is not nearly as black-and-white as many people want it to be. It's ok to live in the gray area -- that's how the real world operates.

Gallup could be legitimate. Can the CIA afford to pay everyone? I don't think so. They do have a very large billion++++ budget but still. What do you think the CIA does with all that money? Shift propaganda mostly. Here and overseas. Didn't I post here how the CIA creates news stories to achieve GOV objectives? I think I did.

I'm not saying it's illegitimate. I'm simply pointing out the type of person who only believes MSM when it fits their own personal narrative.

And you're doing it here.

Again.

Because of motive. It goes completely against what they should do. Do you trust Gallup or do you only trust CNN or FOX News? Now you are in a predicament, how can you trust one but not the other. Then why would you? Oh Gallup is just lying that the media is crap or more specifically most people know it's crap.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Abe- Just to be clear, the "news" is much more fictional then you could imagine, your brain would explode if you knew what I did. lol

We're not even in the same argument right now.

I'm not even talking about whether "news" is real or fake... as much as the disingenuous arguments constantly posted by those who are pushing the "fake news" narrative.

And as Q noted... whether you're discussing the merits of Andrew Wiggins or media cabals... getting the facts right is very important -- especially if you're the one making the incendiary claim.

For example, if you want to claim Andrew Wiggins is a great passer and cite his 7 apg average... it's important to ensure that you're being accurate with that.

[Wolvesfan21]

Abe- Just to be clear, the "news" is much more fictional then you could imagine, your brain would explode if you knew what I did. lol

We're not even in the same argument right now.

I'm not even talking about whether "news" is real or fake... as much as the disingenuous arguments constantly posted by those who are pushing the "fake news" narrative.

And as Q noted... whether you're discussing the merits of Andrew Wiggins or media cabals... getting the facts right is very important -- especially if you're the one making the incendiary claim.

For example, if you want to claim Andrew Wiggins is a great passer and cite his 7 apg average... it's important to ensure that you're being accurate with that.

Sure. I was a little confused with respect to FOX News and CNN because of course I always heard Murdoch owned it, (same with CNN prior to Turner selling his stake), in a sense he does own it but so do shareholders and it's also a part of a conglomerate as well. Under a giant Corporate umbrella. So I was wrong in that sense and I apologize, I should have done more research on that part beforehand.

Still their job is to make money. It's not to provide people with accurate information or be moral. Making money often times isn't morally right. I worked in sales for years and I felt wrong about lying to people to make more money off them. One example in my own life.