Of course, it also works the other way. Conservative cable users are funding CNN and MSNBC whether they watch it or not. That might be more fertile ground for pushing this kind of selectivity, as I’m sure that if they thought about it they would think they are funding the apocalypse and child sex rings.
The real issue is to be able to select and pay for only those channels you actually want to watch, which will never happen absent some major change in the cable industry.
You’re both right: AT&T still owns 70% but the agreement gave TPG control.
Is it possible to take Fox out of a cable channel listing? I haven’t had cable in decades, so I have no idea.
Unfox appears to be doing two things:
It seems to be less “online petition” and more “organize a boycott” to me.
Mmmm hmmm. Of course, CNN & MSNBC get a larger % of their revenue from ads vs. subscriber fees, according to Unfox, so the damage wouldn’t be symmetric. It leads to greater polarization of media, which might be a bad thing these days - or it may just be an indicator of where we’re headed.
With the cord-cutting trend, changes are on their way. I think a lot more action is going toward streaming services - live sports (UEFA Champions League is on Paramount+), news, and live talk shows (what is The View but a podcast with a nice set?)
This surprises me, since Fox has higher viewership ratings it should get higher ad revenue. I mean, that’s what ratings are for, really, it’s the only way they pay off. Well, I’m from the old days of advertising, perhaps high ratings pay off in some other way now.
Nowadays, sometimes they mean you can install whatever idiot you want as POTUS.
Oh, and exert pressure, if not outright control, over what is debated by politicians.
That doesn’t even get into the fundraising aspect.
Unfox claims:
The advertising industry has already taken big steps to reject Fox News.
They’re implying that advertisers are (or were, when they wrote that copy) shying away from putting their ads on Fox. I don’t know how to evaluate the truth of that; and as I read it again, and follow the cite, there’s nothing concrete about advertisers abandoning Fox. Plus, I misread their site, and while they talk about CNN/MSNBC in relation to Fox News, it doesn’t say what I thought it said - it’s still possible that the proportion of their revenues from ads is greater than Fox News’, but that would be because Fox News has way more revenue from subscriber fees.
So, Unfox is really about putting cable providers in a bind by activating their left-leaning subscribers and, after that has happened, forcing providers to choose between two small-but-rabid groups of subscribers.
Still maybe something for my folks to think about, as they’re pretty rabid as it is…
So, what did you think “UNFOX” meant? I took it to mean “get rid of Fox News.” Instead, it’s saying Fox gets a cut of what you pay in cable, so you should support a measure to opt out of Fox from your TV package.
However, all the other networks get a cut too. Why should that be my primary reason for getting rid of Fox News? It’s more of a reason to get rid of cable altogether. Just because restaurant menus offer plenty of dishes I don’t eat doesn’t mean I should demand I pay less for my dinner. Plus, I already don’t watch Fox News. Calling for me to boycott the channel is superfluous.
Sorry, I don’t think UNFOX is going to be as influential as you wish it to be.
It’s not exactly a menu, as in a restaurant, you only pay for what you eat, not everything on the menu.
It’d be more like going to an all you can eat buffet, and learning that they have veal or something else you are ethically opposed to. It’s not enough that you don’t eat it, you don’t want to pay for it at all.
You tell the manager, “I’m not coming back so long as you serve veal on your buffet.” Maybe they care, maybe they don’t, but if enough customers do so, then they may take veal off the buffet and only offer it to those who wish to pay for it as an extra.
Who said I thought it was going to be influential? At most, it could put a little more movement behind trends - cord cutting and the like - that already seem to be happening.
I think it’s something my cable-subscribing relatives might want to think about, particularly if they are considering cutting the cord anyway.
k9bfriender already said the rest better than I could.
A big part of the rationale behind the “UNFOX” movement is not that the politics of Fox News are offensive, but that Fox News is NOT news—a position supported by Fox itself in the course of defending itself against lawsuits:
and
**
If Fox “News” isn’t news but merely entertainment, goes the argument, it should be treated by cable providers the same way channels like Starz or Epix are treated: as opt-in channels that customers can pay extra for, should they want to view them.
**
Looks like George Nader plead guilty to giving Clinton money and the FBI recommended that he serve less than the usual sentence and that it run consecutive with his child porn charges:
Sounds like a man who’s been cutting deals.
In response to DirecTV canceling OAN, Rand Paul has canceled his DirecTV subscription.
That’ll show 'em.
He didn’t cancel DirecTV; he just said he was going to. And he won’t.
Assuming of course that he even has/had a DirectTV subscription.
Funny how the indictment linked in that article doesn’t mention which candidate.
That’s not the indictment; that’s a press release.
It even says so:
From the Washington Examiner article:
He was accused of conspiring with Khawaja to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions to political committees associated with Clinton.
As I said, funny how there is no mention of which candidate in that link.
From finance records, they can tell that it’s Clinton, not Trump.
Here’s the actual indictment (at the bottom of the page):
There is one promising element in the indictment, though. In the introduction to the characters, it explicitly mentions “Candidate 1”, “Candidate 1’s spouse”, and “Candidate 2”.
There is no need for a “Candidate 2” to appear in the document as they are never referenced again.
This would seem to imply that the document originally had a section about Candidate 2, which was imperfectly removed from the final and/or publicly released version.
I guess they’re starting with the real dumbbells and working in toward the brains of the operation: