From *The Atlantic *online-
Introducing The Trump News Channel—Coming in 2017?
This would suit him a lot better than being president, not to mention it would be a helluva lot more fun. AND make money, too. Turns a lose-lose into a win-win-- but of course, he didn’t lose-lose, because it was rigged and Hillary stole it. In fact, that might be the first in-depth story *TNN *covers.
Yeah, I think that would be great. I’d love to see a slap-fight between Trump and Fox. Every day, delicious goodness.
Trump believes he can win the election. He’s not planning a news network until he’s done being President.
If he doesn’t want to win, why did he just buy TV ad time? He really thinks he’s going to win.
We should call this Trump’s Law: “Never ascribe to an incredibly complex, year-long performance art con job what can be ascribed to plain stupidity and narcissism.”
Great. Another propaganda machine to spew out lies 24/7 and further poison the minds of the American electorate. I guess the best-case scenario would be that FOX and the TNN, in an attempt to outdo each other, would both devolve to the point of outlandishness where everyone but the most deluded and far-gone righties would be able to see through them. Not sure I want to bet on the intelligence of the American people that heavily, though. 
Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo along with John Scalzi calls it Trump’s Razor
additional fearmongering hatefilled bullshit pretending to be news is the last thing this country needs :dubious:
this was in response to post #3 which I forgot to quote, sorry
Shit. Beaten to it.
If he does it, I’ll start a poll predicting how soon it goes bankrupt.
Sarah Palin thought she was going to be a long-term media star also.
TNN - We report, you abide.
Nothing could be better than two adversarial networks (Fox and TNN) trying to out-conservative one another in a race for the far right. We have evidence that worked oh so well in selecting a presidential nominee.
I’d appreciate it if you could NOT use the word “conservative” as though it means the same as “reactionary.” Just because those assholes do it…
Thanks! 
actually , FNC & WSJ… both murdoch properties , have almost gone pro-Hillary this year.
certainly lotsa never Trump.
taking new direction maybe ?
O’reilly & Hannity are only 2 true pro Trump hosts left.
ratings is only thing that matters for most other shows.
I’m surprised he hasn’t already done that. One wonders who would advertise on a channel like that; I predict that most of them would be companies that sell ersatz Viagra and “collectible gold” coins.
:dubious:
What difference can it make? You can’t listen to more than one at a time and they only succeed in dividing the audience, so what?
Never ascribe an actual interest in serving as president when all his actions are better understood assuming all he wants is more publicity.
Difference? In what sense? Of course, it won’t make any difference. We’re not splitting the atom here or curing cancer, just kicking around some ideas.
Two rival, dueling far right-wing networks-- people absolutey can listen to more than one, even if not at precisely the same moment. The audience bouncing back and forth between Fox and TNN will be yuuuge. Both will profit.
We can’t compare Sarah Palin’s dream to be a media star with what Trump is doing. He is assembling a team to run the network, as well as pulling together the audience. No doubt he’ll come up with financing (probably skimmed from his campaign funds), something Sarah had no hope of doing. Trump is an entrepreneurial opportunist, Sarah not so much.
Not just more publicity, but more profit/money in the long run.
Donny Deutsch said this on MSNBC earlier this week. He gave a long impassioned speech, about which all I can remember are the names Bannon and Ailes.
It sorta makes some sense. Fox’s audience is dying, literally, with an average age over 70 for many programs. Presumably Breitbart has a younger audience. If Fox is gutted by a loss of viewers because Trump withdraws his beneficent presence then a new channel could prosper.
But that sorta also is insane. Younger right-wingers are not going to watch any cable channel. And Breitbart has a much smaller audience than Fox. Alexa ranks it 192 compared to Foxnews’ 44. It has a third as much traffic on Facebook. The only possibility is that Bannon et al. think they can switch the rankings, especially with a Clinton presidency to drive hate traffic their way daily.
I wouldn’t want to spend my money on that. Trump may be dynamite on Twitter, but that wouldn’t do anything for Breitbart.
My money is on Bannon being gone by Election Day.
Given where the money to fund this will most likely come from it should be called PNN, “Putin News Network”. They already have Russia Today, guess this will be the same just aimed at a dumber audience.
If he calls it TNN, would The Nashville Network have a trademark case against him?