Talk of Trump starting his own media network has been going on for months. While Trump’s populism being arguably successful in this election cycle is a cause for concern of a much bigger, much deeper issue of bigotry in the US, a successful TV/media channel that continues to fan the flame of this kind of hate filled ignorance could be potentially worse.
I’ve never seen any objective evidence the WSJ changed since Murdoch bought it. The news side is concentrated on financial topics (not exclusively) but staffed by the generally same type of ‘liberals trying to be fair’ personnel as other ‘prestige press’ outlets, accounting for the fact that market/econ journalists don’t tend to be as liberal personally as journalists in general.
And the WSJ editorial board has always been conservative, in traditional (Reaganite type) conservative terms. No visible change under Murdoch, and it’s zero surprise they don’t like Trump, who isn’t a conservative at all to conservatives like them. And saying anti-Trump conservatives are ‘pro-Hillary’ is just pro-Trump propaganda or liberal taunting. You can dislike both of them, which the WSJ editorial board clearly does.
Fox News is a completely different media property than the WSJ. It’s built around giving a POV different from that of ‘liberals trying to be fair’ presented by the broadcast TV news orgs pre-Fox. That view doesn’t actually have to be conservative per se, and the more dumbed down rightist populist tone at Fox (as well as ‘conservative’ talk radio) in recent years is one the reasons for Trump’s success in the GOP primaries.
And I don’t see much anti-Trump on Fox except some notable very Trump skeptic (WSJ editorial board-style) conservative commentators who do short guest slots (Steve Hayes, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, etc). The daily daytime programming is distinctly tilted to Trump, and you said ‘only’ O’R and Hannity are pro-Trump but the Fox evening/prime time commentary line up is just 4 shows, and Greta VanSusteren is also very pro-Trump, more then O’Reilly though nobody matches the sycophancy to Trump of Hannity, on cable TV at least. Megyn Kelly is the only one who isn’t, in evening/prime time, but while she’s had an infamous off and on feud with Trump (fueled by weird frustrated sexual feelings on his side it seems more than politics) she isn’t really anti-Trump either.
Back to the topic, Trump will almost surely be involved in future business efforts to monetize the following he’s gained, assuming he loses. But Trump didn’t invent the nationalist populist audience. ‘Conservative’ talk radio has been catering to that, as opposed to actual conservatism, for awhile, with the two factions growing more distinct in the GOP. Trump was first major GOP candidate to not only recognize that split but make it a strategy to adopt an anti-conservative appeal (name calling conservatives as ‘the establishment’, ‘open border globalists’, ‘the donor class’ etc as populist talk radio has been doing for awhile). Previous candidates might have seen the split but tried to paper it over. I say recognized, maybe Trump stumbled into it who knows. But anyway it was there already, and likewise media outlets (including radio and web) appealing to rightist populism and against conservatism have also already been around for awhile.
But Bannon surely knew all those numbers before he jumped on board. He is no dummy so if he really did sign up to be on the ground floor of a new media start-up then I’m sure he didn’t think FOXNews was just going to surrender their audience.
I don’t think it will happen. The right wing media market is pretty full. If Faux News wasn’t conservative enough, One America News is more than willing to go the extra mile of insanity. Between those outlets, Facebook hate groups, and Hate Radio, there are plenty of flingers of red meat to the great unthinking.
The numbers yes, but did he known about Trump? Does anybody last with Trump? Certainly nobody who has an ego and a power base of their own. Trump has no allies, only low-level employees. Can this marriage be saved?
don’t know your history .
but i’ve watched FNC for almost 20 yrs now.
watched a lot the last 8 yrs since i retired… especially election coverage.
the day’s WSJ is plopped on my driveway every morning m-sat.
yes… both have taken a different approach this year… vs past yrs.
no way to quantify that … just my opinion.
Dana Perino – ex Bush talking head – is good recent example.
according to her … election is over … trump can’t win …polls say so !!
" because she can’t lie " . :eek:… after all those yrs w/ Bush ? 
just ratings yap/yap for her goofy " the five " show… and her book… plus loyalty to the Bush / NeverTrump krewe.
For Pete’s sake, can you stop posting this bad poetry?
Bigotry against Vogons is not accepted here.
Not sure it is quite as coherent as Vogon verse …
I think it makes sense in that it gives Trump an exit strategy in the event he loses. This was the one thing that Manafort, the GOP, etc could not give Trump - a second place prize. To them, it was all or bust, and this freaking ate at Donald - look at his behavior from mid-June to last week, it’s the actions of a man caught in a trap he can’t get out of. He doesn’t really want the job of President, but also, he can’t afford to go out a loser - and I literally mean afford, for I’m sure that $43 million hit* was quite significant for his finances.
But Ailes and Breitbart offer him a way out - if he wins, he’ll have his own Pravda. If he loses, well, he’ll be Rupert Murdoch. Win-win!
That’s why you’ve seen a more disciplined Trump - it’s not that he’s all of a sudden pivoted, he’s now at peace and has a post-election purpose regardless of what happens November 8th. He’s both running for President and prepping the audience for TrumpTV. Like I said: Win-win!
*If he took it. Rumors are the paperwork hasn’t hit the FEC.
I wonder several somewhat related things:
– Do stations that sell ads generally allow credit or standard business net-30 billing, or is it usually cash-on-the-barrelhead?
– While stations aren’t allowed to charge more for one candidate, are they allowed to change the billing terms if they are as lenient as described above?
– Wouldn’t it be rich if Trump stiffs his advertising networks?
PLUS after Hillary wins, TrumpTV/TNN can go on attacking her for the next four/eight years and beyond.
Just a wild guess, but I suspect O’Reilly, the more intelligent of the two, is privately voting for Hillary. He probably just wants to milk Trump for publicity. I can’t stand O’Reilly or his bombast but I’ll give him credit. He has survived in the mainstream far longer than any of his idiot competitors like Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and others. He’s done it by being a loud-mouthed pain in the ass who occasionally says things that reasonable people can agree with. He rides the crazy train but knows when it’s time to get off.
Hmmm…upon reflection, the name TrumpTV makes me think he could go the route of Oprah and create his own cable channel. TNN would be part of it, but it could also have travel features, a shopping program, gossip/reality programs, talking punditheads. I’m guessing advertisers would be lining up around the block and then some.
Yeah, this would be a WHOLE lot more fun (and profitable) than being President.
Agree with your capsule summary. Now let’s look at the next move …
Assume he loses in 2016 & launches TTV as so many suggest. You don’t suppose that network / internet presence / following might be just a *tad *useful in 2020, whether he chooses to use it to help run himself or putting a chosen consiglieri in power?
Trump has proven himself to be watchable by a large minority of the population. The other conservative sites attract a small minority of the population. The network can’t run Trump 24/7. What evidence is there that others, even on a Trump network, will get the eyeballs?
At the very least, that network would have to replace Fox. That won’t happen soon, and maybe not by 2020.
True, a Breitbart/Trump coalition spewing hate at Clinton every minute she’s in office will be a powerful draw for a segment. My only question is whether it can rise above the current hate machines, which already do this and have extremely loyal audiences. Neither Fox nor Breitbart nor Limbaugh nor Beck nor the rest of the crowd have shown any true national political power.
I don’t think they need to get very many eyeballs - just the really gullible ones. The purpose of the Trump network will not be just to get more viewers than Fox - it will be to pull the most gullible/emotional/hating viewers.
This solid base can be milked by the Trump Network (and by various advertisers) for all manner of scams. There is a lot of money to be made from these folks by selling bogus medications, expensive gold coins, fake education, and other assorted crap for the gullible.
I’ll say advertisers would be lined up around the block. They’d have an audience guaranteed to be composed of suckers and chumps. That’s a valuable demographic. I foresee a lot of gold bugs, collectable plates, patent agents, nutritional supplements, MLM pyramid schemes and the like.
And within a matter of months, he’d be on You Tube, or maybe even public access.
Oh yeah. Investment opportunities, real estate, survivalist supplies, manly off-road vehicles, viagra/cialis, and accessories (ahem) that would appeal to the “2nd amendment people.”
And several nights per week, Trump would host a Larry King/Tavis Smiley-type panel call-in show. With a live audience, of course.