Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not a fan of the silicone, though.

Pauline Newman has inplants?

[Icky Thump]

In other news, Icky’s firm had a department that does most of the legal writing. They won’t work for icky because they know icky writes his own and will brief and argue things that aren’t slam dunks.

They got faceplanted on a few Daubert-ish decisions. Icky went 4-0. Icky circulated the decisions because it’s good to resurrect favorable law.

Don’t you think they threw shade?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

In other news, Icky’s firm had a department that does most of the legal writing. They won’t work for icky because they know icky writes his own and will brief and argue things that aren’t slam dunks.

They got faceplanted on a few Daubert-ish decisions. Icky went 4-0. Icky circulated the decisions because it’s good to resurrect favorable law.

Don’t you think they threw shade?

How? That’s some bad facts for them to hit you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think your description of who gets hired into media companies is wrong. But even if it were right, it fails to account for the fact that the entry-level inmates are not running the asylum, though much of what you say above tacitly acknowledges that. For example, your point about "silos" shows the media coverage is shaped by the way that different outlets make business decisions about how to position themselves. Back in the day, when the means of publication (printing presses, television licenses) were expensive, there were few outlets and they generally tried to serve mass markets. The means of production have gotten much cheaper, outlets have proliferated, and many of them compete by targeting categories of consumers. Fox and MSNBC have done that, and so did CNN under Licht. All of this means there are a variety of media outlets doing different things, not a hegemony with one voice dictated by progressive hires from schools you don't like.

Licht's tenure at CNN illustrates this. He got the job because a rich libertarian billionaire bought CNN and wanted CNN to broadcast stuff that better fit his rich libertarian views. (This is a poor market move, in that rich libertarians are a vanishingly small share of the market for views, but a common move by media companies, which are often bought by rich people.) Licht fired a bunch of people with left-of-center views, which of course served pour encourager les autres, and CNN's coverage has noticeably changed. You completely ignore the facts that people got fired and coverage changed, which completely disproves your point. Licht got canned not because anyone was throwing a "hissy fit," but because he didn't know what he was doing and it wasn't working. This article in The Atlantic is the definitive account.

When he took the helm of CNN, in May 2022, Licht had promised a reset with Republican voters—and with their leader. He had swaggered into the job, telling his employees that the network had lost its way under former President Jeff Zucker, that their hostile approach to Trump had alienated a broader viewership that craved sober, fact-driven coverage. These assertions thrust Licht into a two-front war: fighting to win back Republicans who had written off the network while also fighting to win over his own journalists, many of whom believed that their new boss was scapegoating them to appease his new boss, David Zaslav, who’d hired Licht with a decree to move CNN toward the ideological center.

One year into the job, Licht was losing both battles. Ratings, in decline since Trump left office, had dropped to new lows. Employee morale was even worse. A feeling of dread saturated the company. Licht had accepted the position with ambitions to rehabilitate the entire news industry, telling his peers that Trump had broken the mainstream media and that his goal was to do nothing less than “save journalism.” But Licht had lost the confidence of his own newsroom. Because of this, he had come to view the prime-time event with Trump as the moment that would vindicate his pursuit of Republican viewers while proving to his employees that he possessed a revolutionary vision for their network and the broader news media.

You seem think that if CNN's ratings had been up, Licht would have been fired anyway. I guess you can believe that if you want to, but that's not how the world works.

It appears that if ratings, rather than upsetting the culture of the network, were the primary basis for his firing, it was a rather curious termination:

“CNN's controversial town hall with former President Donald Trump drew 3.3 million viewers Wednesday night, making CNN the most-watched cable news network of the evening, according to final ratings from Nielsen. Why it matters: The event delivered a much-needed ratings boost for CNN, though at a cost.”

https://www.axios.com/2023/05/11/cnn...ll-tv-ratings#

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It appears that if ratings, rather than upsetting the culture of the network, were the primary basis for his firing, it was a rather curious termination:

“CNN's controversial town hall with former President Donald Trump drew 3.3 million viewers Wednesday night, making CNN the most-watched cable news network of the evening, according to final ratings from Nielsen. Why it matters: The event delivered a much-needed ratings boost for CNN, though at a cost.”

https://www.axios.com/2023/05/11/cnn...ll-tv-ratings#

If you owned CNN and wanted to see how it was doing it the ratings, would you look only at the night that Trump was on?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

How? That’s some bad facts for them to hit you?

Weird like "It's good to see good facts" but the three expert reports weren't mentioned by this team though the Court went on for pages about how they satisfied our then-shifted burden.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you owned CNN and wanted to see how it was doing it the ratings, would you look only at the night that Trump was on?

No, but if solely or almost entirely focused on ratings, I would look at that night as an example of what I should do more often.

The argument the public doesn't like libertarian news of a variety John Malone and Zaslav ostensibly wanted at CNN is correct, but that observation is misplaced in any analysis of why Licht failed.

Licht never sought to offer libertarian news, and for good reason. Nobody would want to see that. The majority of viewing audiences who'll tune in to cable news regularly are siloed. They want a slant, and libertarian views frustrate these sorts of people more than do their respective opponents. If one seeks the binary (My Tribe vs. Other), he doesn't want to hear news from a perspective critical of that black and white thinking. His opponent at least reinforces the view that there's a battle for the culture/country/whatever comprised of two warring camps. Those who question the legitimacy of that game challenge his entire view of how the world operates.

I think the clear takeaway from the postmortems on Licht is that he sullied the brand and misused Trump. Like it or not, for some reason, Trump remains compelling, getting more eyeballs than anybody else in the race (and arguably on the planet). Zucker played this for ratings by going to war with Trump. This acquired both ratings and gravitas. The yeomen in the trenches at CNN knew they were enabling and platforming a nutball for ratings, but they could abide it on the basis they were against him. Licht platformed Trump in a manner less confrontational and in parts positive (audience stacked with Trump friendly sorts). This risked reputational damage and angered the foot soldiers of the network who are almost entirely anti-Trump.

Licht's problem isn't that he wasn't going to make money for CNN. Trump's ratings show he was on to something. The problem was the culture of the place is incompatible with that level of cynical ratings-chasing. The other problem is that because of his unique nature, one cannot be agnostic on Trump. His attraction is the extreme polarization he creates, without which he wouldn't have succeeded as he has in politics. People like us can separate a man from his policies and look at the pluses and minuses (Immigration: Disaster; Tariffs: Stupid and Counterproductive; Expansion of Standard Deduction: Huge Help to the Working Class Renter Segment of Society, etc.). The average audience member cannot do this and does not want to do this. They are for him or against him and that's that. Licht tried to cover Trump as a normal candidate, and that Just Does Not Work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No, but if solely or almost entirely focused on ratings, I would look at that night as an example of what I should do more often.

The argument the public doesn't like libertarian news of a variety John Malone and Zaslav ostensibly wanted at CNN is correct, but that observation is misplaced in any analysis of why Licht failed.

Licht never sought to offer libertarian news, and for good reason. Nobody would want to see that. The majority of viewing audiences who'll tune in to cable news regularly are siloed. They want a slant, and libertarian views frustrate these sorts of people more than do their respective opponents. If one seeks the binary (My Tribe vs. Other), he doesn't want to hear news from a perspective critical of that black and white thinking. His opponent at least reinforces the view that there's a battle for the culture/country/whatever comprised of two warring camps. Those who question the legitimacy of that game challenge his entire view of how the world operates.

I think the clear takeaway from the postmortems on Licht is that he sullied the brand and misused Trump. Like it or not, for some reason, Trump remains compelling, getting more eyeballs than anybody else in the race (and arguably on the planet). Zucker played this for ratings by going to war with Trump. This acquired both ratings and gravitas. The yeomen in the trenches at CNN knew they were enabling and platforming a nutball for ratings, but they could abide it on the basis they were against him. Licht platformed Trump in a manner less confrontational and in parts positive (audience stacked with Trump friendly sorts). This risked reputational damage and angered the foot soldiers of the network who are almost entirely anti-Trump.

Licht's problem isn't that he wasn't going to make money for CNN. Trump's ratings show he was on to something. The problem was the culture of the place is incompatible with that level of cynical ratings-chasing. The other problem is that because of his unique nature, one cannot be agnostic on Trump. His attraction is the extreme polarization he creates, without which he wouldn't have succeeded as he has in politics. People like us can separate a man from his policies and look at the pluses and minuses (Immigration: Disaster; Tariffs: Stupid and Counterproductive; Expansion of Standard Deduction: Huge Help to the Working Class Renter Segment of Society, etc.). The average audience member cannot do this and does not want to do this. They are for him or against him and that's that. Licht tried to cover Trump as a normal candidate, and that Just Does Not Work.

If you are going to write a long post about why Licht failed, you owe it to yourself and any reader to first read the article in The Atlantic that got him fired.

Notwithstanding that, you now accept that Licht got fired because his programming strategies did not work. Not that this contradicts your earlier theories about how he got fired because of lib employee whining, or that the mainstream media oppressively and hegemonically covers the news in an effort to defeat populism. So I'm glad you have moved on from that nonsense.

I would put the last thing you said differently. There is a large core of conservatives who want the news delivered from a conservative slant. They watch FOX News, which knows (we know from the Dominion case) that it has to tell them what they want to hear even when it's nonsense, because otherwise they may go somewhere else like OAN or Tucker's Twitterfest. There is a small core of lefties who want something like FOX News for lefties. This market is much smaller and has not been able to sustain anything like FOX News on the left -- witness the failure of Air America, or the many obvious differences between FOX News and MSNBC, which has some programming for these folks. And then there is a mainstream crowd, that wants the news, relatively straight. These people are not as engaged as the FOX listeners, and they are more likely to watch CNN when something like a hurricane or an impeachment or a war is happening.

Licht said, essentially, let's try to pick up more of an audience by trying to speak to moderate Republicans more. The problem is, that isn't an audience. He was either trying to get people to switch from FOX News, or to get people who aren't his audience more engaged. The FOX News viewers aren't going to switch to CNN, and there isn't an untapped crowd of libertarians or moderate Republicans out there. The failure here was to assume that there was a potential audience with views that more matched CNN's new billionaire owner. It is common for billionaires to make this sort of mistake, for obvious reasons. There is some pathos in watching a guy like Licht, who is not a billionaire, stake and lose his professional reputation trying to please a billionaire boss, but there is even more pathos in watching people below him at CNN lose their jobs because Licht was trying to square a circle, or in watching CNN give a platform for Trump in the process.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

If you are going to write a long post about why Licht failed, you owe it to yourself and any reader to first read the article in The Atlantic that got him fired.

I'd read parts of it before you cited it. I reread it after you cited it and found it opaque at best, and broad enough to hold both your reading of why Licht failed and mine.

Notwithstanding that, you now accept that Licht got fired because his programming strategies did not work. Not that this contradicts your earlier theories about how he got fired because of lib employee whining, or that the mainstream media oppressively and hegemonically covers the news in an effort to defeat populism. So I'm glad you have moved on from that nonsense.

I'll unpack this a bit. I think Licht got fired for the reason I said he was fired. I think within that were both of the forces we previously cited:

Billionaire wanting moderate R news that doesn't sell; and,
Employees, mostly left, aghast at platforming Trump for ratings

I would put the last thing you said differently. There is a large core of conservatives who want the news delivered from a conservative slant. They watch FOX News, which knows (we know from the Dominion case) that it has to tell them what they want to hear even when it's nonsense, because otherwise they may go somewhere else like OAN or Tucker's Twitterfest.

Agreed.

There is a small core of lefties who want something like FOX News for lefties. This market is much smaller and has not been able to sustain anything like FOX News on the left -- witness the failure of Air America, or the many obvious differences between FOX News and MSNBC, which has some programming for these folks.

Yes, with a large caveat. It's hard to ascertain how big the audience who wants "comfort" (I'm citing an MSNBC pundit who famously said the network doesn't do news, but offered comfort to people who feared Trump during Trump's term) or a Trump-hate fix really is. The reason is, I think Fox viewers skew old and are still watching lots of TV. Hard core progressives cut the cord and consume from myriad sources. And I don't think you'd argue with me that there are endless sources in legacy and social media from which to obtain hardcore left-leaning programming.

I think Fox may just be the Everest of silos.

And then there is a mainstream crowd, that wants the news, relatively straight. These people are not as engaged as the FOX listeners, and they are more likely to watch CNN when something like a hurricane or an impeachment or a war is happening.

Hi! We're not a big bunch, unfortunately.

Licht said, essentially, let's try to pick up more of an audience by trying to speak to moderate Republicans more. The problem is, that isn't an audience.

Yup. All 10 may be in the men's lounge at the golf course later this evening. I should take a photo.

He was either trying to get people to switch from FOX News, or to get people who aren't his audience more engaged. The FOX News viewers aren't going to switch to CNN, and there isn't an untapped crowd of libertarians or moderate Republicans out there. The failure here was to assume that there was a potential audience with views that more matched CNN's new billionaire owner. It is common for billionaires to make this sort of mistake, for obvious reasons. There is some pathos in watching a guy like Licht, who is not a billionaire, stake and lose his professional reputation trying to please a billionaire boss, but there is even more pathos in watching people below him at CNN lose their jobs because Licht was trying to square a circle, or in watching CNN give a platform for Trump in the process.

Agreed. Malone and Zaslav have been so rich for so long, they have no clue about the tastes of the general public. The real pathos, however, is that the tastes of the general public are in their mouths. There's a bizarre nobility in at least trying to court the middle. It's where sanity once resided, a place where people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan offered bon mots on the difference between fact and opinion, and Tip O'Neill and Reagan cut compromises over a scotch. And this sort of thinking informed the media's coverage of it. Christ... Buckley's Firing Line was more even handed than anything on TV these days.

Licht fucked up with the Trump thing, but if the sole successful course for the network, for any network, is to pick a side and go to war with politicians, as Zucker did with Trump, and Fox does with every D, well... better to just turn out the lights at CNN. It is a decent brand. And in a country with some fucking brains, straddling the middle would give it the best and biggest audience.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Licht fucked up with the Trump thing, but if the sole successful course for the network, for any network, is to pick a side

You and Ty, I’m going to challenge you this, both of you send me two to three sentences summarizing what you each believe you are arguing about in a private message? Tiresome is not enough to describe what you two are doing. I propose to resolve this very important debate.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You and Ty, I’m going to challenge you this, both of you send me two to three sentences summarizing what you each believe you are arguing about in a private message? Tiresome is not enough to describe what you two are doing. I propose to resolve this very important debate.

doing the good lord's work, here Hank.

Let us know what this is all about, will you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You and Ty, I’m going to challenge you this, both of you send me two to three sentences summarizing what you each believe you are arguing about in a private message? Tiresome is not enough to describe what you two are doing. I propose to resolve this very important debate.

Sebby said stuff about left-wing authoritarianism and how the media works. He has now implicitly walked back his silly original claims, so we are no longer arguing about it.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You and Ty, I’m going to challenge you this, both of you send me two to three sentences summarizing what you each believe you are arguing about in a private message? Tiresome is not enough to describe what you two are doing. I propose to resolve this very important debate.

Or rather, you can listen to five hours of Black Napkins while you read these threads.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby said stuff about left-wing authoritarianism and how the media works. He has now implicitly walked back his silly original claims, so we are no longer arguing about it.

Not good to try and dodge blame. You seem to be arguing that someone was fired by CNN for doing a town hall with Trump. What are you saying about it? Not what Sebby is saying , he’ll get his chance.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Not good to try and dodge blame. You seem to be arguing that someone was fired by CNN for doing a town hall with Trump. What are you saying about it? Not what Sebby is saying , he’ll get his chance.

Points of agreement:

1. Licht was fired in part for doing a Trump town hall.
2. Most avid news consumers desire news that reinforces their biases, and consequently there can be no successful libertarian news programs, as both the right and left detest that sort of dispassionate viewpoint.
3. Because of 2, the hoi polloi of news consumers (most avid news consumers) are siloed in what they view.
4. Media cannot successfully report on Trump in an even-handed manner. To succeed in coverage (acquire ratings and appease the siloed audience) one must always be critical or supportive of him. There is no Trump agnosticism.

Neutral points:

1. The mainstream media and social media have historically been and remain staffed disproportionately with left leaning sorts (I think Ty may disagree somewhat with this. He seemed to disagree more with the assertion that this group of left leaning people had real power within media organizations, but I don't recall him weighing in on the specific point that media types predominantly lean left. But given it is pretty obvious, with the exception of Fox, Breitbart, etc., I'm comfortable saying this assessment is not controversial to anyone and so should be deemed neutral).

Disagreement:

1. I argued the left leaning staff at CNN ousted Licht. Ty argued it was the corporate leadership, that Licht had tried to deliver libertarian news to please John Malone (CNN's new owner) and failed. He cited an Atlantic piece that included both as causes. I think Ty held to the view that Licht's firing was a corporate leadership decision, which I admitted it was. He seemed to think it was the exclusive cause, while I concluded it was one of many, including, significantly, blowback from the left leaning staff of CNN. I based my conclusion it could not have been entirely corporate (about ratings) because the Trump Town Hall was CNN's highest rating evening for the quarter, by a wide margin. For reasons I don't know and I don't think have been fully fleshed out by him, Ty did not find my argument there persuasive.