Thursday, June 07, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
18 comments:
NBC is anti-American? You, Mr. Libertarian should see through all this and figure it out. This is capitalism at its finest! She brings in ratings. Hell, even you were enthralled with the whole Rosie/Elizabeth cat fights. NBC is struggling. What's one way to get ratings? Bring in someone who is controversial! Wow.
Turns out I am not an idiot, and I understand ratings equals money. But there are lines. Would a network air a live execution of a man if they knew it was going to make money? Doubt it. Even still I am arguing another point. That point being NBC knows this persons views. Now they either support her views and know she will make money. Or they do not support her views and are just hiring her for the money. Either way, both are very annoying to me. If the first is true then they agree with her ant-american rhetoric. If the second is true then they are sellouts of america. I have a hard time belieive that the NBC guy does not support Rosies views becuase I think if I was pro America I would not want someone on MY network pushing a agenda that I disagree with.
No way around it - NBC President is Anti America
"Would a network air a live execution of a man if they knew it was going to make money?" Nope, because they would get fined big time thus negating any money they might have earned.
"Either way, both are very annoying to me." So if it's annoying to you, that automatically makes it anti-American?
You've seriously lost your mind on this one. Let's step back from the anti-America bit on this and look through the eyes of this new NBC exec. (remember, he replaced fired Kevin Reilly a week ago). NBC has been in a steady decline since Friends and Seinfeld and the old guy just renewed ratings weaklings FNL and some other show I don't remember. Ben Silverman comes in and is trying to make a big splash right away. What better way than to bring in a controversial person such as Rosie O'Donnell? The View enjoyed unprecedented ratings her last couple of weeks because people tuned in just to hear what whacky stuff she would say next.
You're smoking crack if you think NBC (or the president of NBC entertainment) is anti-American.
Aparently your headline for this post should read "Capitalism is Anti-American"
Why is it hard to believe that a network president would actually care about the content he or she displayed on their network? I understand making money. I also believe that the president would have to support someone with such strong convictions. I mean if a person leaned one way and the president disagreed - that would make sense. But Rosie is far to one side that it is mindblowing to me that the president would not agree with this persons views. Becuase eventually he will half to defend her when she says out of control stuff.
This is a tough one.
1. Many television presidents would gladly air live executions for higher ratings. You can always change the channel.
2. If the president of NBC wants to give Rosie a soapbox to promulgate conspiracy theories, then so be it. You can always change the channel.
3. The problem is when Rosie unintentionally cashes in on NBC’s reputation of neutrality. In the short run that reputation will lend credence to her position, but over time it will simply sully the reputation of NBC and Rosie. The perceived neutrality of NBC will diminish along with the weight of what she says.
This process is similar to Moore’s fictional documentaries. His films have gained credibility by cashing in on the reputation of documentaries as films that make a good faith attempt at covering their subject matter fairly. For better or worse, he has ruined this reputation forcing documentary viewers to be more skeptical. If I view Sicko, his new movie, I will expect a fabrication with only a vague verisimilitude to the material it purports to cover.
4. I’m really not sure we can say much about the NBC president’s politics based off his willingness to bring Rosie back to the network. If he has good reason to believe that Rosie will bring in the ratings then he seems to be operating in a capacity that really is American. What could be more American than exercising your freedom to do what’s controversial just to make some money?
In the end, my suspicion is that a Rosie show devoted to conspiracy theories would be a phenomenal failure. A greater failure than a show that was not censored but whines about Christians forcing networks to censor shows. I can’t see a large crowd of Americans tuning in regularly to hear about how terrible our country is. However, it’s for the markets to decide what will and won’t work and I’m quite comfortable letting those working in the television industry make their own decisions about programming even when I think their strategy is wrong.
I can change the channel and there really is nothing more American than the freedom to choose.
Just as a brief note, you say "I can’t see a large crowd of Americans tuning in regularly to hear about how terrible our country is." Keep in mind that a show about how terrible our GOVERNMENT is or how terrible certain corporations are or whatever is NOT a show about how terrible America is; indeed, in most cases I'm aware of, these entities are portrayed as preying upon normal, decent, hard-working americans. I think you should be able to appreciate this distinction, given how much you dislike the government.
You should see what Rosie says. I suspect you have not. She's would never say she is making that claim, but most people would think thats her message.
Listen - Their is a simple premise here.
Rosie is Anti America right now.
NBC President wants Rosie to host two shows on his network.
Hence NBC President is Anti America right now as well.
Now I understand all the capitalism arguments and I understand that I can change the channel.
But to me - the key issue is that the NBC President supports Rosies views and wants them on his network - TWICE by the way.
I find it unrealistic that a President of a network would allow someone with such outrageous views to be on their network twice if he or she did not support their message.
If her views were a little controversial and it got people talking - I could see a President bringing that on his show. Rosie is far out there - She shouts 9/11 conspiracy theories all the time. Vietnam conspiracy theories. Says America is the real terrorists.
Also Rosie does not mention these points as if they are opinions and should be discussed constructively. No no no. She shouts them out as fact. And talks over anyone who disagrees.
NBC President supports her views and I see them both as Anti-American.
Actually, now that I think about it, this is INCREDIBLY ironic given how upset you were about Imus losing his job for making racist remarks on the air. Would you like to offer any insight as to why you felt Imus should keep his job but Rosie shouldn't?
First of all you are changing the argument to talking about if someone should be fired or not for comments they make.
That is not at all what I am talking about. Rosie was not fired.
Rosie is in the process of being HIRED for TWO shows. What are you talking about?
Diatribe, can I have some of what you're smoking?
No doubt. Puff. Puff. Give.
I obviosly stand alone with my beliefs.
You walk a lonely road.
Anyway, the hiring/firing thing is irrelevant; it's a question of whether or not the network wants this person expressing these views on their show. You're saying that, if NBC hires Rosie, then they agree with her views and are anti-american. I'm saying that by exactly parallel logic, if Imus' bosses do not fire him (remember, in both cases, it's just a question of whether or not the person is on their network expressing their views), then they are racists. Therefore, they were fully justified in firing Imus to prevent someone EXACTLY LIKE YOU from writing on your blog that they're racists.
Yahtzee!!
There is a big difference between Imus and Rosie.
First and foremost - Imus was joking. He made a bad racist joke. He then apologized for his comments. Not only on his show but Al Sharpton's show and he apologized to the girls team.
Rosie is not joking with her statements. And she has not and will not apologize for her statements.
But in this era of political correctness, white privelage and all that liberal shit - Imus's boss made the decision to buckle under that pressure and fire him. By the way this was news for freaking ever. Nobody could believe how rude and insensitive his comments were. It was on every network.
On the other hand Rosies comments are on Foxnews and Foxnews only for television. It is only on conservative blogs as well. So MSM did not think Rosies comments were that bad. She can say that our government was involved with 911. America are the real terrorists.
What we consider terrorits are mothers and fathers (you know good people we made do these horrible things). All of this is cool.
Why am I alone on this?
Alright, then you're not denying that Imus's bosses would have been endorsing what he said if they hadn't fired him; you're just saying that it's better to endorse some 'kidding' racism than to endorse 9/11 conspiracy theories and etc? K, well, that's your opinion on the matter; I've never actually listened to Rosie, so I don't know how outraged to be about what she says, but I'm sure it would at least annoy me. Frankly I'd be happy to see them both out of work, but whatever. I don't watch much TV or listen to much radio anyway, so I'm not too mpassioned about either case.
Post a Comment