Media Bias

[Lorewarn]

Another reason journalists happen to lean more liberal/progressive is because part of the job involves the idea of exposing or holding accountable.

 

Conservatism is called such because it seeks to conserve - to hold on to how things have been. Some amount of that is fundamentally at odds with a profession that requires a willingness or eagerness to do the opposite.

[Archy1221]

 

[DevoHusker]

Not an exact fit here, but interesting nonetheless

 

 

 

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

Not an exact fit here, but interesting nonetheless

 

 

 

Who in their right mind would pay extra to watch more CNN?  Or any cable news for that matter?

 

At least with ESPN+ you are getting programming not available from other places like cricket, hockey, lower division collegiate games, etc.  

[admo]

@funhusker agreed.  You are so right about that.  So many better options than more cable news

[knapplc]

Maybe instead of writing books these idiots could give this information to law enforcement, since it's time-sensitive and all that.

 

 

 

 

[Enhance]

On 4/12/2022 at 1:32 PM, funhusker said:

Who in their right mind would pay extra to watch more CNN?  Or any cable news for that matter?

 

At least with ESPN+ you are getting programming not available from other places like cricket, hockey, lower division collegiate games, etc.  

I was really intrigued by this product when it was first announced, not as a potential buyer/consumer, but as someone in the industry who has worked on subscription services. I was primarily curious to see what kind of an audience they would draw, which from what we can tell, hasn't been great to this point.

 

IMO it's not a conceptual problem. There's a massive CNN audience hungry for their content. They haven't handled their launch well and they've had a lot of technical limitations to work through. You perhaps also have to wonder what their expectations and product strategy were based on market research. It also doesn't help that they've had a couple of big controversies in recent years to battle through.

 

I wouldn't call it a lost cause yet but it definitely sounds like they goofed some of the fundamentals of subscription-based product launches

[BigRedBuster]

29 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I was really intrigued by this product when it was first announced, not as a potential buyer/consumer, but as someone in the industry who has worked on subscription services. I was primarily curious to see what kind of an audience they would draw, which from what we can tell, hasn't been great to this point.

 

IMO it's not a conceptual problem. There's a massive CNN audience hungry for their content. They haven't handled their launch well and they've had a lot of technical limitations to work through. You perhaps also have to wonder what their expectations and product strategy were based on market research. It also doesn't help that they've had a couple of big controversies in recent years to battle through.

 

I wouldn't call it a lost cause yet but it definitely sounds like they goofed some of the fundamentals of subscription-based product launches

I'm just sick of all the + channels.  ESPN+, BTN+, CNN+.....and on and on and on...Whatever happened to buying a service, get the networks and watching what they provide instead of constantly having to buy more and more subscriptions.

 

When it used to be just cable TV, everyone thought streaming services would be awesome because you could pick and choose what you want to have and it would be cheaper.  Anymore, if you were subscribed to all of these, it would be A LOT more expensive than it was before.

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm just sick of all the + channels.  ESPN+, BTN+, CNN+.....and on and on and on...Whatever happened to buying a service, get the networks and watching what they provide instead of constantly having to buy more and more subscriptions.

 

When it used to be just cable TV, everyone thought streaming services would be awesome because you could pick and choose what you want to have and it would be cheaper.  Anymore, if you were subscribed to all of these, it would be A LOT more expensive than it was before.

 

 

I'm not that sure. DirecTV's cheapest base package is $107/mo (and I don't think that includes renting the box). Here's a theoretical equivalent/alternative:

 

$35 - Sling TV Blue, gets you most of the basic/base channels you'd watch

$10 - HBOMax

$15 - Disney+/ESPN+/Hulu Bundle

$10 - Netflix

$5 - AppleTV+

 

That gets you probably 90% of what DirecTV would offer, plus massive amounts of original content you couldn't get on there (Every original movie/series on Disney, Netflix, HBO, Apple), plus sports.

[Born N Bled Red]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'm not that sure. DirecTV's cheapest base package is $107/mo (and I don't think that includes renting the box). Here's a theoretical equivalent/alternative:

 

$35 - Sling TV Blue, gets you most of the basic/base channels you'd watch

$10 - HBOMax

$15 - Disney+/ESPN+/Hulu Bundle

$10 - Netflix

$5 - AppleTV+

 

That gets you probably 90% of what DirecTV would offer, plus massive amounts of original content you couldn't get on there (Every original movie/series on Disney, Netflix, HBO, Apple), plus sports.

 

They need to cut the cable companies completely out of it. Let people buy channels independently. I'd gladly pay $3/ month subscriptions to the 15 channels I actually watch and call it good. 

[Enhance]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm just sick of all the + channels.  ESPN+, BTN+, CNN+.....and on and on and on...Whatever happened to buying a service, get the networks and watching what they provide instead of constantly having to buy more and more subscriptions.

 

When it used to be just cable TV, everyone thought streaming services would be awesome because you could pick and choose what you want to have and it would be cheaper.  Anymore, if you were subscribed to all of these, it would be A LOT more expensive than it was before.

It's definitely going to be interesting to see how the market evolves. It's kind of annoying because we're in this weird middle ground now of companies trying to expand into their own unique streaming models while still trying to work out group deals (i.e. CNN+ but CNN still being on cable networks and Youtube TV). The consumer is having to make tough choices in some cases because yeah... if you've cut cable, but been sucked into these streaming services, you're probably still paying less than you were at one point with cable... but we're inching back up there.

 

I will say that I at least like that there are more choices for me to personally make. I've got Youtube TV, Netflix, Discovery+ and Disney+ right now. So I'm around about $100/month. And I can cut these services and restart them super simply. So I think the market has some pros and cons but that ultimately the consumer is having to decide what to spend money on.

 

The product that I often question my subscription to the most is Youtube TV because they have three times now added more channels (that I doubt the majority of their audience asked for) and each time increased the price by $5/month. And I really only use it one time a week right now for F1 races. It'll get used a bit more in the football season but they're the one that's becoming the closest thing to cable despite initially being a much more affordable option.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

They need to cut the cable companies completely out of it. Let people buy channels independently. I'd gladly pay $3/ month subscriptions to the 15 channels I actually watch and call it good. 

It's not just the cable companies. Viacom, for example, owns a bunch of channels and forces providers to buy all of their channels together. So even if there were no cable companies, this problem would still exist.

[knapplc]

13 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It's not just the cable companies. Viacom, for example, owns a bunch of channels and forces providers to buy all of their channels together. So even if there were no cable companies, this problem would still exist.

 

Agreed. Breaking up monopolies would help.

[teachercd]

I can't wait for the day of a la cart subscription.  

 

20 a month for the "service" and each station you want is 2.99

Done

[JJ Husker]

24 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I can't wait for the day of a la cart subscription.  

 

20 a month for the "service" and each station you want is 2.99

Done

Only 40 channels would cost more than I’m paying for premium tier ultimate cable. But sure there’s about 200+ channels we never watch.  Hell, if they offered ala carte, the only channel we’d have would be Hallmark.   I recently tried to put together multiple streaming plans to replace what we wanted/needed from our cable package and couldn’t do it for less money.

 

Part of the problem making the bill so high is they also provide our gig speed internet. Not giving that up though and it’s much cheaper bundled with a cable package.