Dish network stops broadcasting Fox News and Fox Business

[specsaregood]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-21/fox-news-goes-dark-for-dish-network-subscribers.html

excerpts:


The network, part of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox Inc., stopped airing in the homes 14 million Dish subscribers as of Dec. 21. The Fox Business Network also went dark after the two companies failed to negotiate new contract terms.




The Englewood, Colorado-based company said in a statement that Fox had cut off the two news networks in an effort to triple rates on sports and entertainment channels that aren’t a part of the contract up for renewal.

It’s like we’re about to close on a house and the realtor is trying to make us buy a new car as well,” Warren Schlichting, Dish’s senior vice president of programming, said in the statement. Dish regrets the effect of the disruption on consumers and is committed to reaching an agreement, he said.


http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/01b/c40/41e/resized/evil-plotting-raccoon-meme-generator-good-good-3c890d.jpg

[Suzanimal]

They'll be back. We had a bunch of channels out last month during renegotiations.

[moostraks]

They'll be back. We had a bunch of channels out last month during renegotiations.

Amusing thought came to mind that in the interim the FOX bots will be at such a loss without FOX telling them what to think on the latest news cycle stories. Then I said wth am I thinking it is always the same response, blame brown people for foreign politics and black people for domestic politics. If the name sounds funny then you blame Islam regardless of story focus.

[satchelmcqueen]

good.. but sadly they will return.

[PRB]

Private property and capitalism is a bitch, I mean, double edge sword, isn't it?

So much for "all the media is owned by the same people" or "net neutrality guarantees free speech".

What now? Fox News fans beg for cable & satellite neutrality?

[angelatc]

Private property and capitalism is a bitch, I mean, double edge sword, isn't it?

So much for "all the media is owned by the same people" or "net neutrality guarantees free speech".

What now? Fox News fans beg for cable & satellite neutrality?


Fox fans on Facebook squawking about free speech. Clearly they don't get it.

[PRB]

Fox fans on Facebook squawking about free speech. Clearly they don't get it.

the same idiots who cried about Duck Dynasty being "censored"?

[Lord Xar]

Though I understand the sentiment, having just leftist propagandized news is not what we want either.... when a person has two controlled sides, perhaps the wise can dissect the truth, somewhere in the middle. Without it - I feel we lose more converts... but that is just me.

[angelatc]

Though I understand the sentiment, having just leftist propagandized news is not what we want either.... when a person has two controlled sides, perhaps the wise can dissect the truth, somewhere in the middle. Without it - I feel we lose more converts... but that is just me.

LOL - Rupert Murdoch is an Obama voter.

[oyarde]

This type of thing has been going on for years in my area with the local stations . It will likely be resolved .

[heavenlyboy34]

Private property and capitalism is a bitch, I mean, double edge sword, isn't it?

So much for "all the media is owned by the same people" or "net neutrality guarantees free speech".

What now? Fox News fans beg for cable & satellite neutrality?
Cable providers (like Dish Network) don't own or control the media. They're content providers. The MSM is in fact controlled by a mere handful of corporations like Newscorp.

[TheCount]

Cable providers (like Dish Network) don't own or control the media. They're content providers.

I think you mean except for:

Time Warner (CNN, HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, TNT, TBS, TCM, TruTV)
Comcast (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, SyFy, Weather Channel, History, Military, A&E, Bio, Bravo, USA, Oxygen, Telemundo, Hallmark, Sundance, Hulu)
Sky (FOX, FX, Speed, National Geographic, Sky, Hulu, and about a million foreign channels you've never heard of)

So that leaves ABC and CBS as the main news channels that aren't part of a company that also owns cable providers.

[PRB]

Though I understand the sentiment, having just leftist propagandized news is not what we want either.... when a person has two controlled sides, perhaps the wise can dissect the truth, somewhere in the middle. Without it - I feel we lose more converts... but that is just me.

who are you talking about in terms of controlled 2 sides?

[PRB]

I think you mean except for:

Time Warner (CNN, HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, TNT, TBS, TCM, TruTV)
Comcast (NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, SyFy, Weather Channel, History, Military, A&E, Bio, Bravo, USA, Oxygen, Telemundo, Hallmark, Sundance, Hulu)
Sky (FOX, FX, Speed, National Geographic, Sky, Hulu, and about a million foreign channels you've never heard of)

So that leaves ABC and CBS as the main news channels that aren't part of a company that also owns cable providers.

DirecTV
COX

His point was that they don't directly own and run the news channels, but even if they don't they as content providers have enough power to stop channels from being distributed, and channel content creators can also, using their copyright, prevent providers from carrying their stuff.

[Uriel999]

it the terrists fault!

[The Free Hornet]

Cut the cord. I have 40 HDTV OTA channels and an antenna DVR. Monthly cost $0. The DVR cost $300 about 4 yrs ago. The antenna was about $75, 8 years ago.

Internet is $20/month DSL. Videos stream A-OK.

Stop funding the enemies of liberty. Grow a pair.

[PRB]

Cut the cord. I have 40 HDTV OTA channels and an antenna DVR. Monthly cost $0. The DVR cost $300 about 4 yrs ago. The antenna was about $75, 8 years ago.

Internet is $20/month DSL. Videos stream A-OK.

Stop funding the enemies of liberty. Grow a pair.

Not including cspan, aljazeera and RT. congrats!

[tangent4ronpaul]

and about a million foreign channels you've never heard of

Speak for yourself, and try hundreds.


Cut the cord. I have 40 HDTV OTA channels and an antenna DVR. Monthly cost $0. The DVR cost $300 about 4 yrs ago. The antenna was about $75, 8 years ago.

FTW!

consider an upgrade so you can remotely re-aim the antenna.


Not including cspan, aljazeera and RT. congrats!

FTW!

Fox Biz is a loss. The Independents and Stossol are the only widely available Libertarian shows. Cavuto and Dobbs lean our way too.

Pretty scummy of Murdoc to try for a 300% rate hike on sports. Not that I watch sports other than the occasional Olympics or soccer (football) but I like sports because stores are empty but open... OTOH, one library I like is next to a stadium and you can't find a parking place within a mile of it if they are playing.

-t

[Lord Xar]

LOL - Rupert Murdoch is an Obama voter.

... and that means what? Fox brought us Judge Nap... remember? And yes, they fired him... but the fact remains, imho, that Fox still offers a 'diff' view that CNN/MSNBC etc.. doesn't. Without it, there is no counterweight. Stossel, cavuto etc.. you'd never find them on left leaning 'news' outlets.

But hey, I am rabidly anti-progressive/leftists, so anything to offset that disease is good by me. If I had my druthers, all that garbage would be gone.. but it isn't.

I think even the offer of a false choice leads to the possibility of awakening... when you have everyone moving in lockstep, it is much harder to divert the attention.

[amy31416]

the same idiots who cried about Duck Dynasty being "censored"?

Yep, one and the same. No small amount of crossover there. How predictable, eh?

[CaptUSA]

...when you have everyone moving in lockstep, it is much harder to divert the attention.

You do realize that FOX covers almost exactly the same topics as the other channels, right? You are only talking about the illusion of a difference.

FOX is the establishment's propaganda arm of the RNC. Same as MSNBC being the establishment's arm for the DNC. The RNC and DNC are not at odds except over who controls the power. Neither has any interest in returning power to the people. They do not "offset" each other - they complete each other.

[enhanced_deficit]

It is ok.
Appetite for neeconism among US Americans is on the down due to mounting costs.

When they dropping free, uncontrolled news media outlets MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS?

[PRB]

Yep, one and the same. No small amount of crossover there. How predictable, eh?

I'm for private property!!! Until somebody chose to use his private property to exclude me!

I bet these people are all for "Employer rights" until a boss says he won't hire Republicans and Christians too.

[Suzanimal]

LOL, I have Dish and would've never even noticed they were gone if not for this thread. I don't believe this is about censorship, btw. Dish has done this to other channels in the past when renegotiating.


Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly go to bat for millions shut out of Fox News


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODAGy4knRIg



Over the last several months, Fox News and the Dish Network have been embroiled in a battle that has left millions of Fox fans out in the cold.
Fox talent Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly participated in an ad, urging viewers to drop the Dish Network, and bring Fox News back into their lives.
The ad touts the network’s success of thirteen straight years as the number one rated cable news network, and urges their fans to send a message to the cable provider.
According to several business outlets, Dish dropped the network due to Fox threatening to raise it’s fee to be shown on the network, not the perceived conservative bias prevalent in the recent attack ads to Dish.

Read more at http://rare.us/story/bill-oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-go-to-bat-for-millions-shut-out-of-fox-news/#euxI8J3HCobd8oiw.99

[jllundqu]

The Blaze TV took its place... :toady:

[enhanced_deficit]

While they did serve some purpose in inter right-left winger neocons fights and did some mild exposing of some left wing SWCbags, good riddance. Even their attacks on disgraced SWC were out of partisan politics.

[GunnyFreedom]

Private property and capitalism is a bitch, I mean, double edge sword, isn't it?

So much for "all the media is owned by the same people" or "net neutrality guarantees free speech".

What now? Fox News fans beg for cable & satellite neutrality?
Six people are not the same people. They are six people. One, two, three, four, five, six. Six companies own the production of 98% of all media consumed by Americans.

[specsaregood]

LOL, I have Dish and would've never even noticed they were gone if not for this thread. I don't believe this is about censorship, btw. Dish has done this to other channels in the past when renegotiating.


Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly go to bat for millions shut out of Fox News


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODAGy4knRIg

Typical FoxNews truth twisting. From what I've read it was Fox that took the channels away from Dish because Dish didn't agree to the rate increase, not Dish dropping or "censoring" Fox news. If anybody is censoring them, it is Fox itself.

[DamianTV]

Six people are not the same people. They are six people. One, two, three, four, five, six. Six companies own the production of 98% of all media consumed by Americans.

Wins Thread.

Expect each and every one of these six mega companies go out. Last month it was Turner. This month its Murdock / Fox / Faux.

[Suzanimal]

Yeah, I don't miss Fox News.

Judge Jeanine Pirro on ISIS: "They're Coming For US!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm8aW7WOsc

[rpfocus]

I haven't forgotten Fox completely shutting out and ignoring Ron Paul during the primaries. Good riddance, Faux.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw

Ah, the days when people were starting to wake up. Now they've gone back into slumber.

[pcosmar]

I hadn't noticed.

[pcosmar]

Typical FoxNews truth twisting. From what I've read it was Fox that took the channels away from Dish because Dish didn't agree to the rate increase, not Dish dropping or "censoring" Fox news. If anybody is censoring them, it is Fox itself.

Yup..
They wanted to push Fox Sports,, at and increased rate. Fox dropped their other programing.

I have dish.. Used to have Direct TV,, Dish is a better deal,, and better service.
But I don't watch Faux anyway.

[angelatc]

The internet will make third party content providers obsolete anyway. That writing is already on the wall .People who live in rural America will probably be underserved and/or overcharged, but for the most part almost all our communication hubs (phone, OTA, cable, satellite, internet) are going to merge into one delivery system.

[specsaregood]

Yup..
They wanted to push Fox Sports,, at and increased rate. Fox dropped their other programing.


You gotta admit they have ballz though; to claim "censorship" because dish doesnt' want to pay what Fox wants them to pay in order to run Fox content. Its no different than me stopping posting on rpfs and claiming censorship of rpfs because they wont agree to pay me my demand of $5 per post. balls, big ones.

[GunnyFreedom]

You gotta admit they have ballz though; to claim "censorship" because dish doesnt' want to pay what Fox wants them to pay in order to run Fox content. Its no different than me stopping posting on rpfs and claiming censorship of rpfs because they wont agree to pay me my demand of $5 per post. balls, big ones.

What blows my mind is (yes, I know better, much of this is for the sake of argument) isn't FOX supposed to be the conservative news channel that believes in the free market? They are going to claim that failure to pay them more money than before is somehow equivalent to censorship on the part of the extorted?

Wow, someone's going to hell. :(

[specsaregood]

What blows my mind is (yes, I know better, much of this is for the sake of argument) isn't FOX supposed to be the conservative news channel that believes in the free market? They are going to claim that failure to pay them more money than before is somehow equivalent to censorship on the part of the extorted?

Wow, someone's going to hell. :(

Right, I would have no complaints if they simply encouraged their viewers/fans to contact dish and ask them to carry the channel or to change providers. But to call it censorship is ridiculous.

[PRB]

The internet will make third party content providers obsolete anyway. That writing is already on the wall .People who live in rural America will probably be underserved and/or overcharged, but for the most part almost all our communication hubs (phone, OTA, cable, satellite, internet) are going to merge into one delivery system.

in other words, the only people stopping FoxNews from being streamed for a fee or commercial sponsored free for users, is News Corporation. This isn't censorship, it's the distributor unwilling to accept a contract.

[PRB]

What blows my mind is (yes, I know better, much of this is for the sake of argument) isn't FOX supposed to be the conservative news channel that believes in the free market? They are going to claim that failure to pay them more money than before is somehow equivalent to censorship on the part of the extorted?

Wow, someone's going to hell. :(

just like Duck Dynasty being dropped was "censorship", LOL.

[GunnyFreedom]

just like Duck Dynasty being dropped was "censorship", LOL.

heh, if you are trying to somehow get my goat with that it's not going to work. I've never watched the duck people a day in my life. I didn't care when they came, I didn't care when they went... but for the sake of argument, wasn't that show suspended because the producers didn't like one of the guy's comments about gays? You do know that it doesn't have to be government doing it to be 'censorship,' right?

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

Let's see. The duck pluckers were suspended by whatever network because they didn't like something someone said to a totally different party about gay people.

whatever network -- media outlet
suspended -- suppression of public communication
didn't like something someone said -- politically incorrect or inconvenient

I mean, it's looking to me like all the elements are in place.

I self-censor all the time. A contract dispute is one thing, but suspending/cancelling a show because someone said something politically incorrect, I don't care WHO is doing the censoring, that's still censorship.

In full disclosure, I had to go back and look up the event, since I didn't even remember why they had been suspended.

The FOX thing is clearly NOT censorship, in any way, shape, or form.

The duckplucker's thing, how is it not censorship? It meets every single element of the definition.

And I honestly couldn't care less about the duck people.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

... and that means what? Fox brought us Judge Nap... remember? And yes, they fired him... but the fact remains, imho, that Fox still offers a 'diff' view that CNN/MSNBC etc.. doesn't. Without it, there is no counterweight. Stossel, cavuto etc.. you'd never find them on left leaning 'news' outlets.

But hey, I am rabidly anti-progressive/leftists, so anything to offset that disease is good by me. If I had my druthers, all that garbage would be gone.. but it isn't.

I think even the offer of a false choice leads to the possibility of awakening... when you have everyone moving in lockstep, it is much harder to divert the attention.
MSNBC employed Pat Buchanan... Until they "realized" he was pro-white which according to the Cathedral is an exclusively hateful position.

[pcosmar]

in other words, the only people stopping FoxNews from being streamed for a fee or commercial sponsored free for users, is News Corporation. This isn't censorship, it's the distributor unwilling to accept a contract.

Not exactly. The only thing that is stopping Faux from being carried by dish is Faux Corp.
Dish didn't drop them. They did not renew the contract.. and tried to bully Dish.

[PRB]

heh, if you are trying to somehow get my goat with that it's not going to work. I've never watched the duck people a day in my life. I didn't care when they came, I didn't care when they went... but for the sake of argument, wasn't that show suspended because the producers didn't like one of the guy's comments about gays? You do know that it doesn't have to be government doing it to be 'censorship,' right?

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

Let's see. The duck pluckers were suspended by whatever network because they didn't like something someone said to a totally different party about gay people.

whatever network -- media outlet
suspended -- suppression of public communication
didn't like something someone said -- politically incorrect or inconvenient

I mean, it's looking to me like all the elements are in place.

I self-censor all the time. A contract dispute is one thing, but suspending/cancelling a show because someone said something politically incorrect, I don't care WHO is doing the censoring, that's still censorship.

In full disclosure, I had to go back and look up the event, since I didn't even remember why they had been suspended.

The FOX thing is clearly NOT censorship, in any way, shape, or form.

The duckplucker's thing, how is it not censorship? It meets every single element of the definition.

And I honestly couldn't care less about the duck people.

does unprofitable count as inconvenient?

[GunnyFreedom]

does unprofitable count as inconvenient?
Even if it didn't, the question is totally irrelevant. They were making money hand over fist when they were suspended, and they were in the middle of a contract.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Yeah, I don't miss Fox News.

Judge Jeanine Pirro on ISIS: "They're Coming For US!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm8aW7WOsc

lolol she's not going to let another american die? who made her potus?

[fr33]

Yeah, I don't miss Fox News.

Judge Jeanine Pirro on ISIS: "They're Coming For US!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm8aW7WOsc
She sounds just like the media guy on V for Vendetta.

[PRB]

Even if it didn't, the question is totally irrelevant. They were making money hand over fist when they were suspended, and they were in the middle of a contract.

are you sure the contract didn't say "in the event something happens, such as, we realize ratings will drop, profits will drop, social pressure isn't worth the production or broadcasting costs, we may end our contract"?

[GunnyFreedom]

are you sure the contract didn't say "in the event something happens, such as, we realize ratings will drop, profits will drop, social pressure isn't worth the production or broadcasting costs, we may end our contract"?
I think I'm not the one just making stuff up and flinging it at a wall to see what sticks...

:)

[PRB]

I think I'm not the one just making stuff up and flinging it at a wall to see what sticks...

:)
And I don't think it's as simple as censorship, the provider didn't like the publicity so they decide to suspend the show until the heat was over.


Again, is unprofitable inconvenient? and if inconvenient is no excuse to stop something, what IS? Only when it's criminal? Do you think business sign contracts without protecting themselves for things like these? (as in, it's foreseeable)

[GunnyFreedom]

And I don't think it's as simple as censorship, the provider didn't like the publicity so they decide to suspend the show until the heat was over.

in other words, the dictionary definition of 'censorship.'


Again, is unprofitable inconvenient? and if inconvenient is no excuse to stop something, what IS? Only when it's criminal? Do you think business sign contracts without protecting themselves for things like these? (as in, it's foreseeable)
It doesn't matter because it's not relevant. There were no financial issues prior to the suspension, during the suspension, or after the suspension. Even if there were, the network stated why the suspension happened, and it had nothing to do with profitability. Just making crap up and hoping it sticks is not rational argumentation.

[helmuth_hubener]

The longer this stalemate goes on, the better! Stand strong, gentlemen! Don't give an inch!

[pcosmar]

And I don't think it's as simple as censorship, the provider didn't like the publicity so they decide to suspend the show until the heat was over.


Oh bullshit.

This has been going on for a while.. And it is over Fox Sports (not Faux Snooze).
Fox wanted to extort more money from Dish customers for Sports programing. Dish would not agree to it, so Fox dropped the contract.

Fox pulled it's broadcasting off Dish.
it has nothing to do with censorship.


Want Fox,, get Direct TV,, (and pay the price)

[PRB]

Oh bullshit.

This has been going on for a while.. And it is over Fox Sports (not Faux Snooze).
Fox wanted to extort more money from Dish customers for Sports programing. Dish would not agree to it, so Fox dropped the contract.

Fox pulled it's broadcasting off Dish.
it has nothing to do with censorship.


Want Fox,, get Direct TV,, (and pay the price)

I get that part completely. How is duck dynasty different in terms of private parties deciding what isn't profitable or good for business? Are either of these cases of "censorship"? (My answer is no, neither)

[GunnyFreedom]

I get that part completely. How is duck dynasty different in terms of private parties deciding what isn't profitable or good for business? Are either of these cases of "censorship"? (My answer is no, neither)

Do you seriously not understand the difference between content and vehicle? One was suspended because of an attempt to extort more money when it came time to renew a contract, and the other was shuttered in the middle of a contract due to the ideological leanings and content of the participants

I laid out the dictionary definition of 'censorship' (quoting) and then laid out the particulars of the duck pluckers point by point and they matched. You made zero effort to refute the dictionary definition and you made zero effort to refute the particulars. You just pretended that I never types a word and bulled on like no argument had even been made. That is not an intellectually integretous position.

Like so many before me I am flummoxed at your obstinate obtuseness.

What part of the dictionary definition of censorship do you disagree with?

Are you seriously arguing that the network suspended the duck pluckers because a bean counter said 'they aren't making enough money so suspend the contract because a $1mn loss is better than a $500k profit?'

Honestly, you are acting like you have some kind of mental defect. If you disagree with my premises, arguments, or conclusions, then address why you thing the premises are wrong, the arguments are fallacious, or the conclusions are non sequiturs. You don't get to ignore all opposing arguments and declare victory by fiat.

[PRB]

Do you seriously not understand the difference between content and vehicle?


Yes, I don't know the difference, or more specifically, never heard of those words used together for context of censorship



One was suspended because of an attempt to extort more money when it came time to renew a contract, and the other was shuttered in the middle of a contract due to the ideological leanings and content of the participants


To say one was in the middle of a contract due to newly discovered ideological leanings or expressions, assumes the network was too stupid to have foreseen it. Excuse me? The whole entertainment value was in their redneck lifestyle. If one contract was actually violated, were they sued for it? Or are courts so anti-Christian that they'd be thrown out?



I laid out the dictionary definition of 'censorship' (quoting) and then laid out the particulars of the duck pluckers point by point and they matched. You made zero effort to refute the dictionary definition and you made zero effort to refute the particulars.


Except I did. I said unprofitable or bad publicity may count as "inconvenience".

Are you saying that once the contract is inked, nothing can stop them from airing? Please. Of course there are ways out of a contract and exceptions.



You just pretended that I never types a word and bulled on like no argument had even been made. That is not an intellectually integretous position.

Like so many before me I am flummoxed at your obstinate obtuseness.

What part of the dictionary definition of censorship do you disagree with?

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

I disagree with the part about media outlets. Because using this definition, one can say Dish censored Fox because Fox's fee is "inconvenient". "Other groups" could mean if SOME audience decided not to watch or replay something in a house, that would be "censorship". What about all the outlets that NEVER wanted to sign Duck Dynasty? By this definition, they suppressed, due to objectionable or inconvenient, determined by their audience and sponsors.



Are you seriously arguing that the network suspended the duck pluckers because a bean counter said 'they aren't making enough money so suspend the contract because a $1mn loss is better than a $500k profit?'


I am seriously arguing that the suspension was either allowed by the contract, or money was part of the consideration.




Honestly, you are acting like you have some kind of mental defect. If you disagree with my premises, arguments, or conclusions, then address why you thing the premises are wrong, the arguments are fallacious, or the conclusions are non sequiturs. You don't get to ignore all opposing arguments and declare victory by fiat.

I never declared victory. I am still responding. See above, thanks.

Just so I understand, since you're so familiar with the definition and proper use.
Is the fact that Youtube and RonPaulforums not allowing porn, a form of "censorship" ?

If so, isn't anything outlet that doesn't allow absolutely everything and anything, a "censorship"?

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, I don't know the difference, or more specifically, never heard of those words used together for context of censorship

To say one was in the middle of a contract due to newly discovered ideological leanings or expressions, assumes the network was too stupid to have foreseen it. Excuse me? The whole entertainment value was in their redneck lifestyle. If one contract was actually violated, were they sued for it? Or are courts so anti-Christian that they'd be thrown out?

why are you adding this absurd requirement that the network was unfamiliar with their positions? Do you think a proper (ie government/Orwellian what you are thinking of) censor is EVER unfamiliar with the leanings of their subjects?

Just like you before added in this notion of 'profitability' right out of thin blue air, now you are adding the notion that these ideas must have come as a surprise right out of thin blue air. Why do you do that? It's almost like you are trying constantly, almost madly, to distract from any rational premises, arguments, and conclusions by tossing up as much bullshit as you can in the hopes one may be taken by the bait.


Except I did. I said unprofitable or bad publicity may count as "inconvenience".

So, you are in the exact same phrase denying that you were ignoring the argument, by demonstrating exactly HOW you were just ignoring the argument. LMAO do you seriously believe your own bullshit? Convienience and profitability had literally NOTHING to do with my premises, arguments, or conclusions. That's just the garbage you spammed in an attempt to avoid discussing my premises, arguments and conclusions. Much like your new randomly added requirement that this ideology be 'newly discovered.'


Are you saying that once the contract is inked, nothing can stop them from airing? Please. Of course there are ways out of a contract and exceptions.

yes, it is physically possible to fail to carry out contractual obligations. That's kind of the point. Failing to carry out contractual obligations is not something one does because a show is failing to make a profit since that exposes the network to a tenfold bigger loss. If a show is not profitable, then it doesn't get renewed. I have addressed your profitability red herring at least half a dozen times and you are still throwing up more red herrings and utterly failing to address my premises, arguments, and conclusions.


"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

I disagree with the part about media outlets. Because using this definition, one can say Dish censored Fox because Fox's fee is "inconvenient". "Other groups" could mean if SOME audience decided not to watch or replay something in a house, that would be "censorship". What about all the outlets that NEVER wanted to sign Duck Dynasty? By this definition, they suppressed, due to objectionable or inconvenient, determined by their audience and sponsors.

then you have to disagree with the actual dictionary definition of censorship in order to posit that the suspension of the duck peoe was not censorship. That position is irrational, and it it fruitless to argue with the irrational. One of my heroes, Robert Heinlein said "never argue with a fool - he will drag you down to his level and them beat you with experience."


I am seriously arguing that the suspension was either allowed by the contract, or money was part of the consideration.

I never declared victory. I am still responding. See above, thanks.

Just so I understand, since you're so familiar with the definition and proper use.
Is the fact that Youtube and RonPaulforums not allowing porn, a form of "censorship" ?

i have censored myself at least a dozen times during the course of our conversation.


If so, isn't anything outlet that doesn't allow absolutely everything and anything, a "censorship"?

No. You should probably work on improving your reading comprehension. Content selection is not the same thing as content based restriction. In fact, they are in completely opposite directions of each other.

[PRB]

why are you adding this absurd requirement that the network was unfamiliar with their positions? Do you think a proper (ie government/Orwellian what you are thinking of) censor is EVER unfamiliar with the leanings of their subjects?


I'm not.



Just like you before added in this notion of 'profitability' right out of thin blue air, now you are adding the notion that these ideas must have come as a surprise right out of thin blue air. Why do you do that? It's almost like you are trying constantly, almost madly, to distract from any rational premises, arguments, and conclusions by tossing up as much bullshit as you can in the hopes one may be taken by the bait.


Oh, I was just saying profitability is usually a good reason to end a contract, and contracts usually specify that.

[PRB]

i have censored myself at least a dozen times during the course of our conversation.


Thank you. Now I know your use of the word (or my ignorance of the dictionary definition, call it what you want, I'm shameless and refuse to play semantics)



No. You should probably work on improving your reading comprehension. Content selection is not the same thing as content based restriction.


O RLY? Do tell. I honestly don't know the difference, so please educate and slap me. I'm listening.



In fact, they are in completely opposite directions of each other.

That's like saying separate but equal isn't equal. Saying something doesn't make it true, but I am open to hearing your explanation and changing my mind. Do tell.

[PRB]

then you have to disagree with the actual dictionary definition of censorship in order to posit that the suspension of the duck peoe was not censorship. That position is irrational, and it it fruitless to argue with the irrational. One of my heroes, Robert Heinlein said "never argue with a fool - he will drag you down to his level and them beat you with experience."


No, i don't have to. I can apply the definition and say Dish's failure to carry Fox News is censorship. Why can't I?

[Suzanimal]

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Check out the spin on this dumb ass take on the deal.:rolleyes:

Was Fox the "winner"? I guess that depends on how much of an increase they were asking for to begin with. I'm gonna be pissed if my bill goes up to pay these extra costs.


Liberals Are Going To HATE This MASSIVE Victory For Fox News

There’s no question as to whether or not the left dislikes the conservative news outlet Fox, which makes the massive victory they just achieved even better.

Fox News Insider reports that the three-week long war with Dish Network, which has been more of a mudslinging competition than it has contract negotiation, has finally come to an end with Fox as the victor and Dish being put in their place. The two sides finally came to terms with a multi-year agreement for carriage of the Fox News network and its sister station, Fox Business Network, which will now be available to subscribers who have qualifying programming packages.

Tim Carry, vice president of distribution for both Fox networks, and Warren Schlichting, senior vice president of programming for Dish, released a joint statement saying:

“We thank the viewers of FOX News and FOX Business and DISH customers for their patience throughout this process.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, Fox made out much better in the deal than Dish. The two Fox networks will appear side-by-side on the channel lineup, giving Fox Business a much better shot at being watched. Fox was also given a 50 percent increase in its rate per subscriber, up from $.75 to $1.50 each.

The lopsided agreement is likely because of the nearly instant revenue loss Dish experienced when 90,000 subscribers canceled their service after Dish announced it was dropping Fox with another 350,000 sending strongly worded emails to the cable provider, according to the Conservative Tribune.

While Dish may have been trying to censor the only conservative voice in mainstream news, in the end the one principle that conservatives love most won the day — capitalism. It would have cost the provider entirely too much money to go through with dropping Fox, proving yet again that the ratings giant is here to stay, regardless of how hard it’s attacked by the left-wing media.

With Fox being the only network that will go against the grain and cover stories the liberal media won’t touch, this is a huge victory for conservatives across America. Make sure you share this story if you agree that we need a powerful voice in the news.

http://madworldnews.com/massive-victory-fox-news/

[pcosmar]

12/21/14 4:00pm

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/fox-pulls-channels-dish-network


"It's like we're about to close on a house and the Realtor is trying to make us buy a new car as well," Warren Schlichting, Dish's senior vice president of programming, said in a statement "Fox blacked out two of its news channels, using them as leverage to triple rates on sports and entertainment channels that are not in this contract."

[sparebulb]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Fox made out much better in the deal than Dish. The two Fox networks will appear side-by-side on the channel lineup, giving Fox Business a much better shot at being watched. Fox was also given a 50 percent increase in its rate per subscriber, up from $.75 to $1.50 each.

New Math from the Pubic Scrools helps 'Murikans figger out how to pay for their Freedom Fries.

[PRB]

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Check out the spin on this dumb ass take on the deal.:rolleyes:

Was Fox the "winner"? I guess that depends on how much of an increase they were asking for to begin with. I'm gonna be pissed if my bill goes up to pay these extra costs.

you might be pissed, good news is, in America, cable subscription, like internets, is not a right, you are not forced to use it. So your carrier packaging costs and channels you don't want? Tough, switch or move or cancel, nobody can force you to use it, nobody can force his provider/carrier to change plans (but go ahead and try).

[pcosmar]

you might be pissed, good news is, in America, cable subscription, like internets, is not a right, you are not forced to use it. So your carrier packaging costs and channels you don't want? Tough, switch or move or cancel, nobody can force you to use it, nobody can force his provider/carrier to change plans (but go ahead and try).

Well yeah,, and I got rid of Direct TV because they kept raising the price, Dish had been good at keeping a better price and service.

This is pretty dishonest of Fox to pull their programming and blame Dish for "censoring" them.

[Suzanimal]

you might be pissed, good news is, in America, cable subscription, like internets, is not a right, you are not forced to use it. So your carrier packaging costs and channels you don't want? Tough, switch or move or cancel, nobody can force you to use it, nobody can force his provider/carrier to change plans (but go ahead and try).

I never implied cable tv was a right.:rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

Wins Thread.

Expect each and every one of these six mega companies go out. Last month it was Turner. This month its Murdock / Fox / Faux.

And Griffith Communications. But though they did the same sort of 'Write letters and save us!' whining as Fox, they also seem to have negotiated in good faith, because they aren't getting dropped.

[PRB]

I never implied cable tv was a right.:rolleyes:

Good. Never said you said or implied it either.

[Suzanimal]

you might be pissed, good news is, in America, cable subscription, like internets, is not a right, you are not forced to use it. So your carrier packaging costs and channels you don't want? Tough, switch or move or cancel, nobody can force you to use it, nobody can force his provider/carrier to change plans (but go ahead and try).


Good. Never said you said or implied it either.

You quoted me and responded with that comment. Sounds to me like you did.

[PRB]

You quoted me and responded with that comment. Sounds to me like you did.
you might be pissed, good news is, in America, cable subscription, like internets, is not a right, you are not forced to use it.

Yes, I said that, how is that saying you said it's a right?

[Suzanimal]

you might be pissed, good news is, in America, cable subscription, like internets, is not a right, you are not forced to use it.

Yes, I said that, how is that saying you said it's a right?

Then why would you even bring it up?

[PRB]

Then why would you even bring it up?

just to remind you that you can be pissed, and short of cancelling it altogether, your options are limited (if any). The same reason you brought up that you'll be pissed. Telling somebody something they knew already.

[Suzanimal]

just to remind you that you can be pissed, and short of cancelling it altogether, your options are limited (if any). The same reason you brought up that you'll be pissed. Telling somebody something they knew already.

Oh, I didn't realize people here knew I had Dish Network and that I'd be pissed.

[PRB]

Oh, I didn't realize people here knew I had Dish Network and that I'd be pissed.

they don't have to know that, they just have to know nobody likes paying extra if it's avoidable.