How Dead is Cable TV? Part II

Which groups do we target next? Cable television still has its perks but it's not always in a good spot. How about some Disney and NBCUniversal channels? All of this courtesy of ctv.kwayisi.com by the way.

Disney has a lot of stuff given their acquisition of Fox a couple of years ago. Fox News has dropped a bit at 31 percent for a year's span, but is still a leading channel in ratings. They don't bow to the same things CNN does. Fox Sports 1 has had a one year drop of 26 percent. Eventually, Skip Bayless and Colin Cowherd get tiring for some and the sports aren't all that interesting when they do get them. The rest of that brand are very small, though Business has had struggles.

The FX brand is one of the more interesting ones. But title name for the channel has dropped in average views in years. While a 14 percent decline compared to last year is small, it's nearing an average 200 thousand. Too many of the same movies airing all the time if I had to guess. No syndicated stuff other than Mike and Molly (and even that gets monotonous) and not enough original stuff. A 13 percent decline for FXX and an average of nearly 100 thousand. Kind of the same situation, but with a few other shows for syndication. Their idea from eight years ago is slowly dropping real badly. And FX Movie Channel is really small, but suffering a bit at the moment. Can't comment too much on it.

It'll be hard to determine what Disney's number have that are truthful. But their Channel and Junior channels have not suffered greatly at 7 and 1 percent compared to where they were last year. XD has dropped a bit at 23 percent. Outside of Christmas stuff, Freeform keeps struggling. A 17 percent decline is not horrible, but not good. Maybe less Shrek airings (lots of other films, too) and having a few other shows in syndication would be beneficial.  I'm surprised they have National Geographic. It's at a 24 percent decline, but it fluctuates wildly. This could rebound just a little. It's Wild channel hasn't struggled at only 2 percent.

The sports ain't doing good. ESPN has done better, but a 300 plus percent increase isn't spectacular if they can't hold on to their audience. Fluctuation the key factor. Same with ESPN 2. Even for as small as the College Sports channel is, it's done better. I'd imagine it will do even stronger numbers this upcoming fall.

NBCUniversal has a bit of channels. CNBC had a huge boost last year, probably because of the pandemic. Compared to last year, it's at a 26 percent decline. Still, people will watch it for the stocks. MSNBC's decline is like Fox News, though numbers are just behind Fox. They must be doing something grand if they aren't reaching CNN's low numbers. In terms of entertainment, Bravo has seen fluctuation, but a downward slope now. Same with the E! channel. They both roughly air the same films and not enough original stuff they re-air (though less Kardashian crap is good. Need more Modern Family reruns and other syndicated shows.)

I didn't know they had Oxygen. Whatever the case,  an 18 percent decline with some fluctuation. That can also be applied to SyFy. I know standards are low for the channel in recent years, but if Harry Potter can't save them, what can?  USA Network does better than most cable channels, but has a 10 percent decline. They have stepped up in movies aired, something I haven't seen to this extent in at least 15 years or more. But they are very much the Dick Wolf network with Law and Order and whatever Chicago show they have airing constantly. Eventually, you burn out.

NBC Sports Network will be gone after this year. The 700 plus percent increase does not save the problems it had from last year. With ups and downs, Golf Channel has been getting an interest for now with over 60 percent of an uptick. As it stands, Disney has a lot more at stake with what they got from Fox. I know the Internet is used more, but the channels are suffering the most from them compared to NBCUniversal. Speaking of them, they can recover at any point. But I don't expect viewers to stick with them consistently. Who do you think would survive longer? 

Being Mocked or Overreacting?

If the name David Hogg rings a bell to you, it shouldn't be a surprise. This 17 year old was one of the survivors of the Parkland shooting back in February and has become an extreme advocate for gun control. Hence the whole March for our Lives nonsense and all this school walkout crap. Like most kids, he's looking at all sorts of colleges. He's got a strong GPA and SAT score, but got rejected by four schools from California. Still he got accepted by a Florida college and one from California. It was reported by The Daily Wire and retweeted by Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham with a reply along with the retweet of the site.

Now, Hogg and others are accusing Ingraham of mocking him and he has gone on a crusade to get advertisers to boycott her show on Fox News. Looking at her tweet on Twitter, I don't see it. Where's the mocking? I'm not seeing that constitutes that as websites are saying. If she had mocked the shooting and his movement, then I could see why he would overreact. But judging by the tweet, she hasn't done anything. She parroted the same thing Daily Wire said. The colleges didn't accept him, but she considered it him whining about it and saying acceptance rates about one of the colleges. While I wouldn't say these are prestigious schools, these are probably decent sized schools where you really need to get your act together and hope you can send a letter as soon as possible.

In that Daily Wire article, it seems like he's just whining that people who want to change the world can't get in. This seems like he is saying that he got rejected because of his movement. That could be the case. Hogg is like an athlete. You're not sure what he is going to say next if he's even relevant after 2018 is over. Daily Wire mentioned a friend not getting accepted into UCLA. That has had enough controversy considering LaVar Ball and the incident in China back in November. Last thing they need is an idiot teenager who thinks his movement will do anything when it won't. Bad publicity is not always a good thing.

There's way worse mocking from others that don't see the light of day. Hogg is being an overreacting crybaby. Too thin skinned if you want my thought. It's an excuse to keep his 15 minutes of fame going over what Ingraham said that has no insults, name calling, whatever. He's not going to change anything, especially with gun control or any of that. Maybe he should focus on mental health and how to help out those who really need the help. Sometimes I really do question these younger generations of kids.

You're Not Special, LeBron James

You can thank the NBA for giving their league freedom to say whatever they want. Especially for silver spoon players like LeBron James. With the shooting at Parkland Florida, the Cavalier took his shots at President Trump, putting his hand into politics yet again. A Fox News anchor, Laura Ingraham blasted at James and added in a hashtag Shut up and Dribble. Of course, both sides are met with criticism with certain Hollywood people siding with James, and others siding Ingraham.

It is a little uncalled for on Ingraham's side, but she's right. Anybody who thinks this is a race issue needs to stop with that. James wants to be involved in some way. He's an attention whore. He wouldn't understand a thing about politics. He's no different than the average person when it comes to hot button issues. This guy is basically a loser with a high school education. People worship James, and it gets sickening when they believe every thing he does or says. If it were Gregg Popovich or Mark Cuban, or Kevin Durant, we'd be hearing the same thing from Ingraham about saying they should shut up.

It's sad that Adam Silver doesn't do anything to calm this stuff down. This is also the same guy that refused to punish New York Knicks owner James Dolan for his treatment towards disgruntled fans. Is the commissioner of the NBA too chicken or scared to do anything to these guys? They gotta have some restrictions at some point of what you can say. You represent the NBA, show a little respect.

On the other side, Ingraham seemed destined for attention. She could have gotten her point across without relying on a hashtag. Both of this stuff is heat of the moment. Lots of sports fans in support and hatred for James. Vice versa for the anchor. Hollywood dummies like Ellen Pompeo have spoken and said their word. It's a never ending cycle and it's going to keep happening.

I doubt Fox News will change what they do. Same with the NBA. Silver does need to put his foot down on this. There's a fine line between saying your opinion and getting involved in politics. He needs to quit wimping out and delivering punishments to non-NBA game related stuff. If he keeps allowing this, it's going to get much worse with how the players and coaches act when it comes to politics.

Bill O'Reilly: Unstable Journalist

I know this is a political blog and one of my intentions was to avoid it, but this could have very serious implications as far as ratings go and a different network being the top cable news channel.

http://sullivanentertainment.blogspot.com/2017/02/what-is-this-blog.html

My thoughts on cable news is that it is a joke. MSNBC, Fox, and CNN are all power hungry for ratings and will do whatever is necessary to spread their political views across. One of the clear victors has been Fox for a long time, but it could come tumbling down in the wake of Bill O'Reilly's departure. One of their mainstays, he was let go following a scandal of sexual harassment, which other Fox people have been accused of. It ends a run of "The O'Reilly Factor", one of the biggest, if not, biggest news show in all of cable.

It all starts at the very top with Roger Ailes, who created Fox News in 1996 and was in charge of the channel for a very long time. Last year he was sued by Gretchen Carlson, who worked on the network, for sexual harassment. Some people inside the company were not fond of him as well, In the end, Fox ended up paying millions to Carlson. That's what's happening right now with O'Reilly. A lot of women were not fond of him. They didn't act like the way he acted. Obviously, when there's accusations, there are others that will open up and say they were harassed. It's not hard to see why he is a hated figure and a powerful one.

O'Reilly was one of Fox's rating kings. He was someone that could get people to listen to him over a lot of controversial topics. Pretty good for a guy who used to work on Inside Edition. ("We'll do it live!") My impression of the guy is that he was unstable and came off as a loudmouth male version of Nancy Grace. For as much I didn't care about Barack Obama, the interview he did a few years ago on the then President was one of the most unprofessional and very rude interviews I have ever seen out of anything judging by the few snippets. I would say he is a step above comedy news people like the unfunny bitch Samantha Bee and idiot Stephen Colbert who try to be armchair journalists, but not by much.

It really wouldn't surprise me if O'Reilly did mistreat and harass women. He seems like the kind of person that would combined with his approach to stuff. However, there has to be actual evidence in order to show that. Saying what happened may not always guarantee a win for victims. Whatever the case, it's not a stretch to say Fox News is going to struggle for a while. With a number of their big name people gone in the last few years, it's a tough sell to listen to newcomers compared to other networks that have people like Wolf Blitzer.

If what is confirmed is true, it'll be a black eye for O'Reilly and Fox News. It would be tougher to get women to work at the network due to being afraid of what could happen. They're not the first network to deal with this, but their reputation could be a lot more damaging than sports broadcasters scandals. Life is going to be hell for who knows how long and be a punching bag for late night comedy and The Simpsons.

Virginia Tech Massacre 10 years later

In the midst of writing an update blog, it never dawned on me about one of the deadliest massacres on a college campus and of the United States ten years ago. It's easy to forget how much time has progressed since April 16, 2007, and really, how tragic and heartbreaking it was and the amount of blaming on certain things.

On that day, Seung-Hui Cho, a student at Virginia Tech, unleashed fire in two separate areas on the morning of April 16th. Within two hours, he would end up killing 32 students, injuring 23 from either gunfire or other cause of injuries, and then put the gun on himself. Like any shooting like this, a lot of questions were raised. How was this guy able to get a gun? Was there something wrong with him? Should he have not been able to purchase weapons? A lot of this was talked about, as well as his mental health and past events that should have waved red flags. Unfortunately, nothing was done and it led to a bit of outrage about guns, mental health, and a few other things. In a way, it was like what happened in April of 1999 when the Columbine Massacre happened. A lot of questions were raised on it and as the years went on, discussions were made on the two boys that caused the massacre in Colorado.

I remember being at home on Spring Break in high school and heard about it at some point during the day. Later on, I heard my father saying to me something about the blame being put on video games, which frustrated me. You hear that whenever there was shooting back in the 2000s. That was to the point where even Dr. Phil McGraw talked about it. Like any gamer, I was in disgust when Fox News had on the biggest moron in the world of video games, Jack Thompson, on. If this name isn't familiar to anybody, he was a lawyer (who has been disbarred for the last 8-9 years) and has gone after video games after some big shootings. That included Columbine in 1999, and shooting at Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky, less than a year and a half before Columbine. He had also went after numerous Rockstar Games products, notably Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt.

What Thompson went after this time was a game called Counter-Strike. Specifically an Xbox version of it. (Xbox was still being made, but ended that year) He would go on to criticize Bill Gates for the game, though Valve created it, not Microsoft who allowed it onto their system and computers. I remember reading an article that there was nothing really violent and stories from people who roomed with Cho that he played mostly Sonic the Hedgehog. I really haven't heard much about blame being put on video games in recent years other than maybe what happened at Sandy Hook in 2012, but I think this quote from Jason Della Rocca says it all about most people's feelings. "It's so sad. These massacre chasers, they're worse than ambulance chasers, they're waiting for these things to happen so they can jump on their soapbox." When MSNBC had Thompson appear and read Rocca's quote, Thompson got very frustrated, called Rocca a few names and if my memory is correct, tried to compare what happened to September 11th in 2001.

It gives me grief to no end about the scapegoating for the format. There's all this supposed research. All these people that say murder simulators, training to kill. That's nothing but a bunch of bullshit to get 15 minutes of fame or act like they know everything before the truth is heard. That's what happened with Columbine, Many blamed video games and ultimately, the truth was heard on the two shooters. It's sad when hundreds of millions that play video games throughout the world are instantly generalized by one person who went on the rampage and the media puts out a scapegoat without looking at what caused the rampage. To that point, I remember not too long watching a couple videos of a rally in New York City that had gamers expressing their view and showing the positive side of gaming through the group, Empire Arcadia. Here are the links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvCYSHLkQWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIjtGCv-IsU

That's the thing that the media tends to ignore. A line that NFL player Michael Strahan said in 2006 to newspaper reporters was along the line that most do in order to get more people to read. You sell on the negative, no matter the format. Anything positive is an afterthought. You see in news headlines on television, Papers will have the front cover decked out with something that catch everyone's attention. Gamers have to deal with all sorts of bullshit that happened a long time ago, may happen in the present, and possibly occur in the future. There's an enjoyment to video games to many as much as some people have with viewing movies or going to see a concert for a band or singer you like. I think one of the downsides is that video games are often looked down and maybe still looked at today like cartoons as being for kids.

Video games have been around since the 1970s. My father grew up during its start as a teenager. My older siblings got to see the NES era begin. For my younger brother, myself, and others of the late part of Generation Y, we've seen the rise of 3D. It's still a young format compared to other things like movies and music. However, we still see stereotypes being set among us. Despite that, we stick together and continue to do what we love. We're not going to let the media ruin something that is enjoyed by many because they generalize an entire group.

In the end, Virginia Tech is still one of the biggest tragedies in the United States. Thompson was disbarred a year and half later and culture still thrives on violence with stuff on various formats. It was a wake up call to many things regarding health and weaponry. What it also did, however, was show that gamers are not going to give up on defending what they love when the media makes a bunch of bad assumptions. (mostly Fox News and their legion of idiots) Let the world shine brighter so that these incidents can be prevented in the future and no bloodshed can happen.