Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

[SLICKYINC]

Did you even read what I said or do you just want it to solely be political to validate your feelings? The political nature of select hosts or segments might've played a portion of the decline, but its genuinely not even a concern when compared to the actual movement of consumers and the expense of their business model. ESPN was reliant on on-air talent and Monday Night Football/NBA Basketball. They paid WAY too much for those contracts & talent and when people are cutting cords it has cost them immensely.

But then again my aunt who shares InfoWars articles on Facebook for a living thinks that flies are unnaturally attracted to Obama and she agrees it was the politics so GG youre right

I responded to bass about his opinion on the political stance of espn. You then posted bla, bla, cord cutters. So yes, I read what you posted. But thanks for agreeing with me about the politics driving viewers away.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

The point remains the same. They lost tons of viewers due to their political talk. It’s a fact. It’s why they issued a company policy banning them from talking politics. Nobody ever said there weren’t other factors.

How many viewers is “tons,” though? And how many of those lost viewers compose ESPN’s core target demographics? I’ve yet to see anybody post any quantitative data of substance on this front. What we do know is that ESPN has been losing viewers for years now and trying to find a way to maintain viewership in an era where the bulk of their (non live sports) programming has been rendered obsolete by social media and smart phone technology.

People will also stop watching Disney movies at the rate they currently are if they decide to go the political route and it seems like they are.

It hasn’t hurt Disney at the box office yet. In fact, they’ve been setting records despite fringe backlash for politics. So far results have shown (especially with Marvel) that quality is the biggest deciding factor for how well they do in the box office. Make good movies and people will generally show up even if they disagree with not-so-subtle subtext of the movies.



It wouldn’t be surprising to see a bit of a downturn moving forward with the MCU since they’re in a transition period and trying to establish the next phase of their cinematic universe. Superhero fatigue as well as losing some of the most popular heros and leading actors definitely seems like a recipe for some lower takes at the box office. Politics may play some small part in it, but current history shows pretty clearly that making quality movies and marketing the hell out of them is the key to success, not staying apolitical.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

How many viewers is “tons,” though? And how many of those lost viewers compose ESPN’s core target demographics? I’ve yet to see anybody post any quantitative data of substance on this front. What we do know is that ESPN has been losing viewers for years now and trying to find a way to maintain viewership in an era where the bulk of their (non live sports) programming has been rendered obsolete by social media and smart phone technology.







It hasn’t hurt Disney at the box office yet. In fact, they’ve been setting records despite fringe backlash for politics. So far results have shown (especially with Marvel) that quality is the biggest deciding factor for how well they do in the box office. Make good movies and people will generally show up even if they disagree with not-so-subtle subtext of the movies.



It wouldn’t be surprising to see a bit of a downturn moving forward with the MCU since they’re in a transition period and trying to establish the next phase of their cinematic universe. Superhero fatigue as well as losing some of the most popular heros and leading actors definitely seems like a recipe for some lower takes at the box office. Politics may play some small part in it, but current history shows pretty clearly that making quality movies and marketing the hell out of them is the key to success, not staying apolitical.

You want me to tell you exactly how many? You haven't been paying attention if you think that people haven't stopped watching ESPN because of politics. Again, even their company president said this and felt so strongly he banned it from the network. This isn't even a debate.

Marvel hasn't pressed the political issues that much yet, though. But it seems as though they are moving that direction.

 

[SSVol]

Too bad we can't ban politics from every channel.

Banned? That would bite us, but it would sure be nice if they had to select and disclose biases and be held to account for neutrality if they so indicated. I don't in the slightest mind MSNBC and FNC because their bias is clear. The ones that bother me most are the ones who claim neutrality when it is clear they are biased.

 

[scvolfan7]

Banned? That would bite us, but it would sure be nice if they had to select and disclose biases and be held to account for neutrality if they so indicated. I don't in the slightest mind MSNBC and FNC because their bias is clear. The ones that bother me most are the ones who claim neutrality when it is clear they are biased.

A Reaganite goon that was FCC chairman got rid of the fairness doctrine in ~1985. That completely changed political discussion on TV.

MSNBC is center left but mainly just hysteria garbage and frothing over everything trump does. Only good host is Chris Hayes and he can’t really do/say what he actually wants to. Fox is far right state TV. CNN is center right and wouldn’t have ratings if it wasn’t on in every lobby across the world

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

You want me to tell you exactly how many? You haven't been paying attention if you think that people haven't stopped watching ESPN because of politics. Again, even their company president said this and felt so strongly he banned it from the network. This isn't even a debate.

Agreed on the bolded part. The real debate is about how big of an impact that really had in relation to all the viewers ESPN has been losing over the last decade. That’s the only point I’ve been trying to make. Backtrack all you want, but your OP implied that ESPN’s downturn was mostly due to politics.

Marvel hasn't pressed the political issues that much yet, though. But it seems as though they are moving that direction.

And they’ve still skull-dragged the less political DCU. Black Panther and Captain Marvel both easily cleared a billion dollars at the box office despite some backlash around political messages of the movies/actors/creators. As long as they make a quality product and market it well, they’ll do fine at the box office. Some of the movies they’ve been cranking out don’t even have the quality part down and are breaking records based off of marketing and brand name alone.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Agreed on the bolded part. The real debate is about how big of an impact that really had in relation to all the viewers ESPN has been losing over the last decade. That’s the only point I’ve been trying to make. Backtrack all you want, but your OP implied that ESPN’s downturn was mostly due to politics.





And they’ve still skull-dragged the less political DCU. Black Panther and Captain Marvel both easily cleared a billion dollars at the box office despite some backlash around political messages of the movies/actors/creators. As long as they make a quality product and market it well, they’ll do fine at the box office. Some of the movies they’ve been cranking out don’t even have the quality part down and are breaking records based off of marketing and brand name alone.

Whatever you say

 

[Jackcrevol]

It’s also going to hurt that they are now beginning to push their political agendas. I hope that someday Hollywood and sports will learn that people don’t turn to entertainment to have other people’s political views shoved in our faces

Fox Sports. it's like watching USA Today om video. It's insulting as a man to watch a game and have all that thrown in your face. It's literally dumbed down for the masses.

I'm not a genius, not even close. but, i can critically think and read on an 9th grade level. The robot football and baseball graphic are almost as listening to Shannon Sharpe butcher his grammar, DW im an equal opportunity hater. Was a TB fan growing up, now, i want to slap him.

 

[Vols4us]

How many viewers is “tons,” though? And how many of those lost viewers compose ESPN’s core target demographics? I’ve yet to see anybody post any quantitative data of substance on this front. What we do know is that ESPN has been losing viewers for years now and trying to find a way to maintain viewership in an era where the bulk of their (non live sports) programming has been rendered obsolete by social media and smart phone technology.

It hasn’t hurt Disney at the box office yet. In fact, they’ve been setting records despite fringe backlash for politics. So far results have shown (especially with Marvel) that quality is the biggest deciding factor for how well they do in the box office. Make good movies and people will generally show up even if they disagree with not-so-subtle subtext of the movies.

It wouldn’t be surprising to see a bit of a downturn moving forward with the MCU since they’re in a transition period and trying to establish the next phase of their cinematic universe. Superhero fatigue as well as losing some of the most popular heros and leading actors definitely seems like a recipe for some lower takes at the box office. Politics may play some small part in it, but current history shows pretty clearly that making quality movies and marketing the hell out of them is the key to success, not staying apolitical.

ESPN has lost nearly 13 million subscribers in 6 years, but it is not as bad as it sounds

ESPN Subscriber Losses Finally Start to Slow Down After Network Shifts Focus to Sports, Not Politics

ESPN Loses Two Million More Subscribers In Fiscal 2018

Just three of numerous about ESPN.

ABC has been treading water financially for years.

Disney movies are now strongly feature franchise driven at the box office. They will hit on a one off about every 3 years. When they hit on a franchise it drives the revenue train for a period. The question is what will the next major mover be because the others are tired or dying. Can't live on remakes like The Lion King every year. Decent profile link about Disney is below.

Top 5 Companies Owned by Disney (DIS)

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

ESPN has lost nearly 13 million subscribers in 6 years, but it is not as bad as it sounds

ESPN Subscriber Losses Finally Start to Slow Down After Network Shifts Focus to Sports, Not Politics

ESPN Loses Two Million More Subscribers In Fiscal 2018

Just three of numerous about ESPN.

ABC has been treading water financially for years.

Disney movies are now strongly feature franchise driven at the box office. They will hit on a one off about every 3 years. When they hit on a franchise it drives the revenue train for a period. The question is what will the next major mover be because the others are tired or dying. Can't live on remakes like The Lion King every year. Decent profile link about Disney is below.

Top 5 Companies Owned by Disney (DIS)

Great articles there! Didn’t realize that ESPN’s loss of subscribers had “slowed” in 2018 compared to previous years.

Reading these articles, it definitely seems like Invol’s post about ESPN having a hole in the ship and drilling it bigger is a great analogy.

ESPN has been facing a decline in subscribers for the better part of a decade (much of which is due to cord cutters in general and not necessarily viewers). In an effort to plug the hole, they tried to pander to sjws with “woke” coverage, and the backlash hurt them even further. The losses did slow in 2018 and last fall ESPN execs decided and publicly declared they’d avoid politics. However, they’re still in trouble as their business model doesn’t seem like it’s built to last too much longer with the ways people consume sports media nowadays.



As for Disney’s movies, who knows what franchise will be their cash cows next? Seems like people have been starting to tire of the superhero movies and the new Star Wars movies made a ton of money but seem to have split the fan base. It will definitely be interesting to see where they turn once they can’t milk nostalgia with all the remakes anymore. It will also be interesting to see what they do with original series and programming once their streaming app launches.

 

[Rishvol]

ESPN has lost nearly 13 million subscribers in 6 years, but it is not as bad as it sounds

ESPN Subscriber Losses Finally Start to Slow Down After Network Shifts Focus to Sports, Not Politics

ESPN Loses Two Million More Subscribers In Fiscal 2018

Just three of numerous about ESPN.

ABC has been treading water financially for years.

Disney movies are now strongly feature franchise driven at the box office. They will hit on a one off about every 3 years. When they hit on a franchise it drives the revenue train for a period. The question is what will the next major mover be because the others are tired or dying. Can't live on remakes like The Lion King every year. Decent profile link about Disney is below.

Top 5 Companies Owned by Disney (DIS)

Disney is stupidly going away from what people love about Disney. Family friendly cartoons. Everything has to be CGI and it's annoying. That's why people love Pixar so much because it gives them the family friendly cartoons with some emotion.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Disney is stupidly going away from what people love about Disney. Family friendly cartoons. Everything has to be CGI and it's annoying. That's why people love Pixar so much because it gives them the family friendly cartoons with some emotion.

CGI remakes seem like more of a cynical money grab than anything.

 

[MikeVol44]

That's true enough. Historical facts and figures can't be completely proven. But my issue is with the false equivalency of historic texts vs the Bible, which only snippets of are considered reliable by most historians.

None of the guys you mentioned were contemporaries of Christ and his followers. I guess the closest would be Josephus, at least geographically, and he probably was the only one from your list that could've conversed with Jesus had they ever met.

The problem with Josephus's work, other that the fact it was written 60 years after Jesus's purported death, is that we (I say we because I teach history) don't know how much it's been doctored by Christian scribes over the years. I.e every time it was re-transcribed were portions redacted so as to not contradict the doctrine of the day?

It's an interesting discussion. A lot of my colleagues don't believe Jesus existed. I'm one that believes he did.

Thanks....

A few things to ponder...

1. NO original manuscripts of any ancient historical texts from 2,000 years ago exist as far as we know.
2. Josephus' life spanned the time from around AD 40-100. He would not have known Jesus of Nazareth--the Jesus of Scripture, but he did live during the time when the NT documents were written.
However, as you mentioned, I do not claim that the copies we have of the autographs of his history have remained unchanged.

However, the same is NOT true concerning the OT and NT documents.

The extant copies of the autographs from which our English Bible translations arise have remained virtually unchanged--and are:

1. greater in number than any manuscript of any and all historical events transpiring in ancient history;
2. the time gap from the actual events and the copies of the manuscripts documenting those events is the smallest of any piece of ancient literature;
3. the sheer numbers of documents in existence of these copies exponentially DWARFS any other piece of ancient literature in existence.
4. the volumes of documents demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the copies from which our English Bibles are translated are virtually the SAME as those in existence 2000 yrs ago and beyond.

One has to actually make a determined and uneducated decision to reject the Bible's legitimacy as an accurate historical record.
And it's just that simple.

If anyone actually believes Julius Caesar lived, breathed, and was murdered in the "...ides of March"--
then it would be beyond foolish to reject the historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, and rose again as a matter of historical fact when you consider the sheer
volume of historical evidence supporting His life story.

My faith is not some abstract, unsubstantiated, ethereal idea rooted in unsubstantiated mythology--it is GROUNDED in the historical validity and veracity of the Bible as an accurate record of history!

 

[OrangenSC]

All that’s good starting out. Just give it a year, and then all those promotionals will start to expire and that bill will balloon big time.

That all do at some point. That's why you switch. That's how this whole conversation got started in the first place. But I'm protected for awhile, even then the only one that can balloon is DirecTV.

 

[chargervol]

Great articles there! Didn’t realize that ESPN’s loss of subscribers had “slowed” in 2018 compared to previous years.

Reading these articles, it definitely seems like Invol’s post about ESPN having a hole in the ship and drilling it bigger is a great analogy.

ESPN has been facing a decline in subscribers for the better part of a decade (much of which is due to cord cutters in general and not necessarily viewers). In an effort to plug the hole, they tried to pander to sjws with “woke” coverage, and the backlash hurt them even further. The losses did slow in 2018 and last fall ESPN execs decided and publicly declared they’d avoid politics. However, they’re still in trouble as their business model doesn’t seem like it’s built to last too much longer with the ways people consume sports media nowadays.



As for Disney’s movies, who knows what franchise will be their cash cows next? Seems like people have been starting to tire of the superhero movies and the new Star Wars movies made a ton of money but seem to have split the fan base. It will definitely be interesting to see where they turn once they can’t milk nostalgia with all the remakes anymore. It will also be interesting to see what they do with original series and programming once their streaming app launches.

Been learning about this quite a bit lately and you are on track.
There's been a steady decline coinciding with streaming advancements for a while now. And those services and suppliers took a major jump forward over the last couple of years to add to the ESPN "woke" disaster.

There is definitely political pushback but the numbers have been somewhat skewed at times. Basically, right leaning news outlets have conducted more surveys. Of course the more conservative the audiences polled, the more that leftist politics were cited. Even when other options played a role. However, even neutral and left leaning outlets reported survey numbers showing the politics of ESPN being a significant factor, no denying that.

Somewhat of a surprise though, ESPN has a very significant conservative portion inside their main office. The left leaning push seems to have been a financial decision in an attempt to stem the losses they were taking and obviously backfired. As you suggested.

Furthermore, there used to be more of a right leaning, good old boy, hank jr-ish presence in ESPN years back. Their numbers were doing well at the time with very few complaints. Seems it's not quite as much of "keep politics out of sports", as it is - "keep other people's politics out of sports".

Personally, I hate every side of politics. So while I admit to seeing the hypocrisy, as long as the final result is getting rid of EVERBODY's politics from sports, I'm calling it a win for me.

 

[Vols4us]

I thought most of the educated world who is not trying to make a buck off the less knowledgeable had moved past the Jesus did not exist, Jesus did not do what is written, the Bible is nothing but stories and fables, yada yada yada stage. It's really lazy and even unscientific to go that route. If they don't want to test the Bible with other factual sources and theories, at least read a law school educated successful journalist's many works - Lee Stroble - who ran the traps doing everything he could to blow it up with the support of his employer, the Chicago Tribune. Then make an informed decision instead of spouting scientific theories as being facts to support being an atheist or agnostic. Test it yourself.

 

[benholt06]

Thanks....

A few things to ponder...

1. NO original manuscripts of any ancient historical texts from 2,000 years ago exist as far as we know.
2. Josephus' life spanned the time from around AD 40-100. He would not have known Jesus of Nazareth--the Jesus of Scripture, but he did live during the time when the NT documents were written.
However, as you mentioned, I do not claim that the copies we have of the autographs of his history have remained unchanged.

However, the same is NOT true concerning the OT and NT documents.

The extant copies of the autographs from which our English Bible translations arise have remained virtually unchanged--and are:

1. greater in number than any manuscript of any and all historical events transpiring in ancient history;
2. the time gap from the actual events and the copies of the manuscripts documenting those events is the smallest of any piece of ancient literature;
3. the sheer numbers of documents in existence of these copies exponentially DWARFS any other piece of ancient literature in existence.
4. the volumes of documents demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the copies from which our English Bibles are translated are virtually the SAME as those in existence 2000 yrs ago and beyond.

One has to actually make a determined and uneducated decision to reject the Bible's legitimacy as an accurate historical record.
And it's just that simple.

If anyone actually believes Julius Caesar lived, breathed, and was murdered in the "...ides of March"--
then it would be beyond foolish to reject the historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, and rose again as a matter of historical fact when you consider the sheer
volume of historical evidence supporting His life story.

My faith is not some abstract, unsubstantiated, ethereal idea rooted in unsubstantiated mythology--it is GROUNDED in the historical validity and veracity of the Bible as an accurate record of history!

Lol you can print something until you're blue in the face, doesn't make it true.

I agree that there is solid evidence for the life and death of Jesus, but rose from the dead?

That's where your leap of faith comes in. You'll defend that faith until your dying day and that's fine.

But don't tell me I've made an uneducated decision when it's consistent with the vast majority of scholars in my field.

Historians don't accept the historicity of the Bible. It's really that simple. You are clearly an intelligent guy, strong in your faith. I'd be curious to know the foundation of it- instilled by parents, fear of death... probably one of the usual reasons. You're so lucky to have been born into the correct religion. Those Muslims, Hindus, etc.... man what a crappy break.

You can find more Christian literature trying to explain away things like the parallels between Sargon of Akkad and Biblical Moses, than actual academia on the web. Faith means so much to people, hell they've invested so much time and effort into it. I prefer to live and let live tbh, but when Christians legislate their morality on to everyone else I can't do it.

 

[Rishvol]

Attenborough voice: notice the atheist. He feels threatened that the Christian is standing their ground. The standard attack of generalization is not going according to plan so they begin their back up plan... Attacking the Christian's belief as if it is not their own.

 

[SweetasSoda]

Lol you can print something until you're blue in the face, doesn't make it true.

I agree that there is solid evidence for the life and death of Jesus, but rose from the dead?

That's where your leap of faith comes in. You'll defend that faith until your dying day and that's fine.

But don't tell me I've made an uneducated decision when it's consistent with the vast majority of scholars in my field.

Historians don't accept the historicity of the Bible. It's really that simple. You are clearly an intelligent guy, strong in your faith. I'd be curious to know the foundation of it- instilled by parents, fear of death... probably one of the usual reasons. You're so lucky to have been born into the correct religion. Those Muslims, Hindus, etc.... man what a crappy break.

You can find more Christian literature trying to explain away things like the parallels between Sargon of Akkad and Biblical Moses, than actual academia on the web. Faith means so much to people, hell they've invested so much time and effort into it. I prefer to live and let live tbh, but when Christians legislate their morality on to everyone else I can't do it.

You're right. It's about faith. If you're sincere, He will show you. It appears you're not. I am curious what Christian morality legislation you're concerned about.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

You're right. It's about faith. If you're sincere, He will show you. It appears you're not. I am curious what Christian morality legislation you're concerned about.

The whole "historians don't accept the historicity of the Bible" is a fallacy anyway. That's a blanket statement. Many historians do accept the historicity of the Bible as, once again, it is the most attested book in all of ancient literature. So if you don't accept it, then you really can't accept anything else.

The problem here is not the Bible, but the starting point of the historian. Ask the historian a couple of questions, 1. do you believe in God? 2. Do you believe in the possibility of miracles or the supernatural. If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the Bible is rejected before the evidence is even considered. This is a worldview issue, not a historical one. No one would have a problem accepting the historicity of the biblical text if it did not contain miracles. If you start from a worldview of naturalism, then the debate from your point of view is over before it began. the Bible CAN'T be true in that worldview and therefore no amount of historical information or evidence matters to them.

 

[InVOLuntary]

You're right. It's about faith. If you're sincere, He will show you. It appears you're not. I am curious what Christian morality legislation you're concerned about.

What's funny is that theory requires a degree of faith as well. The difference is the athiest bases his beliefs or lack thereof on evidence he believes in and the religious folks base their faith on what evidence they believe.

I don't really care what anyone chooses to believe but it seems so many atheist are focused on not finding answers to our past but solely focused on disproving the existence of God.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

What's funny is that theory requires a degree of faith as well. The difference is the athiest bases his beliefs or lack thereof on evidence he believes in and the religious folks base their faith on what evidence they believe.

I don't really care what anyone chooses to believe but it seems so many atheist are focused on not finding answers to our past but solely focused on disproving the existence of God.

ding ding ding

 

[SweetasSoda]

The whole "historians don't accept the historicity of the Bible" is a fallacy anyway. That's a blanket statement. Many historians do accept the historicity of the Bible as, once again, it is the most attested book in all of ancient literature. So if you don't accept it, then you really can't accept anything else.

The problem here is not the Bible, but the starting point of the historian. Ask the historian a couple of questions, 1. do you believe in God? 2. Do you believe in the possibility of miracles or the supernatural. If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the Bible is rejected before the evidence is even considered. This is a worldview issue, not a historical one. No one would have a problem accepting the historicity of the biblical text if it did not contain miracles. If you start from a worldview of naturalism then the debate from your point of view is over before it began. the Bible CAN'T be true in that worldview and therefore no amount of historical information or evidence matters to them.

Yes, this is all true, and you explained it well again. It is obvious he doesn't want to believe. What I found interesting was the way he differentiated between faiths. It seemed as though Christianity was the only one that "tried to impose morality" on anyone, and although the Roman Catholic Church did many atrocities historically, some want to ignore what others did and still do.

 

[bignewt]

Protestants and Catholics killed each other for hundreds of years and both were Christian. Religion like anything else on this earth can be very good or very bad.

 

[Rishvol]

Protestants and Catholics killed each other for hundreds of years and both were Christian. Religion like anything else on this earth can be very good or very bad.

They were killing each other for political power.