|
Post by jamesod on Feb 24, 2017 9:25:34 GMT -5
Personal anecdotes about nobody on your friends list watching Maher are not very compelling as he's had a nationally televised political talk show for 24 years now and HBO isn't in the business of losing money. He's put out half-a-dozen books, a documentary, he's a producer for Vice, and he's on the board of directors for PETA, and he's a notorious schmoozer. He's highly plugged in to the machine in a multitude of ways and is a very influential figure on the left. Not sure if hero is the right word . . . maybe bulldog is better. 1. This entire board is built on people relying on personal anecdotes to contradict science, polls, surveys, whatever. So, fuck you baph. 2. Point taken. 3. Are his ratings good? Maybe it's an age thing. Do old people watch him? I can't imagine millennials watching him. But maybe they do. I'm middle aged. Maybe it's just my age group that doesn't watch him.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Feb 24, 2017 9:27:45 GMT -5
Liberals don't hold him up as a hero because he's "anti-muslim." Remember when Ben Affleck came on and looked like an idiot arguing about muslims with him? 1. I think his "anti-muslim" stance is fairly recent, no? Or am I mistaken? I wasn't aware of that until recently. If I'm correct, explain why he wasn't a hero before he became vocal on that stance. 2. No I don't. Because I don't watch Maher. Because he's freaking unwatchable. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Feb 24, 2017 16:00:38 GMT -5
Personal anecdotes about nobody on your friends list watching Maher are not very compelling as he's had a nationally televised political talk show for 24 years now and HBO isn't in the business of losing money. He's put out half-a-dozen books, a documentary, he's a producer for Vice, and he's on the board of directors for PETA, and he's a notorious schmoozer. He's highly plugged in to the machine in a multitude of ways and is a very influential figure on the left. Not sure if hero is the right word . . . maybe bulldog is better. 1. This entire board is built on people relying on personal anecdotes to contradict science, polls, surveys, whatever. So, fuck you baph. 2. Point taken. 3. Are his ratings good? Maybe it's an age thing. Do old people watch him? I can't imagine millennials watching him. But maybe they do. I'm middle aged. Maybe it's just my age group that doesn't watch him. 1. Fair enough. 2. Boring. 3. Would assume so. Nobody stays on TV for 25 years if they can't produce ratings and sell ad revenue. I think I might be in your same demographic as I find Bill kind of "meh" and even largely "eh" even though I do enjoy seeing liberals squirm when another liberal calls a spade a spade re: Islam.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Feb 25, 2017 8:09:24 GMT -5
1. This entire board is built on people relying on personal anecdotes to contradict science, polls, surveys, whatever. So, fuck you baph. 2. Point taken. 3. Are his ratings good? Maybe it's an age thing. Do old people watch him? I can't imagine millennials watching him. But maybe they do. I'm middle aged. Maybe it's just my age group that doesn't watch him. 1. Fair enough. 2. Boring. 3. Would assume so. Nobody stays on TV for 25 years if they can't produce ratings and sell ad revenue. I think I might be in your same demographic as I find Bill kind of "meh" and even largely "eh" even though I do enjoy seeing liberals squirm when another liberal calls a spade a spade re: Islam. Regarding the bolded part: Yes and No. When I peruse the "HBO Now" app, it is clear that HBO serves two masters, as do practically all television channels and movie channels. There's a good reason that Bravo still constantly runs anti american agitprop produced by George Clooney or Robert Redford, which were box office failures that nobody wants to see. It's not because they get high ratings. It's because pre teens (and jobless adults) home from school, bored and naturally curious, will eventually settle on it after they have Guardians of the Galaxy completely memorized. Why did HBO produce a drama about something so naturally boring as a 30 year old Supreme Court nominee's confirmation, starring the hottest black actress of today as Anita Hill? It's not because there was any public demand, or interest. HBO, like NBC, Fox, and all the other trash, makes its money off the few winners it has, and they spend some of that money towards their greater goal of subverting American culture and making people stupid. The few hundred million dollar earning blockbusters are what keeps the lights on, and the rest is "philanthropy." Of course, the disinformation projects often become profitable (like "Newsroom" and other such trash), and that's great, but it is not all about profits. Moviemaking is so profitable that they can afford to put "activism" ahead of profits If it were about ratings, HBO would give Milo a talk show. They would offer a talk show to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Adam Carolla, all of whom who are more talented than, and would rate higher than Maher, Lewis Black, and the rest of the schmendriks that they constantly foist on the public. And HBO knows it. But the thing is, is that they do "good enough" in ratings to keep the lights on and everybody rich
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 10:13:25 GMT -5
Liberals don't hold him up as a hero because he's "anti-muslim." Remember when Ben Affleck came on and looked like an idiot arguing about muslims with him? 1. I think his "anti-muslim" stance is fairly recent, no? Or am I mistaken? I wasn't aware of that until recently. If I'm correct, explain why he wasn't a hero before he became vocal on that stance. 2. No I don't. Because I don't watch Maher. Because he's freaking unwatchable. ;-) 1. He has been pro-profiling for at least 5-6 years, maybe longer. 2. It was all over the news, you didn't have to watch the show you dingleberry. You should know that anything Ben Affleck does gets press. Never has a less talented guy gotten more love from the media.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 10:14:53 GMT -5
Oh, and HBO doesn't really care about ratings. Subscriptions? Yes. But they'll show plenty of shit that doesn't really drive subscriptions. At the end of the day, they only need 1-2 hit shows to drive subscriptions. When you have a Game of Thrones, people are signing up for that. Everything else is pet projects and icing on the cake. And this is coming from someone (me) that watches and listens to his show most weeks.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Feb 25, 2017 11:05:36 GMT -5
Oh, and HBO doesn't really care about ratings. Subscriptions? Yes. But they'll show plenty of shit that doesn't really drive subscriptions. At the end of the day, they only need 1-2 hit shows to drive subscriptions. When you have a Game of Thrones, people are signing up for that. Everything else is pet projects and icing on the cake. And this is coming from someone (me) that watches and listens to his show most weeks. I always figured you had bad taste.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Feb 25, 2017 22:31:22 GMT -5
1. Fair enough. 2. Boring. 3. Would assume so. Nobody stays on TV for 25 years if they can't produce ratings and sell ad revenue. I think I might be in your same demographic as I find Bill kind of "meh" and even largely "eh" even though I do enjoy seeing liberals squirm when another liberal calls a spade a spade re: Islam. Regarding the bolded part: Yes and No. When I peruse the "HBO Now" app, it is clear that HBO serves two masters, as do practically all television channels and movie channels. There's a good reason that Bravo still constantly runs anti american agitprop produced by George Clooney or Robert Redford, which were box office failures that nobody wants to see. It's not because they get high ratings. It's because pre teens (and jobless adults) home from school, bored and naturally curious, will eventually settle on it after they have Guardians of the Galaxy completely memorized. Why did HBO produce a drama about something so naturally boring as a 30 year old Supreme Court nominee's confirmation, starring the hottest black actress of today as Anita Hill? It's not because there was any public demand, or interest. HBO, like NBC, Fox, and all the other trash, makes its money off the few winners it has, and they spend some of that money towards their greater goal of subverting American culture and making people stupid. The few hundred million dollar earning blockbusters are what keeps the lights on, and the rest is "philanthropy." Of course, the disinformation projects often become profitable (like "Newsroom" and other such trash), and that's great, but it is not all about profits. Moviemaking is so profitable that they can afford to put "activism" ahead of profits If it were about ratings, HBO would give Milo a talk show. They would offer a talk show to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Adam Carolla, all of whom who are more talented than, and would rate higher than Maher, Lewis Black, and the rest of the schmendriks that they constantly foist on the public. And HBO knows it. But the thing is, is that they do "good enough" in ratings to keep the lights on and everybody rich Definitely some strong arguments here. I would put Maher kind of in the middle of this spectrum. He gets decent ratings, has celebrities on the panel, probably treads water at least in terms of profitability, but agree there is clearly some agenda-driven programming going on at many/most major networks.
|
|