Author Topic: Dan Patrick out at ESPN (Read 7056 times)

Not wanting to start a fight, or anything, but isn't it ok to have a left-leaning show without the need to balance it? After all, there's plenty of right-leaning shows that aren't required to be balanced. It was Reagan who did away with the fairness doctrine after all.

Lurch · « **Reply #9 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:09:13 pm »

Apparently for months his agents have been calling local Fox radio affiliates confirming that they would pick up his syndicated show if he went it alone. There was a funny/awkward moment on his Letterman appearance with Keith a few weeks ago where Dave listed all of the things Keith has done since ESPN and then he pointed out that, basically, Dan is still doing the same shtick. He'll be back, but without the ESPN handcuffs (or access, etc, I suppose)

MusicMan · « **Reply #10 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:16:21 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 03:08:20 pm

Not wanting to start a fight, or anything, but isn't it ok to have a left-leaning show without the need to balance it? After all, there's plenty of right-leaning shows that aren't required to be balanced. It was Reagan who did away with the fairness doctrine after all.

Absolutely OK. It was just an editorial aside that I used to find Countdown to be a moderately entertaining, late-night, non Faux-News show where I could catch up on the events of the day. Now it's the "I can Get More Viewers With Very Serious Monologues Against The Right" hour.

HurricaneDavid · « **Reply #11 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:16:43 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 09, 2007, 02:27:13 pm

It was rumored that they offered him the gig, and he gave a "coy" reply. This was last week.

Rumor I read on dcrtv.com (reliable DC radio & TV site) said Patrick was offered TPIR last week, turned it down, was offered it again this weekend, turned down again, and they might be offering it to him a third time.

Limey · « **Reply #12 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:18:07 pm »

Quote from: Lurch on July 09, 2007, 03:09:13 pm

Apparently for months his agents have been calling local Fox radio affiliates confirming that they would pick up his syndicated show if he went it alone. There was a funny/awkward moment on his Letterman appearance with Keith a few weeks ago where Dave listed all of the things Keith has done since ESPN and then he pointed out that, basically, Dan is still doing the same shtick. He'll be back, but without the ESPN handcuffs (or access, etc, I suppose)

Maybe he's moving to satellite radio.

Limey · « **Reply #13 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:19:35 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 09, 2007, 03:16:21 pm

Absolutely OK. It was just an editorial aside that I used to find Countdown to be a moderately entertaining, late-night, non Faux-News show where I could catch up on the events of the day. Now it's the "I can Get More Viewers With Very Serious Monologues Against The Right" hour.

They're all after ratings, which is a big problem when it comes to news.

MusicMan · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:22:39 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 03:19:35 pm

They're all after ratings, which is a big problem when it comes to news.

The problem isn't that they're after ratings. The problem is how the can get those ratings.

In other words, the viewers are the real problem.

Lurch · « **Reply #15 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:23:03 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 03:18:07 pm

Maybe he's moving to satellite radio.

I'd bet he starts his own production co, tapes his own show and sells distribution rights. I'm not sure XM/Sirius are making any Stern type deals anytime soon especially in this will they/wont they merger situation.

Lurch · « **Reply #16 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:24:29 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 09, 2007, 03:22:39 pm

The problem isn't that they're after ratings. The problem is how the can get those ratings.

In other words, the viewers are the real problem.

Jerry Springer figured this out over a decade ago. Cha-fucking-ching.

Bench · « **Reply #17 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:26:25 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 09, 2007, 03:16:21 pm

Absolutely OK. It was just an editorial aside that I used to find Countdown to be a moderately entertaining, late-night, non Faux-News show where I could catch up on the events of the day. Now it's the "I can Get More Viewers With Very Serious Monologues Against The Right" hour.

I like his editorial monolugues. It's the only part of the show I watch.

Limey · « **Reply #18 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:34:22 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 09, 2007, 03:22:39 pm

The problem isn't that they're after ratings. The problem is how the can get those ratings.

In other words, the viewers are the real problem.

News used to be a public service, the free provision of which was one of the pre-requisites to getting free access to the airwaves. Now news is a profit center like everything else, so thoughtful, responsible and insightful journalism has been pushed aside in favour of wall-to-wall OJ and Anna Nicole. Local news is a daily episode of Cops. The time devoted to informing and educating the public, as opposed to entertaining them, is at a bare minimum at best. The irony being that the more they try to jazz up the news, the less people watch.

JimR · « **Reply #19 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:35:31 pm »

Quote from: MusicMan on July 09, 2007, 03:16:21 pm

Absolutely OK. It was just an editorial aside that I used to find Countdown to be a moderately entertaining, late-night, non Faux-News show where I could catch up on the events of the day. Now it's the "I can Get More Viewers With Very Serious Monologues Against The Right" hour.

unwatchable. he should go back to sports.

Taras Bulba · « **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2007, 03:56:36 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 03:34:22 pm

News used to be a public service, the free provision of which was one of the pre-requisites to getting free access to the airwaves. Now news is a profit center like everything else, so thoughtful, responsible and insightful journalism has been pushed aside in favour of wall-to-wall OJ and Anna Nicole. Local news is a daily episode of Cops. The time devoted to informing and educating the public, as opposed to entertaining them, is at a bare minimum at best. The irony being that the more they try to jazz up the news, the less people watch.

Just like the thoughtful, responsible, and insightful journalism you get from the BBC, correct?

Limey · « **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:01:36 pm »

Quote from: Taras Bulba on July 09, 2007, 03:56:36 pm

Just like the thoughtful, responsible, and insightful journalism you get from the BBC, correct?

The BBC set a high standard for worldwide news coverage and in-depth current affairs shows/documentaries. You may not agree with what they report, but the rest of the media is forced to rise to their level of coverage so you get top quality news across the board. And, FWIW, I trust the BBC more than any other news source.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:02:16 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 03:08:20 pm

Not wanting to start a fight, or anything, but isn't it ok to have a left-leaning show without the need to balance it? After all, there's plenty of right-leaning shows that aren't required to be balanced. It was Reagan who did away with the fairness doctrine after all.

Precisely. Why should he have to balance his left-leaning show when NBC, CBS and ABC don't?

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:03:21 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 04:01:36 pm

The BBC set a high standard for worldwide news coverage and in-depth current affairs shows/documentaries. You may not agree with what they report, but the rest of the media is forced to rise to their level of coverage so you get top quality news across the board. And, FWIW, I trust the BBC more than any other news source.

I don't trust the BBC any further than I can through a satellite tower, but I do listen to the BBC and Economist podcasts above all others for international news. As for whether BBC will soon become a wholly owned subsidiary of Hamas, that's another story.

Limey · « **Reply #24 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:13:35 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on July 09, 2007, 04:03:21 pm

I don't trust the BBC any further than I can through a satellite tower, but I do listen to the BBC and Economist podcasts above all others for international news. As for whether BBC will soon become a wholly owned subsidiary of Hamas, that's another story.

On my frequent trips to Europe, I never cease to be amazed at the different tone/focus of news broadcasts. Even Murdoch's "Sky News" reports on global warming as if it's a given, not a theory open to debate. Looking at things from a different angle very much changes one's perspective.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #25 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:58:50 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 04:13:35 pm

On my frequent trips to Europe, I never cease to be amazed at the different tone/focus of news broadcasts. Even Murdoch's "Sky News" reports on global warming as if it's a given, not a theory open to debate. Looking at things from a different angle very much changes one's perspective.

There are a great many notions beyond the pale of debate in Europe that I would not want to see imposed on the United States.

drew corleone · « **Reply #26 on:** July 09, 2007, 05:08:23 pm »

I wouldn't call Olberman a "left-leaning" show. Chris Matthews is "left-leaning." So is Greta Van Sustren. Olberman is a hack that tries to be the liberal O'Reilly. His show is horrible. I'd rather tune into Bill Maher if I'm going to watch someone I disagree with sit around and be smarmy for an hour.

Taras Bulba · « **Reply #27 on:** July 09, 2007, 05:13:35 pm »

Quote from: Limey on July 09, 2007, 04:01:36 pm

The BBC set a high standard for worldwide news coverage and in-depth current affairs shows/documentaries. You may not agree with what they report, but the rest of the media is forced to rise to their level of coverage so you get top quality news across the board. And, FWIW, I trust the BBC more than any other news source.

When it gets this deep, the very best Cabela's waders won't do any good.

drew corleone · « **Reply #28 on:** July 09, 2007, 05:47:38 pm »

Didn't Al-Jazeera raid the BBC when they started?

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #29 on:** July 09, 2007, 05:59:51 pm »

Quote from: drew corleone on July 09, 2007, 05:47:38 pm

Didn't Al-Jazeera raid the BBC when they started?

They did, but they found the BBC (as well as Reuters) too pro-Arab for Al Jazeera's tastes.

WulawHorn · « **Reply #30 on:** July 09, 2007, 10:18:04 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on July 09, 2007, 05:59:51 pm

They did, but they found the BBC (as well as Reuters) too pro-Arab for Al Jazeera's tastes.

Wonderful- just wonderful. I laughed. I don't comprehend the rampant anti-semetic viewpoint that comes from the Euros. You'd think after killing like 12 million jews they'd pause, reflect and reorder their thinking. I swear that could happen again with the right mix of lunacy and cowardice (including the part of the US).

Don't want to get too political. I think this bad boy is fixing to get nuked anyway- I won't participate in being the final straw I hope.

Limey · « **Reply #31 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:02:47 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on July 09, 2007, 04:58:50 pm

There are a great many notions beyond the pale of debate in Europe that I would not want to see imposed on the United States.

Just suggesting that opening one's eyes and taking one's fingers out of one's ears every once in a while, isn't a bad idea. The World is a tiny, tiny place; the sooner it's realised that trying to keep problems "over there" so they don't "follow us here" is a fallacy that's incorrect before it's even spoken, the better.

"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Amy · « **Reply #32 on:** July 09, 2007, 11:18:22 pm »

Quote from: Arky Vaughan on July 09, 2007, 05:59:51 pm

They did, but they found the BBC (as well as Reuters) too pro-Arab for Al Jazeera's tastes.

I don't recall that about the BBC. But I do know that when I was in Budapest in 2004, my friend and I were astounded at how much better BBC World's coverage of the US Presidential election was than what we had to suffer in the US.

Greg M · « **Reply #33 on:** July 10, 2007, 12:11:01 am »

Quote from: WulawHorn on July 09, 2007, 10:18:04 pm

Wonderful- just wonderful. I laughed. I don't comprehend the rampant anti-semetic viewpoint that comes from the Euros. You'd think after killing like 12 million jews they'd pause, reflect and reorder their thinking. I swear that could happen again with the right mix of lunacy and cowardice (including the part of the US).

Don't want to get too political. I think this bad boy is fixing to get nuked anyway- I won't participate in being the final straw I hope.

I wouldn't call the BBC's reporting on the Middle East antisemitic. They do a more balanced job than the US media when it comes to the Middle East. The Brits at least present two sides.

The Third Man · « **Reply #34 on:** July 10, 2007, 12:21:03 am »

Quote from: WulawHorn on July 09, 2007, 10:18:04 pm

Wonderful- just wonderful. I laughed. I don't comprehend the rampant anti-semetic viewpoint that comes from the Euros. You'd think after killing like 12 million jews they'd pause, reflect and reorder their thinking. I swear that could happen again with the right mix of lunacy and cowardice (including the part of the US).

In the land of Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, people bitching about the lack balanced and fair journalism from the BBC is fucking funny. Maybe you don't comprehend this "Euro attitude" because you don't actually have examples of the BBC, or any other mainstream European media source demonstrating such a viewpoint. Do you equate being critical of Israel's foreign policy to antisemitism? Anyway, while there are most assuredly racists and bigots everywhere there is no more a unified "Euro" viewpoint then there is one for Arabs, Americans, or Israelis. I don't trust people, or media that perpetuate this garbage. If I wanted cheerleaders in the news I would have stayed in Channelview.

Limey · « **Reply #35 on:** July 10, 2007, 07:01:07 am »

Quote from: Amy on July 09, 2007, 11:18:22 pm

I don't recall that about the BBC. But I do know that when I was in Budapest in 2004, my friend and I were astounded at how much better BBC World's coverage of the US Presidential election was than what we had to suffer in the US.

Some people don't like it because it tells them things they don't want to hear.

S.P. Rodriguez · « **Reply #36 on:** July 10, 2007, 07:22:09 am »

Uhh... Spack? You there? Please spare us from ourselves....

Phil_in_CS · « **Reply #37 on:** July 10, 2007, 08:21:51 am »

Quote from: Greg M on July 10, 2007, 12:11:01 am

I wouldn't call the BBC's reporting on the Middle East antisemitic. They do a more balanced job than the US media when it comes to the Middle East. The Brits at least present two sides.

Antisemite:
1) Someone that doesn't like Jews.
2) Someone Jews don't like.

---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1906

Personally, I don't have a problem with news outlets presenting news from an opinionated viewpoint, as long as they own up to that. The major London papers, The Times, The Guardian, and The Telegraph are good examples.

Arky Vaughan · « **Reply #38 on:** July 10, 2007, 09:16:51 am »

Quote from: Greg M on July 10, 2007, 12:11:01 am

I wouldn't call the BBC's reporting on the Middle East antisemitic. They do a more balanced job than the US media when it comes to the Middle East. The Brits at least present two sides.

Yeah, the Shiite side and the Sunni side.

So, were you on vacation in Europe when a U.S. news source played into Islamicists' hands by falsely reporting that U.S. military personnel had flushed a Muslim holy book down the toilet at Guantanamo? Or was that more U.S. yellow journalist jingoism?

Spack McGrimm · « **Reply #39 on:** July 10, 2007, 09:23:53 am »

And we're done, fuck heads.

The thing about spleen is liberal spleen and conservative spleen both taste the same.