Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Brian Stelter to depart CNN as it cancels 'Reliable Sources' media show


fxreyman
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, fxreyman said:

FINALLY!!!!

CNN is canceling its Sunday media affairs show Reliable Sources, and host Brian Stelter is departing the network, Stelter tells NPR.

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1118197553/brian-stelter-cnn-canceled-show

Yea,  Reliable Sources.     Stelter is the same guy that was in love with Michael Avenatti and even told him he should run for President.

This is all due to the CNN's new President,  Chris Licht.     Don Lemon will be next.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd take 3 million NOT to go to work

Brian's BIG payoff! Fired CNN host Stelter still had three years left to run on his $1m-a-year contract - as major shareholder says he wants network to be 'more centrist' 

61554169-0-image-a-62_1660941970258.jpg

Fired CNN host Brian Stelter still has three years to go on his $1-million-a-year contract, it was revealed Friday, as a key shareholder said he wanted the network to be 'more centrist.'

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

I'd take 3 million NOT to go to work

Brian's BIG payoff! Fired CNN host Stelter still had three years left to run on his $1m-a-year contract - as major shareholder says he wants network to be 'more centrist' 

61554169-0-image-a-62_1660941970258.jpg

Fired CNN host Brian Stelter still has three years to go on his $1-million-a-year contract, it was revealed Friday, as a key shareholder said he wanted the network to be 'more centrist.'

 

Just like I posted:  "This is all due to the CNN's new President,  Chris Licht.     Don Lemon will be next".

Licth wanted Stelter out so much that the 3 million was well worth it from his POV. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

I was only vaguely aware that this guy existed. Why has he got so many people filled with joy at his downfall?

His show about media often goes after Fox News for not telling the truth to its viewers.  I guess the Trumpers here doan like looking in the mirror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

I was only vaguely aware that this guy existed. Why has he got so many people filled with joy at his downfall?

I don't take joy at his downfall but he was somewhat of a hack as a journalist,  with the arrogance of calling his show Reliable Sources.     

He was so anti-Trump (which is understandable for anyone working for CNN after how Trump pounded on CNN as the fake-news-network),  that he would host people like  Michael Avenatti,  Michael Cohen and others and be charmed by them and just accept anything they would say.      These sources were anything but reliable.

Chris Licht promised to make CNN more "balanced" and this is just one of his moves to try to get there.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

'Fired CNN host Brian Stelter still has three years to go on his $1-million-a-year contract, it was revealed Friday, as a key shareholder said he wanted the network to be 'more centrist.

 

aka  non bias the way it originally were when CNN debut.  Missed the old format, news at 8, 10 and 12 oclock. Patrick Emory, Bernard Shaw, Chuck Roberts and Linda Soles were great news anchors.

RIP Patrick Emory and Larry King.

emory.jpeg?w=876&h=493&crop=1

5c9a92ca2300004301ea06cd.jpeg?ops=scalef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hamradio said:

aka  non bias the way it originally were when CNN debut.  Missed the old format, news at 8, 10 and 12 oclock. Patrick Emory, Bernard Shaw, Chuck Roberts and Linda Soles were great news anchors.

RIP Patrick Emory and Larry King.

emory.jpeg?w=876&h=493&crop=1

5c9a92ca2300004301ea06cd.jpeg?ops=scalef

But you don't attribute any of this current "bias" as you term it to just journalists basally calling out wackos when they see them.  It's not their fault that the GOP has become a wacko cult full of nothing but wing nuts.  Why then should the "biased" media try to normalize this kind of behaviour.  What kind of world are we living in when you have to give 'balance' to a bunch of fruit cakes.  Come back and tell me about it when the GOP comes to its senses and starts putting forward normal people.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2022 at 4:55 PM, MovieMadness said:

He needed reliable sources for hair growth products.

He can use “Finasteride” though I heard that turns you impotent. :huh: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

But you don't attribute any of this current "bias" as you term it to just journalists basally calling out wackos when they see them.  It's not their fault that the GOP has become a wacko cult full of nothing but wing nuts.  Why then should the "biased" media try to normalize this kind of behaviour.  What kind of world are we living in when you have to give 'balance' to a bunch of fruit cakes.  Come back and tell me about it when the GOP comes to its senses and starts putting forward normal people.

News use to have integrity, not taking sides - stating the news as it actually is. No name calling or butt kissing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hamradio said:

News use to have integrity, not taking sides - stating the news as it actually is. 

That's kind of what Bogie is getting at. The media is accused of being biased against the Right because they report all of the crazy/stupid/criminal stuff that they get up to, but that's literally just stating the facts. They report on them more because they are the ones doing more crazy/stupid/criminal stuff. Yeah, there are goofballs on the Left, too, and they get mentioned a lot as well (AOC is practically a household name), but they are far from the level of insanity that the current MAGA Trumplicans have attained. 

All of the news channels should do away with opinion and "analysis" shows/guests, but as soon as they do, their ratings will drop even further. The highest rated shows on all of the channels are opinion/analysis shows, and ratings are what drive the profits. As long as the news is considered a profit-driven marketing tool, then nothing will change.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hamradio said:

aka  non bias the way it originally were when CNN debut.  Missed the old format, news at 8, 10 and 12 oclock. Patrick Emory, Bernard Shaw, Chuck Roberts and Linda Soles were great news anchors.

RIP Patrick Emory and Larry King.

emory.jpeg?w=876&h=493&crop=1

5c9a92ca2300004301ea06cd.jpeg?ops=scalef

It is a different country from what it was when these guys were on.  Beginning with Reagan, the Republicans and other right-wingers became much more vocal and much more effective at spreading their biases and distortions.  It tampered down somewhat with the Bush presidencies, but came roaring back like an out of control locomotive when Trump took control of the Republican Party.

Also, there used to not be facebook, twitter, ad infinitum where one person can spread lies and distortions to millions of people on the internet.

Back in the good old days, you had three networks and the news was a public service that was only on for 30 minutes each day.  Now you have "networks" running 24/7 trying to capture an audience so they can sell advertising.

As for CNN, I like it because it has the scroll at the bottom of the screen where you can actually see "news" and ignore the talking heads.

Irony.  I recently had an opportunity to substantially lower my cable bill, but I had to agree to getting only local stations plus 15 more.  I had to drop FoxNews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Irony.  I recently had an opportunity to substantially lower my cable bill, but I had to agree to getting only local stations plus 15 more.  I had to drop FoxNews.

I read an article recently about how Fox News gets some of the lowest ad dollars because their viewing demographic is the least likely to switch products due to advertising, and therefore their ad time is worth less to advertisers. They make the majority of their revenue from the cable fees charged to every cable provider that carries the channel, which is then passed down to the consumer. So the writer suggests that when or if people decide to cancel their cable, to always list Fox News as a reason you are cancelling, and eventually more providers will stop carrying it in more markets. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I read an article recently about how Fox News gets some of the lowest ad dollars because their viewing demographic is the least likely to switch products due to advertising, and therefore their ad time is worth less to advertisers. They make the majority of their revenue from the cable fees charged to every cable provider that carries the channel, which is then passed down to the consumer. So the writer suggests that when or if people decide to cancel their cable, to always list Fox News as a reason you are cancelling, and eventually more providers will stop carrying it in more markets. 

Wonder how my "cancelling" FoxNews affects this.  I did keep MSNBC, CNN and HLN.  OF the three, I would cut MSNBC if had to cut one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a  good  week for  short, stocky  bald  men.

Even Cronkite  was disliked  by quite a few right wingers in his day, though not with the vitriol that is common today.

Some conservatives called  CBS the Communist Broadcasting System. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Not a  good  week for  short, stocky  bald  men.

Even Cronkite  was disliked  by quite a few right wingers in his day, though not with the vitriol that is common today.

Some conservatives called  CBS the Communist Broadcasting System. 

Nixon hated him, along with almost all media members.  His enemies list had at least 50-something journalists.  Of course, his predecessor had no love for the media either.  No longer could the horror of war be papered over by heroic tales in the newspaper.  It came into your living room every evening during the dinner hour.

Nixon pulled the same schtick that Trump uses: the media are urban elites, they're all against me, Watergate is a witch hunt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

Nixon hated him, along with almost all media members.  His enemies list had at least 50-something journalists.  Of course, his predecessor had no love for the media either.  No longer could the horror of war be papered over by heroic tales in the newspaper.  It came into your living room every evening during the dinner hour.

Nixon pulled the same schtick that Trump uses: the media are urban elites, they're all against me, Watergate is a witch hunt.

Hey, hey, LBJ....... Yeah, Johnson couldn't have been very pleased  with the way Vietnam was covered, but I think Nixon  and  Agnew were the ones

who took  the blame the media to  a new level and the GOP has been using it on and off  ever since then. Trump gets caught doing something

bad or maybe even illegal, it's all the medias  fault somehow. Rinse  and  repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Hey, hey, LBJ....... Yeah, Johnson couldn't have been very pleased  with the way Vietnam was covered, but I think Nixon  and  Agnew were the ones

who took  the blame the media to  a new level and the GOP has been using it on and off  ever since then. Trump gets caught doing something

bad or maybe even illegal, it's all the medias  fault somehow. Rinse  and  repeat.

As far as I know, LBJ didn't use the privileges of his office as weapons against media members as did the Nixon administration.  LBJ did have three TVs side-by-side in the White House to monitor all 3 networks' coverage simultaneously, and he was not above calling network heads and chewing them out when he thought coverage was unfair.

As far as Nixon goes, there were even stories of his henchmen planning ways to poison Jack Anderson, probably the top of Nixon's media enemies, as he had been on Nixon's case since the Checkers incident in the 1950s.

https://www.npr.org/2010/09/30/130192940/nixons-failed-attempts-at-poisoning-the-press

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

As far as I know, LBJ didn't use the privileges of his office as weapons against media members as did the Nixon administration.  LBJ did have three TVs side-by-side in the White House to monitor all 3 networks' coverage simultaneously, and he was not above calling network heads and chewing them out when he thought coverage was unfair.

As far as Nixon goes, there were even stories of his henchmen planning ways to poison Jack Anderson, probably the top of Nixon's media enemies, as he had been on Nixon's case since the Checkers incident in the 1950s.

https://www.npr.org/2010/09/30/130192940/nixons-failed-attempts-at-poisoning-the-press

I recall reading about LBJ's three TVs and calling network execs  to complain about the coverage, probably something any president  would  have

done under certain  circumstances, but yes Nixon took it to  a whole different level.  Those harebrained schemes to kill Anderson  are  reminiscent

of  the Kennedys' loopy  plans  to bump off Castro.  Drew  Pearson was  also a big  target of Joe  McCarthy during the 1950s. Guy knew how to pick

his enemies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...