View Full Version : MSNBC is no more!
the_tyrant
07-15-12, 10:06 PM
http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/15/3161659/msnbc-acquisition-comcast-redirect-nbcnews
After more than 16 years, MSNBC.com is no more, now redirecting to NBCNews.com as Comcast acquires Microsoft’s 50 percent stake in the site. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/business/media/msnbccom-renamed-nbcnewscom-as-microsoft-and-nbc-divorce.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share) reports that Comcast (which controls NBCUniversal) is giving Microsoft roughly $300 million in the deal, citing "people with knowledge of the transaction." MSNBC.com is said to be returning in 2013, as the online presence of the MSNBC cable channel.
Wow, I never knew that the MS in MSNBC stood for microsoft
Gargamel
07-15-12, 11:19 PM
That was their whole selling point, M$ + NBC.
Article I ref stated ms will be pursuing their own news channel now.
wellsronald18
07-16-12, 12:22 AM
OK, it means msnbc.com will reflect the homepage of NBCNews.com.
Great, now you just need to get rid of Fox and CNN and you might actually get some real news without some buffoon telling you what to think. :)
Rockstar
07-16-12, 06:40 AM
Hey, I believe what the those buffoons tell me because its exactly what I want to hear. :)
Great, now you just need to get rid of Fox and CNN and you might actually get some real news without some buffoon telling you what to think. :)
Obviously Sir you have never watched CBS, NBC or ABC.
the_tyrant
07-16-12, 07:20 AM
That was their whole selling point, M$ + NBC.
That is kindof odd, considering that microsoft also has msn.com that does news (along with a lot of other things).
Also, I kindof find it odd also that MSNBC seemed to be biased against Microsoft when it comes to tech related news.
Takeda Shingen
07-16-12, 09:38 AM
Micro$oft pulled out of the MSNBC TV partnership years ago. All that happened here is that they sold the domain name. MSNBC isn't going off the air guys.
nikimcbee
07-16-12, 11:42 AM
Obviously Sir you have never watched CBS, NBC or ABC.
I'd cheer more if they went under.
Obviously Sir you have never watched CBS, NBC or ABC.
I'll take your word for it. For the record our own BBC isnt that much better in terms of censorship, but at least they dont try to spoon feed us their opinions quite so much.
I'll take your word for it. For the record our own BBC isnt that much better in terms of censorship, but at least they dont try to spoon feed us their opinions quite so much.
:) Our news media rarely censors anything but they'll almost always tell you how you should view it.
:) Our news media rarely censors anything but they'll almost always tell you how you should view it.
Not so much censorship, but bias in form of selective journalism, like when several thousand military personel and veterans marched on Washington DC in support off Ron Paul a while back, of course nobody covers it because he was the 'unpopular' candidate.
That kind of thing, would have been fine if there were bigger GOP related stories to cover on the particular day, but there were not.
Its not that everything they report is a lie by any means, but you know how it is, best swallowed with pinch of salt and all that.
Not so much censorship, but bias in form of selective journalism, like when several thousand military personel and veterans marched on Washington DC in support off Ron Paul a while back, of course nobody covers it because he was the 'unpopular' candidate.
Who told you that it wasn't covered JU? This was last winter, right? Maybe the news didn't reach England but I definitely remember hearing about it from several local media sources at the time.
Maybe it didn't make the big splash you think it should have because it was not the thousands that you claim but rather just a few hundred. That's ain't very impressive by Washington standards.
Its not that everything they report is a lie by any means, but you know how it is, best swallowed with pinch of salt and all that.
I agree, and that includes claims by Ron Paul supporters apparently! :)
Maybe it didn't make the big splash you think it should have because it was not the thousands that you claim but rather just a few hundred. That's ain't very impressive by Washington standards.:)
We are both off the mark, It was 'over a Thousand' I just looked it up :03:
We are both off the mark, It was 'over a Thousand' I just looked it up :03:
Now remove the non-vet Ron Paul supporters tagging along and you have just a few hundred "veterans".
Platapus
07-17-12, 04:28 PM
Well the active duty military that participated in that march, no matter what the number, probably would prefer not to have a lot of media publicity as their participation may be considered an Article 92 violation of DoD Directive 1344.10.
But getting back to a main point, where is it written that a commercial news media has to report every story? News media are private companies (in most cases) and as private companies they are free to report or not report as they see fit.
Madox58
07-17-12, 06:23 PM
News media are private companies (in most cases) and as private companies they are free to report or not report as they see fit.
Besides, don't we get unopinionated news here in GT?
:har:
Platapus
07-17-12, 06:33 PM
Didja ever notice that your opinions are not biased but everyone else's seem to be? :hmmm:
The media focuses on what they deem to be big news and a small protest demonstration just doesn't make the grade, especially when the turnout doesn't come close to matching the hype.
If you promise "thousands of veterans" you had better supply thousands, not a few hundred scruffy looking guys claiming to be vets and a few hundred more obviously not veterans.
You want media attention? This is how you do it (in my unbiased opinion):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/March_on_Washington_edit.jpg/220px-March_on_Washington_edit.jpg
Large size: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/March_on_Washington_edit.jpg
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.