Jump to content

NewsMax TV


Jman7885

Recommended Posts

And because it worked so well for OAN last time... Newsmax is urging people to "join the fight."

 

This is from Newsmax's website:

Quote

Please call your representative and senators now. It's well-beyond urgent that you do so. 

 

The title in question? "They're Coming for NEWSMAX, Are You Next?" The writer of this article even went as far as to include the First Amendment, word-for-word. I kid you not.

 

I wish I could say "this is drama for the sake of it," but I'm going to be nice here. No one's coming for anyone. It involves carriage fees. DirecTV wanted to continue carrying Newsmax, something that appears to be lost to the fine folks there. Now that they've been displaced on DirecTV in favor of The First (another right-wing channel)...

Edited by DJonNews
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a basic cable carriage fight where Newsmax now wants RTC rather than paying their way onto DirecTV...and these days trying to stay on a satellite service is akin to planning a hospice stay because they only have a few realistic years left. Somehow Newsmax turned what should have been just a number negotiation into 'censorship' because they're gone.

 

Chris Ruddy, you do know you have your stream everywhere. I couldn't get away from it if I tried and it's probably on the Tesla. Better ratings than News Nation, OAN, RAV and 'Star Wars guys rips the current trilogy for 346 hours because they have women' on YouTube. You are so far from 'being' censored that it's absurd. Just ask for a few less cents and get your carriage back, because unlike OAN (which was bad), you have some respect and names.

  • Like 3
  • Thought-Provoking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newsjunkie24 said:

I've heard that the main Newsmax may go linear only and the company will launch a different feed called Newsmax 2, which isn't live for the free services.

 

That reminds me of the Black News Channel. They did something similar, and offered BNC GO. One hour of live news and repeats of it. We all know how that turned out. 

 

OAN does it too. But...they don't even have cable services on their back. So, they might as well stay live, all the time. 

 

Meanwhile, as for this nonsense campaign that Newsmax is running, they claim to be an unbiased organization. They run promos saying that they have no agenda, no spin, no BS. Real news for real people. They even hired Greta Van Susteren and Kilmeny Duchardt, who used to work for TRT World and the AP maybe to try and disguise themselves as such....even though the host on the channel literally show off their bias, which is nothing wrong as you are admitting that you are a conservative channel. 

 

But this use of the political playbook against DIRECTV, claiming that they're "canceled," DIRECTV is woke to liberals, they're censored, DIRECTV will cancel you next, this complete meltdown shows that this weak attempt of even having a slight hint of unbiasness is a complete clown show and....they should be taken unseriously because of that. 

 

You can't be honest and say that we are off the air because of a carriage dispute and you should cancel DIRECTV because of this, just like any other company that go through something like this would? Or, at least promote your free stream to continue watching them (which you're gonna "censor" yourself out of in the next few months)? 

 

Complete joke. 

Edited by NewEgg00
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NewEgg00 said:

That reminds me of the Black News Channel. They did something similar, and offered BNC GO. One hour of live news and repeats of it. We all know how that turned out. 

 

The only reason Black News Channel failed is because of one simple thing, they expanded to fast. And low viewership. They just couldn't support all those shows, Still alive today have they started slow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RaleighTVBOI1 said:

 

The only reason Black News Channel failed is because of one simple thing, they expanded to fast. And low viewership. They just couldn't support all those shows, Still alive today have they started slow.

 

100% true. Not only that, but they spent too much money. Burnt it all the way through, with projects including what I mentioned, thinking they're gonna be like CNN. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NewEgg00 said:

 

100% true. Not only that, but they spent too much money. Burnt it all the way through, with projects including what I mentioned, thinking they're gonna be like CNN. 

Yeah, their only highest ratings was Kentaji Brown Jackson committee hearings because she the first black women to b in the Supreme Court. When they first launched in February the afternoons were reruns, that would have been a safe move. But then when Prince Hair came in he did too much, I just feel for the employees who never got their paychecks because Shad Khan stopped funding them. What really pissed me off was what Byron Allen did saying "We don't need a black news channel, we need a good news channel". I lost a lot of respect for him as a black man for saying that. Because truth is we really do need one, he just comes from the scary and no guts civil rights generation who doesn't wanna take risks like GenZ folks wanna do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, mrschimpf said:

This is a basic cable carriage fight where Newsmax now wants RTC rather than paying their way onto DirecTV...and these days trying to stay on a satellite service is akin to planning a hospice stay because they only have a few realistic years left. Somehow Newsmax turned what should have been just a number negotiation into 'censorship' because they're gone.

 

Chris Ruddy, you do know you have your stream everywhere. I couldn't get away from it if I tried and it's probably on the Tesla. Better ratings than News Nation, OAN, RAV and 'Star Wars guys rips the current trilogy for 346 hours because they have women' on YouTube. You are so far from 'being' censored that it's absurd. Just ask for a few less cents and get your carriage back, because unlike OAN (which was bad), you have some respect and names.

I’m going to do my best to play devil’s advocate for this asinine “censorship” thing, if only to try and understand the logic behind it.
 

Newsmax may stream everywhere, but they largely cater to the same demographics as Fox News. It wouldn’t surprise me if the vast majority of their viewership is from cable/satellite customers, and there are a great deal of satellite customers in rural, more conservative areas. The cable/satellite business may be on its last legs, but Newsmax (and other similar networks) live and die on that business.

 

The problem for them, other than the obvious long-term unsustainable nature of the business, is that they don’t even make money on satellite. According to Ars Technica, DirecTV did not pay Newsmax to carry the channel under their previous agreement. It’s not as though they can ask for a few less cents. Newsmax likely can’t afford to have a large chunk of their viewership not pay for the network. Thus, cue the “political censorship” circus.

 

The political angle of the messaging is there to get their viewers riled up. As you mentioned, they have bigger names, higher ratings than NewsNation, and “respectability” (for lack of a better word), so they can generate a lot more publicity with this stunt than OAN ever could. I’m sure DirecTV will be inundated with calls from people unintentionally asking the company to raise their satellite fees by carrying Newsmax and paying for it. Plus, there are already Republican members of Congress accusing DirecTV of political discrimination.

 

It’s a desperate move on Newsmax’s part, and as @NewEgg00 mentioned, Newsmax will soon be cancelling itself by getting rid of free streaming. It seems that their last-ditch hope is to raise enough of a commotion to force DirecTV to pay for the channel.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NextTV asked about the “22 liberal news channels” that Newsmax claims are still funded by DirecTV. They include uber-liberal bastions like NewsNation and The Weather Channel, plenty of general-purpose channels which have one or two news programs, and a few that literally have no news.
 

I can’t with these people.
 

https://www.nexttv.com/news/newsmax-ids-its-list-of-americas-23-liberal-news-networks-topped-by-abc-cbs-nbc-cnn-and-the-weather-channel

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
  • Thought-Provoking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, froyo49 said:

NextTV asked about the “22 liberal news channels” that Newsmax claims are still funded by DirecTV. They include uber-liberal bastions like NewsNation and The Weather Channel, plenty of general-purpose channels which have one or two news programs, and a few that literally have no news.
 

I can’t with these people.
 

https://www.nexttv.com/news/newsmax-ids-its-list-of-americas-23-liberal-news-networks-topped-by-abc-cbs-nbc-cnn-and-the-weather-channel

 

Yeah, all 3 big broadcast news divisions, PBS, BBC World News, a cable news channel that's trying to go back to the center, one that's a slightly right-leaning but not nearly as extreme as Fox News, the Weather Channel, a business news channel that has a few right-leaning personalities, and a channel that's all staged court shows. I'm surprised they didn't actually list Fox News on there. 

 

By replacing Newsmax with the First, which has personalities like Bill O'Reilly and Buck Sexton, proves to me that they aren't censoring conservatives and right-wingers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inaccuracy at its finest... The Weather Channel is listed as an "uber-liberal bastion," according to Newsmax.

 

To quote JaguarGator9, "I'm sorry, what?!I'm pretty sure last I watched The Weather Channel, they have no politics whatsoever. Actually, they never had politics to start with. It's self-titled for a reason, despite the entertainment programming in primetime and for much of the weekend.

 

I'm actually surprised they put Comedy Central (they call it "Comedy Channel") as a liberal news network, considering how far away from the definition this channel really is, with the only programs that fit their description being "The Daily Show" and "Tooning Out the News." The only thing that would've been the cherry on top is if they somehow watched Scripps News and managed to list that as "liberal..."

 

I don't want to be the type of person to say this, but Newsmax is really being unreasonable here. Carriage disputes like this happen more times than they think. It doesn't help that streaming is helping put cable and satellite on the brink of extinction. It's a matter of survival now. It's ironic Newsmax is angry that DirecTV "cancelled" them, because as pointed out earlier, they're about to "cancel" themselves out of a free streaming option, leaving viewers with less options to watch Newsmax.

 

If their goal is to make viewers angry, mission accomplished, but really?

Edited by DJonNews
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, froyo49 said:

NextTV asked about the “22 liberal news channels” that Newsmax claims are still funded by DirecTV. They include uber-liberal bastions like NewsNation and The Weather Channel, plenty of general-purpose channels which have one or two news programs, and a few that literally have no news.
 

I can’t with these people.
 

https://www.nexttv.com/news/newsmax-ids-its-list-of-americas-23-liberal-news-networks-topped-by-abc-cbs-nbc-cnn-and-the-weather-channel

 

2 hours ago, Newsjunkie24 said:

 

Yeah, all 3 big broadcast news divisions, PBS, BBC World News, a cable news channel that's trying to go back to the center, one that's a slightly right-leaning but not nearly as extreme as Fox News, the Weather Channel, a business news channel that has a few right-leaning personalities, and a channel that's all staged court shows. I'm surprised they didn't actually list Fox News on there. 

 

By replacing Newsmax with the First, which has personalities like Bill O'Reilly and Buck Sexton, proves to me that they aren't censoring conservatives and right-wingers.

They even named HLN, which they identified as its old name, CNN Headline News but is basically Investigation Discovery 2 at this point… what with CNN having shifted it away from news to true crime before their recent gutting and offloading of the network to the WBD unit that runs ID, and Vice, which carries only one news program but runs mostly documentaries.

 

In picking their examples of “uber-liberal” news outlets, Newsmax reached so high in trying to prove their point, they’re halfway to the Milky Way.

Edited by T.L. Hughes
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2023 at 2:49 PM, NewEgg00 said:

 

That reminds me of the Black News Channel. They did something similar, and offered BNC GO. One hour of live news and repeats of it. We all know how that turned out. 

 

OAN does it too. But...they don't even have cable services on their back. So, they might as well stay live, all the time. 

 

Meanwhile, as for this nonsense campaign that Newsmax is running, they claim to be an unbiased organization. They run promos saying that they have no agenda, no spin, no BS. Real news for real people. They even hired Greta Van Susteren and Kilmeny Duchardt, who used to work for TRT World and the AP maybe to try and disguise themselves as such....even though the host on the channel literally show off their bias, which is nothing wrong as you are admitting that you are a conservative channel. 

 

But this use of the political playbook against DIRECTV, claiming that they're "canceled," DIRECTV is woke to liberals, they're censored, DIRECTV will cancel you next, this complete meltdown shows that this weak attempt of even having a slight hint of unbiasness is a complete clown show and....they should be taken unseriously because of that. 

 

You can't be honest and say that we are off the air because of a carriage dispute and you should cancel DIRECTV because of this, just like any other company that go through something like this would? Or, at least promote your free stream to continue watching them (which you're gonna "censor" yourself out of in the next few months)? 

 

Complete joke. 

It's being twisted by some to be somehow part of a culture war and also for political gain, when in reality, this was purely a business decision. 

Edited by CraigViewer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CraigViewer said:

It's being twisted by some to be somehow part of a culture war and for political gain, when in reality, this was purely a business decision.

Speaking of culture wars, guess what Newsmax also did?

 

They set up a website called IWantNewsmax.com (I'm not linking this). Here's what they want disgruntled DirecTV subscribers to do:

  1. They want them to call DirecTV and demand that Newsmax be brought back, or else they'll drop DirecTV.
  2. They want them to call their senators and representatives and stop the - ahem - "political censorship."
  3. They want them to go to said website and sign a petition saying that they fully back Newsmax.

 

I talked about this in The News Center server. It's nothing but theatrics. Carriage disputes like this are the inner workings of business. Channels don't come cheap. Carriers have to negotiate on a deal for every channel. This is why you've been seeing regional sports networks drop like flies in the late 2010s. And "political censorship?" That's a bit rich considering DirecTV replaced Newsmax in the interim with The First, which is markedly similar to Newsmax in terms of content. DirecTV really wanted to continue carrying Newsmax. Newsmax wanted DirecTV to pay them for their position on the program guide, since their ratings are declining. The contract was allowed to expire instead.

 

Another thing: If you connect the dots and look at how OAN reacted to also being dropped by DirecTV and eventually being dropped by Verizon (both from last year), you'll begin to notice that all they like to talk about is how the opposition are a bunch of losers, crybabies, etc. for doing what they did. Nowhere in their complaints do they state that they've simply been dropped -- they substitute the word for either "cancelled" or "censored." Both urged people to "join the fight" and call government officials in urging the providers responsible to reconsider. Guess what happened? OAN's efforts were ultimately fruitless, and if memory serves me right, Newsmax's effort will also come up short, simply because they failed to realize that the act of providers dropping channels is all part of business.

Edited by DJonNews
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DJonNews said:

Speaking of culture wars, guess what Newsmax also did?

 

They set up a website called IWantNewsmax.com (I'm not linking this). Here's what they want disgruntled DirecTV subscribers to do:

  1. They want them to call DirecTV and demand that Newsmax be brought back, or else they'll drop DirecTV.
  2. They want them to call their senators and representatives and stop the - ahem - "political censorship."
  3. They want them to go to said website and sign a petition saying that they fully back Newsmax.

 

I talked about this in The News Center server. It's nothing but theatrics. Carriage disputes like this are the inner workings of business. Channels don't come cheap. Carriers have to negotiate on a deal for every channel. This is why you've been seeing regional sports networks drop like flies in the late 2010s. And "political censorship?" That's a bit rich considering DirecTV replaced Newsmax in the interim with The First, which is markedly similar to Newsmax in terms of content. DirecTV really wanted to continue carrying Newsmax. Newsmax wanted DirecTV to pay them for their position on the program guide, since their ratings are declining. The contract was allowed to expire instead.

 

Another thing: If you connect the dots and look at how OAN reacted to also being dropped by DirecTV and eventually being dropped by Verizon (both from last year), you'll begin to notice that all they like to talk about is how the opposition are a bunch of losers, crybabies, etc. for doing what they did. Nowhere in their complaints do they state that they've simply been dropped -- they substitute the word for either "cancelled" or "censored." Both urged people to "join the fight" and call government officials in urging the providers responsible to reconsider. Guess what happened? OAN's efforts were ultimately fruitless, and if memory serves me right, Newsmax's effort will also come up short, simply because they failed to realize that the act of providers dropping channels is all part of business.

Over recent years, certain unnamed people in politics were a driving force for segments of the U.S. population to feel aggrieved -- contributing to the development of a new media ecosystem as well.

And, in the cases of both Newsmax and OAN being dropped by cable/satellite providers, the powers that be at both networks, and, by extension, its ardent viewers, were all acting out of grievance politics, yet again.

Edited by CraigViewer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DJonNews said:

Speaking of culture wars, guess what Newsmax also did?

 

They set up a website called IWantNewsmax.com (I'm not linking this). Here's what they want disgruntled DirecTV subscribers to do:

  1. They want them to call DirecTV and demand that Newsmax be brought back, or else they'll drop DirecTV.
  2. They want them to call their senators and representatives and stop the - ahem - "political censorship."
  3. They want them to go to said website and sign a petition saying that they fully back Newsmax.

Nos. 1 and 3 are basically what every channel these days does; drop the service and move somewhere else (that'll invariably drop it when the network switches to an RTC model rather than 'we'll pay you' or leased access carriage), and show 'service loyalty' by signing a petition.

 

The second option isn't going to do anything at all except make the switchboard or social people miserable; they're the ones who get the 'tell Name McSenator not to support the Puppies Should Listen to Nothing But Screamo Act sponsored by the National Cat Association' calls from the dark money ad folks. Newsmax is a channel not originated as a broadcast network (despite some, again, paid broadcast carriage), so there's nothing they can do to pressure DirecTV to restore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mrschimpf said:

The second option isn't going to do anything at all except make the switchboard or social people miserable; they're the ones who get the 'tell Name McSenator not to support the Puppies Should Listen to Nothing But Screamo Act sponsored by the National Cat Association' calls from the dark money ad folks. Newsmax is a channel not originated as a broadcast network (despite some, again, paid broadcast carriage), so there's nothing they can do to pressure DirecTV to restore it.

 

To which I offer up this: https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-oversight-chair-james-comer-promises-newsmax-hell-investigate-directv

 

Again, theatrics when it's not needed. They did it because they got viewers angry enough to get the government (or one side of it, to be exact) involved. Now, they're threatening to investigate DirecTV for "censoring" Newsmax.

 

Do I dare repeat myself once more on the reality of the situation? I feel like with each passing day that this drags on, I feel more and more of an urge to belt out, "Just give it a rest!"

 

Two days of this was enough. That's all.

Edited by DJonNews
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DJonNews said:

Do I dare repeat myself once more on the reality of the situation? I feel like with each passing day that this drags on, I feel more and more of an urge to belt out, "Just give it a rest!"

 

Two days of this was enough. That's all.

Yes, and putting on your breaking news banners that DirecTV has 'censored' the network is useless and annoying to other customers of other providers when those DTV/U-verse viewers can't even see the banner or your channel!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that we can only have a hearing about Newsmax leaving DIRECTV, but not do one for all the local stations and cable channels that can be dropped as well, and stop it from happening, shows how full political bias can be as well as supporting favoritism. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3841353-mccarthy-wont-rule-out-hearings-on-directv-dropping-newsmax/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.