Microsoft Leaving MSNBC TV Partnership

pnewhook writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that Microsoft and NBC have announced that they will be dissolving their joint cable TV news channel, MSNBC, with NBC retaining control. From the article: "NBC has completed a deal to assume majority control of the channel immediately, with an 82 percent stake, and it will become the sole owner within two years, NBC executives said yesterday. The two companies did not disclose financial terms of the deal. But the partners will continue their 50-50 ownership of the MSNBC Web site, which, partly as a consequence of its affiliation with Microsoft, is the most-used news site on the Internet."

being a 'Brit'

[Skiron]

That is a terrible term. I am English. There are Welsh, Scottish and Irish people... a 'Brit' is unknown here.

Anyway, as to the BBC. It is terribly bias toward 'correctness' and really sometimes reports really bad information - "Cyclist dies after colliding with car" - of course, really the car hit the cyclist... etc. etc.

The BBC news site is perhaps the best around (the best of the worse), but it is very far from being perfect and 'unbiased', as it still is a mouthpiece for the Government, and thus, has to follow Government rules on what it can, and what it cannot, say (or report) correctly.

A little story and a parallel to history

[argoff]

It was said that during the Mexican American war, that the Mexican armies had superior equiptment, training, and size to the US armies of the time. But the funny thing was that they lost badly because, it is said, that each general was so greedy for power and control - that they refused to work together with any of the other gnereals, thus fragmenting their forces and ensuring their loss.

In a way, it seems, that the same is true of the content cartels of today. They are so into controlling people to gain a monopoly on content distribution - that they can't possibly bring themselves to work with or to trust each other. Meanwhile Linux, and free and open source alternatives to media, contnet, and opperating systems are moving forward as a unified front.

I think both MS and NBC are going to get what's comming to them, and now considering the recnet X-box arrests where people were given hard time for merely copying content, and then charged with totally unrelated DMCA violations. (Two overkills with one stone) I will be all the more relieved to see Microsoft and the copyright cartel burn in financial hell when their time comes due. I really hope people don't get or return their X-boxes this season, if for anything - in the name of Christmas spirit.

Re:being a 'Brit'

[QuatermassX]

I'm not a Brit, but my girlfriend (who is, from Kent) usually prefers "British" to "English" when she's talking with Americans or someone from the EU ... although will more readily self-identify as "English" when talking to someone from, say, Scotland. Hmmm ... of course, if I decide to become a citizen, I'd be "British" ... or would I be an "AmeriBrit"? ;-)

And just to chime in: although I love the print and web edition of The Guardian (clean, crisp layout, great content is even more an attraction then the "Berliner" format they keeping boasting about). I'm not overly fond of the way information is organised on the BBC's site and subsites, but they are fascinating to page through endlessly.

And, aside from that damn Java headlines thing on the front page, I do tend to give The Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk]'s site marks over The Times [timesonline.co.uk] (which used to be only partially accessible from outside Britain) and Independent [independent.co.uk] (and damn their crappy "portfolio" pay to read nonsense - wonder where the NYT got the idea) sites. Although the Telegraph's Opinion page is silly Tory at times, their features reporting is superb.

Media Center

[TheUncleD]

Microsofts original idea was to tie in the media center to this. I had the 'not so' pleasurable opportunity to sit next to the head of the Media center department on an airplane ride once who told me the network was supposed to be used in conjunction with their M$ Media Center software for channel controls and additional advertising for M$ Products. I'm not a huge fan of NBC or M$'s Media Center products which have proven to do nothing extra-special (s-video out/in) boog whoopdiedoo. I think its a flop mainly. On some interesting facts, Media Center project employs 400 or so M$ employees and was in beta until last year.

Re:Happy Chrismas!!

[JWeinraub]

I would be very happy to pay £110.00 a year if it meant I can the full BBC without the editing they do to the shows when they replay them on the discovery channel.

NYT Sour Grapes?

[Anonymous Freak]

But the partners will continue their 50-50 ownership of the MSNBC Web site, which, partly as a consequence of its affiliation with Microsoft, is the most-used news site on the Internet.

Emphasis mine

Wow. They made a point of pointing out that MSNBC.com is only #1 because it's Microsoft. Sounds like sour grapes to me. New York Times is just pissed that THEY'RE not number one. (Well, if they were to get rid of the stupid registration requirement just to read a frickin' story, they might be.)

Re:Over a barrel?

[snilloc]

As I perceived it, Fox News was GREAT when it first came out, then degraded after only a few years. Now the only things worth watching on Fox News are "Special Report w/ Brit Hume" (the 6-7pm news show) and "Fox News Sunday" (which also airs on Fox affiliates).

For a long time, CNN was the only game in town. Now it seems to have drifted significantly leftward. I accidentally watched half an hour of CNN recently and found myself wanting to interject after each partial-fact was announced. But if there's anything CNN isn't, it's "right leaning".

MSNBC seems to take good talent and good shows and make them into crap. "Hardball" was once the best show of its genre because it had a large devotion to analysis. Now it's a shouting match like all the others. "The Situation w/ Tucker Carlson" was at least entertaining and engaging (a friendly "Air-America" host usually debates Tucker for a significant percentage of the show), but they moved it to the 11pm slot where I can't really justify staying up to watch it.

I reflexively change the channel any time I see the following people on a show: Andrea Mitchell (MS/NBC reporter), Sen. Barbara Boxer, Cindy Sheehan, Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Those people are all insane and should be given large quantities of psychoactive drugs.

None of the network nightly newscasts are worth a damn. Some of the better shows are the weekly ones: Meet the Press, Washington Week (PBS), Fox News Sunday, McLaughlan Group, and as an honarable mention, the Chris Matthews Show.

Thank God for the internet.

Re:Over a barrel?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

For a long time, CNN was the only game in town. Now it seems to have drifted significantly leftward

I would disagree. I think it drifted downward which to a leftie appears to be to the "right" and to a conservative appears to be "left". In actuality they just suck.

But if there's anything CNN isn't, it's "right leaning".

See above. To me they appear "rightward leaning" (but that is because of where I am in the relation to them on this crude left-right spectrum). But objectively speaking, I am prepared to accept that it is mostly because they just cant keep their lies and disinformation straight and I tend to notice the "right-leaning" bullshit more then the other kind. As I said earlier, this is most likely the result of their pathetic attempts to pander to the lowest common denominator, the knuckle dragger viewing audience. Subsequently they appear completely far-out to any thinking person, be it on the left or right.

None of the network nightly newscasts are worth a damn

I have to agree with you there. The problem seems to be systemic. I blame it on the owners of the networks who seem to seek either easy profits (by lowering the bar) or have some hidden agendas on the menu, amongst which stupifying of the American audience features prominently.

Thank God for the internet.

I concur (although, being an Atheist, I would formulate that sentiment differently). The internet is the last bastion of democracy at this point. That is why I am so concerned about the efforts of MPAAs/RIAAs and other "intellectual property" greed-mongers to lock it completely down, ostensibly for profit, but anyone with half a brain can tell where it would end up from the political perspective.

Re:Over a barrel?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The headline was "War on the Middle Class". That's left biased, don't you think?

How so? Can you explain? I would think its simply stupid. A "war" is not waged here, there are no bullets flying or tanks rolling. Next, who exactly is waging this "war"? Depending on the answer on this question you could try to ascertain his bias. But seeing Dobbs drivel a few times before I would assume he was moaning about nebulous "corporate crooks". That is, in his view, the whole economic policy of globalisation is fine and dandy but the job exporting is a result of "unpatriotic", "crooked" companies who take advantage of US tax breaks and then export jobs. This is not a "lefty" stance. A leftist would consider the whole concept of multi-nationals and urestricted free trade to be lunatic and thus all such activities perpetrated by these companies would be simply included in it. Lou on the other hand is a conservative who is trying to be a populist and therefore he looks for "crimes" that are commited by these companies, instead at the whole systemic disaster which the WTO-friendly trade policies are. He is appealing to "patriotism" instead to looking at the economic mechanisms put in place not only by Bush administration but a while host of others before them, starting with Regan (and yes, that includes Clinton).

In short, Lou is just an incompetent ass who is desperately looking for ratings, while his personal views are far closer to that of "conservatives" then the US "liberals".