Dish, Fox News Feud Again Illustrates How The Cable TV Industry Is Digging Its Own Grave
from the burning-your-own-house-down dept
If you have cable you've probably been exposed to one of the increasingly ugly retransmission fee disputes occurring between cable operators and broadcasters. They usually go something like this: as the two sides fail to hammer out new programming contracts, programmers pull their content from your cable lineup. Both sides then use media campaigns, on screen tickers, and websites all trying to convince you that the other guy is a nefarious, greedy villain. Frequently lost in the festivities is the fact that consumers get to pay the same amount of money for cable, even though they're suddenly able to watch less content.After a month or so of consumers being used as public relations pinatas the disputes end, confidential new contracts are signed, and the consumer is forgotten until they're socked with a new, higher cable bill down the road. While it's true broadcasters are responsible for the majority of programming increases, neither side is blameless, and both parties look for every opportunity to gouge their customers, making this a scenario where you truly wish both sides could lose.
The latest example of this dysfunction is the ongoing feud between Dish Network and Fox News, which resulted in Dish customers losing access to both Fox News Channel and Fox Business Channel roughly a week ago. As with other fights, both sides have loud websites trying to harness consumer outrage toward the other side. Also like similar fights, users get to keep paying the same amount of money despite getting less content. Unlike other fights where consumers may not actually miss what's been taken away (as we saw with the DirecTV, Weather Channel fight), Fox News viewers really love their daily smorgasbord of "fair and balanced" dance numbers, and have been driving a significant amount of annoyance Dish's direction:
"Since Dish dropped Fox News, Dish has focused on shifting blame instead of getting Fox News back on the air. But the facts speak for themselves – Dish has blocked more than 10 channels in the last six months alone,” said the network statement. “We continue to work on resolving this situation, but until Dish is responsive, we are unable to update you on when Fox News will be available."Since Fox News has all the leverage here (Fox News continues to drive some of the only gains in cable right now) Dish will ultimately fold, offer up something close to what Fox originally wanted, and raise its rates sometime in the new year. But it's no victory; it's these endless programming increases that have many smaller cable companies dropping out of the TV business to just focus on broadband. It's of course these same rates that have customers looking increasingly to less-expensive TV options like Netflix or Amazon.
Consequently, Fox’s fan base has besieged Dish with calls and emails since the channel went dark. By Fox’s tally, about 180,000 complaint calls have been registered with the toll-free line Fox established for the Dish fight. At last count, 140,000-plus emails have been sent as well."
It is astonishing that the cable and broadcast industry continues to bicker over the body of a dying cash cow as its house burns down around it. It requires a very particular skill set to take an industry with some of the worst customer satisfaction ratings in the country and find a way to make the consumer experience notably worse. At this point, carriage fee disputes are akin to a beverage retailer and the White Star Line bickering over Scotch prices at the Titanic bar.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cable tv, fox news, retransmission, retransmission fights, tv
Companies: dish, fox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Intervention, not dispute
'We're not doing this for us, we're doing it for you, and while it may be hard to deal with now, down the line, you'll thank us for it.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intervention, not dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
Of course they would have to ease it in: the inferior minds of Fox "News" viewers would likely be unable to comprehend higher-order concepts such as "facts" and "logic", so I would suggest dumbing it down to a 5th-grade level or so for the first six months. After that it might be feasible to slowly ease them into a world where science and reason prevail over ignorance, superstition, fear, prejudice and full-blown batshit crazy crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
You are just as ignorant and foolish as they are. I do not watch Fox or the Trash you watch either... guess that makes me better than you all!
Get off your (dead) high horse and stop picking on specific news broadcasters... they are all biased and slanted, you just hate the ones not slanted in your direction or sporting your favorite dogma or pseudoscience of the week.
You won't find "facts" or "logic" in abundance anywhere and those speaking the most about having them are typically the ones most devoid of them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
And yes, watching Fox "News" does make people stupid: see, for example: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-2 0120524
Perhaps you should turn it off before it has even more of an effect on your already-inferior mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
I suspect that you think this only applies to the so called liberal media and that conservative media should never be looked upon in this light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
It is perfectly fine for So-N-So to do whatever simply because others do it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
It's not that the people sre morons; it's that Fox News is designed to reduce your ability to think critically, and it clearly works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
Actually, watching FoxNews makes one think even *more* critically. I routinely fact-check much of what is reported on that channel, leading me to learn even more about the particular subject. But, well - that's me..
FWIW - the Fox morning show *does* occasionally have some fun cooking and, during the holidays, gift idea segments. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
By Googling other Fox-owned entities like the Wall Street Journal and NY Post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
Nope. Reading either WSJ or NYPost for accurate information on current events would be like poking my eyes out with a stick. (I have a rather jaundiced view of news media in general. Just commented re Fox as that was the topic to hand.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
In case you missed it, this article is about one specific broadcaster...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
Hey, 5th-graders are smarter than you think!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Intervention, not dispute
Ah, what a hilarious riposte! You have surely demonstrated your superior intellect with that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intervention, not dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Intervention, not dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox News
Ironically enough - despite them being free over the air - local channels charge re-broadcasters like Dish a large amount to be able to show these local channels to their subscribers. And implement strict rules on ensuring ONLY the people in the area normally covered by the over-the-air signal can get the rebroadcasted signal from the satellite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
We can't have Dish paying us to deliver advertising to the wrong people, after all (though I'm guessing it's the network that enforces that, probably local affiliates would love to be viewed by more people).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The house sinks, or the boat burns
"... carriage fee disputes are akin to a beverage retailer and the White Star Line bickering over Scotch prices at the Titanic bar."
So many metaphors, so little time.
Have that cow buy me a Scotch before he goes. But none for Fox or Dish; for all I care, they can burn. Or drown. Or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The house sinks, or the boat burns
Rather than speaking ill of the dying, Karl could at least have the common decency to choose a metaphor that makes what they're doing sound impressive.
Something like, "pounding the last nail in your own coffin while you're on the inside."
We wouldn't bad for applauding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The house sinks, or the boat burns
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The house sinks, or the boat burns
Perhaps they can drown in burning Scotch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How sad...
On the other hand, what chutzpah on the part of the cable companies to not adjust pricing when what they charge for is reduced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How sad...
Fox Broadcasting (Fox) and Dish Networks (Dish) are in negotiation to determine the rate Dish will pay Fox per subscriber in order to carry their content. The last request Dish received from Fox was an increase of 175% over our previous contract amount. Since we cannot absorb the full cost of this increase, this means that we would have to increase all rate plans by at least $3/month. Please indicate below which option you would like to see us pursue:
1) Continue to aggresively negotiate with Fox so that we can keep the increase to a minimum
2) Agree to the increase which will mean a corresponding increase to your monthly bill
3) Investigate alternatives to Fox Broadcasting content and keep monthly bills static.
4) Drop Fox Broadcasting content entirely, do not find an alternative and reduce monthly bills by $3/month.
(yeah, yeah, I know... #4 would never happen. Be funny if it did though)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How sad...
we are caught in a game of rooting for 'our' rapacious bandits, instead of *those* other rapacious bandits who are engaging in internecine warfare we can hardly influence within the constraints of the system...
SWMBO and i are being amused with our dish favorite lists: while we only have a local fox for sports on our favorites lists, we have noticed a bunch of other channels which have bouncing around on our list with red shading, denoting they are not available... our list basically stays the same, but the channels flip in or out of availability/red in a seemingly random fashion...
that's all for our benefit, richtig ? ? ?
idiot media kingpins slit their own throats and wonder where all the blood is coming from...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time to itemize.
Put it all back on the broadcasters by airing everyone's dirty laundry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How sad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if anyone believe's it's Dish's fault - they're idiots.
I say F' Fox News - don't like em, don't want em, won't miss em - bunch of lying scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if anyone believe's it's Dish's fault - they're idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if anyone believe's it's Dish's fault - they're idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if anyone believe's it's Dish's fault - they're idiots.
And you call others idiots ... wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's why you're paying more:
Fox News: wanted more money and it's also why you didn't get to see it while we negotiated.
Twanspawency!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: loss of Fox news
Atually, Dish agrees that Fox News deserves a raise, given ho wmuch its viewership has grown. The thing is that the Fox Corp. has other channels (FXX, etc.) and they're trying to get more money for them as well. Dish doesn't want to pay more for them because these channels don't have the viewership to justify the rate increases Fox wants. You'd think that these channels would get knocked off but there are two problems with that.
1 Thoise channels are still under existing contracts, so Fox can't pull them anyway without breadhing their contracts.
2. People may not complain too much because there aren't tha tmany people who would miss them, so Fox hs no leverage.
Instead, what Fox did was say, "OK, you cna keep showing our not-so-populr channels, but we're going to not let you show our channels that are really popular unless you give us the extra money (as a "surcharge") that we want for our other channels.
Dish, meanwhile is apprenlty not looking at this as juct a super rate increase for Fox News, but rather two separate issues.
Who knows, when Fox New's contracts on Direct, Xfinity and whoever come due, we might see the same thing happen agian.
Meanwhile, the viewers lose out in this story, "A Tale of Two Greedies"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: loss of Fox news
Fox pundits quite happily berate the underemployed, implying it is their own fault they make minimum wage and they do not need an increase. Some of these mental midgets at Fox claim that a decrease in the minimum wage could eliminate unemployment - and yes ... they are serious. Sure, pay them less because the taxpayers will make up the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: loss of Fox news
CNN's ratings for example, are not what they used to be; they can no longer command the kind of deals they could in the past. MSNBC has tanked so much they have very little leverage at renegotiation time.
The Simpsons is the longest running prime time show in history. Yet their ratings are not what they once were and the actors were told a season or two ago they actually had to take pay cuts or the show would not be renewed. Cartoon Network stopped buying episodes of Futurama becasue its ratings had fallen so much the network didn't think it was worth what it cost. There are many excellent shows out there that we no longer see for that reason, and converesly that's how come the cast of "Friends" were able to demand vastly higher salaries to come back for those last few years.
That's the way it is. Fox News "deserves" a raise because they continue to deliver higher ratings. Apparently some of the other Fox channels don't do as well, so they can't ask for a lot more money. So what seems to be going on is that Fox wants more for their other less popular channels, but knows they'll be told to take a hike; so they're trying for a subsidy for those channels by witholding Fox News, which a larger audience does want. Essentially what they're saying is that if you want this, you have to also pay more for that.
Happens all the time. To keep big stars happy, studios will create roles or vanity movies for them or their offspring. John Wayne did it, so did Will Smith. The buzz is that "After Earth" was made and starred Jaden Smith in order to keep Will Smith, the box ofice Goliath, happy. Clint Eastwood years ago said that to get the small jazz films made he liked to do during those years, every so often he'd give the studios a Dirty Harry movie.
Essentially, that's what we're seeing here. If Dish wants to keep Fox News, it's going to have to cough up more for Fox's other channels, even though they're already undre contract.
Of course Dish isn't totally blameless, witness how often programing has been pulled just this year (Turner, CBS, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: loss of Fox news
One could go on forever about how business as usual demands certain things, but no matter how exhausting the excuses are it lacks the rational and the justification for said action(s). "Because I can" does not cut it and neither does "Because it has always been that way". I don't buy it and neither do many others.
Again, high ratings do not equal high quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: loss of Fox news
Deliver more goods (i.e. ratings), you're worth more.
Top salesman make more than average salesman. This is true with actors, doctors, artists, musicians, business, etc. That's the way the free market works, which is much better than some bureaucrat who has no familiarity with the operations arbitrarily assigning a value.
As you say, high ratings do not equal high "quality" (and who defines "quality"?), but that's irrelevant to the situation at hand. If consumers were willing to pay more for quality, among 2013 movies, "Jackass Presents" wouldn't have made 80% more money than "12 Years a Slave", and "Fast and Furious 6" wouldn't have made almost 4 1/4 times as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: loss of Fox news
Meh. Not much of a loss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again
you have the likes of Comcast who commit blatant fraud against their customers, and AT&T who openly lie to their customers and to the lawmakers.
Now they want to pass laws that prevent the FCC from doing what millions have asked them to do, this is not a bipartisan issue everyone wants title II but the isp's.
When are the American people going to realise that their system of governance is corrupt and a failure and do something to stop big business from stealing from consumers with the support of their corrupt and failed political system.
Americans try to claim they are a republic and the best example of a democray, well at this moment in time i think it is obvious to anyone with a reasonable IQ that the American political system has failed and needs to be changed for the people not big business.
Just because corruption and bribery is allowed by law does not make it right and the fact that Americans are accepting it as it is is just sad , very sad.
The big political collapse is coming, this corrupt system has lasted too long and will eventually break itself when people refuse to participate in the corruption and it will not be the conservatives or democrats who resolve the problems , it will be an outside force that takes the power away from both of them.
open your eyes Americans you are allowing your country to be more corrupt than Zimbabwe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value Add
I'd consider getting a Dish subscription, but this is definitely temporary, and the TV ship has long since sailed for me anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox News
Watching shows that misrepresent and prevaricate on issues that are important to Fox viewers is just as frustrating as it is for you. So Fox it is, until someone else in the industry works out that the left's big weakness is a smug tendency toward seeing themselves as inevitably morally correct and everyone else as fools deserving of mockery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fox News
- Gee, that makes it ok then.
"Fox provides a right-leaning perspective. All of the others are left-leaning"
- You need to get out more often.
"left's big weakness is a smug tendency"
- Actually, there are several more pressing issues for them and you might have been made aware of these issues had you not buried your head in the ol' Fox Hole. Seriously, look around and you might find good journalism, what have you got to lose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fox News
Don't extremists on both sides do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
And then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
I realize I am stating the obvious, but someone had to.
Half? You might want to take another look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
The traditional split is 33-33-33 and it's been that way since the beginning. Anyone that thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox News
Fox may have a large group of viewers, but it is no where near half the population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News
he has left united states defenseless may god help us and maybe we can put a stop to any more damage that may be caused by Obama actions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox News
Well that piqued my interest. Exactly how have your personal religious practices changed since Obama took office, and why? I know mine are exactly the same.
he has left united states defenseless
Really, defenseless? We don't have any kind of effective military any more? I would ask where you get your "facts", but you already told us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT NEWS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT NEWS
MSNBC, CNN, HLN, Al Jazeera all come to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT NEWS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT NEWS
... yes, I had to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NOT NEWS
... yes, I had to ask.
This just in: Fox News rules and MSNBC drools*.
* source: Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"While it's true broadcasters are responsible for the majority of programming increases, ..."
Can you substantiate this allegation with publicly verifiable facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kool-aid
While Fox news does have what is considered right leaning bias, most of it is on the political opinion sections.
Really, I think that there should not be a 24h news cycle, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: kool-aid
"While Fox news does have what is considered right leaning bias"
- Capt Under Statement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox News Dish
"Then Make a DEAL."
"What kind of a deal?"
"A DEAL, Deal"...."business is business."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News Dish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subsidizing the enemy
while cnn and msnbc are perhaps woefully inadequate, inadequacy should not be conflated with purposeful deceit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subsidizing the enemy
while cnn and msnbc are perhaps woefully inadequate, inadequacy should not be conflated with purposeful deceit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quick Question
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Quick Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is an old Klingon saying:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
⛔ I expect that if I PAY there will be no commercials on my dime.
⛔ I expect that if I PAY there is something on besides a program geared to the lowest common denominator of moron.
⛔ I expect that if I PAY that there are far, far, fewer reruns because I am financing it for that purpose.
⛔ I expect that if I PAY that there be shows and programs I am interested and looking forward to seeing.
⛔ I expect that if I PAY to get reasonable service when needed because I am paying.
Since none of those were met, I see no value in ever paying for cable tv again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember
When there were GOOD shows on broadcast..its getting really Crap now..Some reason Broadcast is turning to Cop shows, Judges, repeats of other crap..
This came from a time when CORPS had to setup their OWN broadcast system and relay stations...ALL OVER the country..
It was/is free..
Cable companies TRIED to give a better system, that could hold more stations and give a better selection in the areas..
FAIL. and Failed worse over time..
Other countries setup Satellites.. 1-2 to cover Large areas, and many countries.. For free TV service.
Insted of placing cables all over, or Thousands of Broadcast antennas and relay stations..
So Why pirate?
Watch what you want..
When you want..
Including all the OLD stuff, New Stuff, and Stuff thats not available in the USA..Stuff released FROM USA to other countries, no longer in the USA and you cant watch it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad because?
And this is bad, why? Fox is a worthless bit of junk that just fills the pockets of Rupert Murdock. I say, leave it off the air. Most Fox watchers will enjoy a sudden boost to their IQ's...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox News Blackout......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fox News Blackout......
You know all the satellite and cable providers do the same thing, right? It's just the luck of the draw whether your provider happens to have a dispute with a channel you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laughing at FNC Critics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laughing at FNC Critics
Nobody is disputing that, but the reason is not high quality news.
Everyone else - go back to your silly MSNBC/CNN crap news.
False dichotomy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laughing at FNC Critics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laughing at FNC Critics
Aim away from your foot first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laughing at FNC Critics
Why is it highly likely that Fox News bashers have not actually ever watched it? Is this based upon polls or something you pulled out of your ass?
Ok, what is that reason? That fact that many people watch something does not in any way imply that said program is good, truthful, knowledgeable or worthwhile. For example, how many people watch the Kardashians? Yes, I said it ... Fox News is like the Kardashians!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or perhaps an industry that relies on people watching its' media but refuses to offer them how customers want, insisting that customers dont really want the stuff like that, they want it how the industries say. the fact that their is no returning to the 60s, 70s, 80s, or even the 90s is dismissed, because losing millions of customers and dollars doesn't mean the industries are wrong, just that the customers are in a muddle!! what fucking crap!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw Fox News!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that's what you call it, apparently you do.
The pretzel logic is sort of humorous but is getting old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In general informed people(of either party) follow a multitude of blogs from people that have similiar views on some issues they find important, and pull from a variety of news sources and are pretty good at parsing out fact from speculation in a story and can use a combination of sites with different views to put together their view in their own head.
Pretty much all big media is drive-by media(I'm including Fox here) where they just sit on a big story and roll over it for views fact checking is optional and often means wasting time you could be getting views. The main reason I do prefer Fox over the other main stream news when I do have to watch something in a bar, is they have a much much lower tendency of looping the same 5 stories on a 15 minute loop that gives me normally just enough details to throw it on google. Meanwhile Fox normally tend to have multiple hour shows where a host will sit on 2-3 issues and give at least 15-20 minutes of wild speculation mixed with some facts. So not only do you get an hour loop instead of 15 the hosts may decide to focus on different stories or hop on different trains of speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your description makes me think it would be better to pull out the phone and play SimCity BuildIt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dish,fox news,,etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dish,fox news,,etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dish,fox news,,etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fox bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dish Fox Feud
Dish never once attempted to contact their customer base and offer compensation. I initiated calls, and during one call asked a "supervisor", why they had not done so. The person stated, they had no way to do so! She sure tried back peddling when I pointed out, they somehow manage to contact customers re billing!
TG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fox/dish dispute
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fox/dish dispute
Dish might lose a few customers, but they'll both end up getting paid more for doing the same thing as before. If that's losing, sign me up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Access to Online Content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Access to Online Content
That's why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOX News vs. Dish
Idiotic comment by a person who probably never even watched FOX News, and is a card-carrying leftist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]