Can you blame them? It’s like being born with the last name Stalin or Hitler or Manson or, in this case, Olbermann. It just can’t help as you go through life.
The New York Times has news of new nomenclature:
NBC Universal and Microsoft, the parents of MSNBC.com, are holding high-level talks about a name change, something that could be a risky endeavor for the third most popular news Web site in the United States.
The two parents have determined that the brand of MSNBC.com, a strictly objective news Web site, is widely confused with MSNBC, the cable channel that has taken a strongly liberal bent in recent years, according to internal memorandums obtained by The New York Times this week.
Charlie Tillinghast, MSNBC.com’s president, wrote in a memo last March, “Both strategies are fine, but naming them the same thing is brand insanity.” The channel and Web site are already separate companies.
Alluding to the challenge that the two companies face in conceiving a brand-new news identity, MSNBC.com this week pushed back a board meeting on the topic by three weeks. “Consensus in this case is a tall order,” Mr. Tillinghast wrote in a message to employees Tuesday.
Isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t the failing cable news network that made the brand name so toxic be the one that changes its name and gets a new url?
How about lyingsacksofshit.com. Is that available?
Source: New York Times
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (15)
My point is, as long as they have the likes of people such as Rachael Maddow on the air, they will always been nothing - a big, fat zero - because most Americans disagree with their viewpoint. They can change the name to whatever they want, but garbage is still garbage.
I joined the site just so I could post a link that showed he was not the author of some writing she used to attack him, and a couple of days later I was informed that my comments were deemed inappropriate and were erased. I went back to see if I could, maybe, put it in a nicer way (because the first time I did say that Maddow and her viewers didn't have two brain cells to rub together among them) and they had closed the thread to further comment.
Oh, Betty, Betty, Betty.
What was inappropriate was that you didn't just *love* Maddow, and blindly echo her opinion. You were guilty of crimethink.
Glad you're posting here, though!
Rachael Maddow did an interview with Dr. Arthur Robinson, who is running for Congress in Oregon. She did an awful job, wouldn't let him talk, quoted words from a newsletter he didn't even write (he took it over years later), and did not ask him one single question about political issues. She acted incredulous that he didn't believe in global warming as well. She spoke to him the whole time in that maddening condescending tone that lets you know she's not going to give a fair interview, but was obviously trying to make him look dumb. Her handful of viewers ate it up and said she "won" - but, she didn't. SHE was the one who was awful and has about as much scientific knowledge as a rock.
Well Betty, we all know Mad-cow never let facts get in the way of her "journalism" and she only allows the drone of her own voice during her segment.
I saw that clip and considered doing a story on IHTM, but there are days when I just can't stomach doing another MSNBC story.
Proves that no matter how hard you "buff the turd", you still end up with a turd!
mv
But if a new MSNBC.com web site is forced to air video the old MSNBC hack cable channel that would destroy whatever credibility the name change is attempting to bestow. Any web site which if forced to offer up Keith Olbermann as a serious commentator is going to have big problems.
Changing the name means nothing if all the same crap talent is still on the air there. Also, remember this, MSNBC.com does fairly well, MSNBC, does not. The joke is that most networks have their own website, MSNBC is the website that had it's own network.
Yeah, it redefines "sucks to be you" -- msnbc.com is the center of attention in the MSNBC (r) circular firing squad.
Not that I particularly care.
Just waiting to see the bloodbath that happens when ComCast takes over. There should be a total clear out of the on air "talent" that does'nt get ratings, & beating CNN should'nt count as getting ratings.
"News is entertainment to sell advertising, nothing more"
-director of TV news that I know
They are totally different, one doesn't it in electronic print, the other broadcasts it. Totally different.
Isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t the failing cable news network that made the brand name so toxic be the one that changes its name and gets a new url?
That may be true but once a brand is ruined it doesn't do any good to keep that bad association. As your example, would keeping or changing the family name "Hitler" make sense?
It worked for Adolf Hitler, but he ruined the brand for every other Hitler.
I know I guy called Hitler, no bull that is actually his first name. Not sure why, don't know him well enough to ask....
I can sum it up quick.
His parents are morons, and he doesn't know any better.