Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Comcast is going to spin off many of their networks.
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 15:33:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <vhssl3$1ophp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <veoqjj1esnppc21acab3iihj3umpp7nd4r@4ax.com> <vhp7i6$12gu3$1@dont-email.me> <vhq79n$17d85$3@dont-email.me> <jcb1kj1ljr09emos3fje2pbq8df10jc66h@4ax.com> <vhqn0d$1aha8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 16:33:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bc64f9fb580861adf65e69c25222854d";
	logging-data="1861177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/i1QBxtMjUXfmUoseWE8rq"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o068LM9wI7jfde7QJXhwYCtTCtU=
Bytes: 3465

On Nov 22, 2024 at 11:45:17 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> Fri, 22 Nov 2024 15:17:11 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2024 8:39 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> . . .
> 
>>>>>> Yet, I was reading an article about the move last night and the
>>>>>> writers (some financial analysts) believe the real money is coming
>>>>>> from CNBC and MSNBC. I don't have the data to say one way or the other
>>>>>> but they believed that freeing those two channels from NBC/Comcast
>>>>>> will stop people from taking money from them to feed to pet projects.
>>>>>> (Sounds a lot like what I keep hearing about Hollywood and how the
>>>>>> money making projects end up funding everything else.)
> 
>>>>> Of course, any business in a large conglomerate would benefit from not
>>>>> having its revenues diverted to something else, and to be able to sink
>>>>> cash back into growing its own business.
> 
>>>> One assumes you meant to type "able to sink cash into stock buy-backs".  :P
> 
>>> I know you are joking, but no, whether significant amounts of stock are
>>> repurchased or the company is taken private is a different calculation.
> 
>>> shawn is saying that executives running profitable groups were being
>>> fucked over because they weren't allowed to reinvest their own profits
>>> into growing the businesses they were running well.
> 
>>> I'll guess that most of the pet projects were unprofitable and found no
>>> large audiences.
> 
>> Yes, that was my point. It's why I brought up the typical report about
>> the Hollywood studios and how no movie ever seems to make money
>> because they count any 'profits' against other projects.
> 
> You want their mistresses to pay their own living expenses and not charged
> off as company business expenses?
> 
>> In this case
>> the article says that CNBC and MSNBC were making money but much of
>> their profits were being siphoned off for other pet projects that
>> weren't part of CNBC/MSNBC. So even if the projects had been
>> profitable that wouldn't benefit CNBC/MSNBC.

I heard Elon Musk made a comment about perhaps buying MSNBC and giving Rachel
Maddow's show to Joe Rogan.