Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BTR1701 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: References: 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"" wrote: > shawn wrote: >> Fri, 22 Nov 2024 15:17:11 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman : >>> Dimensional Traveler wrote: >>>> On 11/21/2024 8:39 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>> shawn 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.