The more accurate generalization is that many people will just believe what they want to hear, and disregard the rest, despite any compelling argument, or presentation of facts.
dishstandsbyyou gives you a great credit for fox dispute
- Thread starter bluegras
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 807
- Views 74K
- Status
I think it's simpler than that. Most people (who care about the channel) don't give a flip about who is to blame. They want their channels back! That's all. They couldn't care less about any inner working or negotiations. That's just my opinion, anyway.
on the topic of the Keep Fox News site posting a "Good News, Fox News and Dish reach agreement" thing. it might had been a blunder involved with those in charge of running and maintaining the Keep Fox News site. i think what happened was, someone was uploading the "Dish and Fox news reached a deal" slate (just so it can be ready to go when an actual deal is reached) on the site and it accidentally went online on the site. it caused confusion and gave every dish customer who wanted their Fox News back hope. but the website snafu was corrected after a few people including Scott saw it and started the speculation that Dish and Fox reached a deal when really, both Sides may not be talking at all.
For whats its worth, I will be 60 this year and didn't believe any of your nonsense.
Back on topic, I posted on the Dish website last Sunday and have not received $50 but I did get a PPV coupon. May not have been related, I don't know.
right, and the first person they blame is the one they pay monthly to provide it to them. doesn't matter what channel it is.
How can they possibly settle this dispute when they aren't even meeting or negotiating? Charlie is trying to prove that he is Rupert Murdoch's equal and his feelings have been hurt. I want to hear that they are meeting before people get any hopes that there will be settlement. Interesting Dish is the first company to ever pull down Fox News, and they really stirred up a hornet's nest.
I know off topic but:
#25 on that list, compared to the Murdoch family at #33. Your post is incorrect sir.
EDIT: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#tab:overall, forgot to include the link
#25 on that list, compared to the Murdoch family at #33. Your post is incorrect sir.
EDIT: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#tab:overall, forgot to include the link
This year Direct went up more, (Cable almost always does) higher receiver fees, adding to receiver fees on the first receiver, raising and adding surcharges all in addition to raising package fees. And DISH is already much less for most subscribers so even if they go up the same, they are paying less. People simply saying DISH costs the same or goes up the same doesn't make it true. Why not give exact figures to back up your post, I did several times.
You have a choice, have less disputes that result in temporary loss of channels, (but still have them as Direct TV has now for some) or switch. There are plenty of posts if you care to look of others who confirm after the first year of discounts they will pay more, and some who have shown with Cable even with discounts they would pay the same or maybe more.
enough is enough i am sick and tired of all these disputes god i wish this was done and over with
Fox knows what Dish offered. Dish knows what Fox offered. Until that changes on either side, what is there to talk about?
I also noted that it likely does not apply to people who are aware of the industry, and follow it. It wasn't aimed at people who post here, who take time to pay attention to what is really happening. But really, so many people from your generation and older would see Tom Brokaw, or Walter Cronkite report something, and what they said was taken as fact. Everybody? Heavens no. But I do believe, percentage-wise, it was higher than younger generations. It could be said that the younger generations are more cynical.
I also think TNGTony hit it correctly, many who simply want their channel back do not care about details, and I think for so many of them, whatever they hear first or more often is what they take as fact...no desire to know details, they just want their channel back. Their trusted news source is telling them something, and it's natural for them to believe it. Out on the interwebs, on places like Dish's facebook page, people are parroting perfectly what is being said by Fox...so they take it as absolute truth.
You assign personal feelings and motivations to something you have no idea about. I don't either, but then, I haven't tried to say it's because someone is mad, someone has hurt feelings, someone has a superiority complex. It's business, and you seem to show a lack of understanding that this is business. Dish and Charlie Ergen have had a good relationship with Fox for some time, so trying to say this is a clash of egos, with no actual proof, is a major stretch. People have posted the details as much as is known, and Dish has even admitted they were prepared to pay more for Fox News due to increasing popularity, and Fox chose to throw other channels in the mix that were not out of contract. Charlie Ergen and his team have determined what they're willing to pay or negotiate, and Fox has a different opinion. Why do you insist on saying this has something to do with Charlie Ergen's personality?
Not even going to get into your obsession that Dish pulled down the channels. They were turned off 10 minutes before they would have been required to do so. Irrelevant as to whether you would get the channel at 1:00 am that morning, yesterday, or today. They had to be removed, and I guess your big point is whether they were taken down at 11:51 or 11:59. Pretty petty point, frankly.
I shoot that thinking down with the reports that some Dish employees got internal emails stating that the dispute was over around the same time the keep fox news site had been changed (as reported by Chad). I think there was a leak that was inaccurate or premature and then quickly corrected.
Right. And on top of that, getting fed words like "censored" solidifies the blame.
Thats what my thinking is. Especially with employees not having those emails in the morning. I am thinking it got close, and then something happened. Or a massive screwup on both sides, the negotiators came to terms and the companies did not. So many possibilities. I can only wonder.
The brilliance of youth is more cynical because they have less time in life to make valued decisions. We older people evaluate situations with things that are occurring now and things that occurred before you were.
- Status
