thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,896
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 27, 2017 17:06:12 GMT -5
That's not the issue. The issue is whether its OK to do silent protests when the national anthem is playing. And its interesting that Trump got on his bully pulpit about this given the player that started the controversy isn't even playing in the NFL now. Hasn't been playing since March.
I think this was a planned thought turd by Trump designed to distract his base from the hypocrisy of Jared, Ivanka and others using their private email addresses once they got to the WH for anything other than purely personal stuff.
It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to silently protest when they are not in uniform or on company time. I can assure you that I would not tolerate my employees protesting while at work. You mean like the gal who posted something on her personal twitter account on her own time, but the White House said in a press conference that she should be fired? |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,367
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 27, 2017 17:10:58 GMT -5
It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to silently protest when they are not in uniform or on company time. I can assure you that I would not tolerate my employees protesting while at work. You mean like the gal who posted something on her personal twitter account on her own time, but the White House said in a press conference that she should be fired? Yikes. Link? |
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,896
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 27, 2017 17:16:06 GMT -5
I don't know how to link, but her name is Jemele Hill.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 27, 2017 17:21:11 GMT -5
Oh, that is recent too. Still going on sort of. The sports network decided not to fire her.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,501
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Sept 27, 2017 17:24:52 GMT -5
To be fair, it was technically Huckabee Sanders that called for her to be fired. I think Trump just moaned about ESPN's ratings, and asked for an apology.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448 
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2017 17:35:48 GMT -5
It's up to the billionaire owners to do something more than what has been done to Kaepernik. In the meantime, I'm betting most fans will just continue to watch the games. I said all throughout this thread that is what matters. I do not watch football but it will be interesting to see if there is any impact to the revenues earned by the NFL. If the revenues remain flat or only take a tiny, temporary hit then nothing happens. If however, people truly are pissed and revenues tank, the owners would have to be morons not to change course in the future.
Over the past three weeks, NFL viewership is down 11% YoY from 2016. How permanent it is, how much is due to the revolt against politicization, and how much worse it will get now that the league has gone all-in, I don't know. Where they're really going to hurt is in merchandise sales. The kinds of things people can boycott without depriving themselves. My prediction is that as long as players continue to take a knee or otherwise make political gestures, revenues are going to take a significant hit. Viewers deeply resent politicization of sport, and they're evidently willing to put their money where their mouth is. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,924
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 27, 2017 17:46:38 GMT -5
I imagine there just might be record TV viewings of football games this weekend. Everyone will be watching to see what the teams do when the anthem is played.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2017 18:05:02 GMT -5
I imagine there just might be record TV viewings of football games this weekend. Everyone will be watching to see what the teams do when the anthem is played. It's possible, but it's not how TV ratings are calculated. A viewer has to watch a significant portion of a program to count as a hit. It will be interesting to see what happens. On one hand, we have Americans' legendary abortiveness when it comes to on-principle boycotts. On the other, this isn't an isolated incident. The players might persist in salting the wound game after game. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 27, 2017 18:29:55 GMT -5
... Over the past three weeks, NFL viewership is down 11% YoY from 2016. How permanent it is, how much is due to the revolt against politicization, and how much worse it will get now that the league has gone all-in, I don't know. ... Here is an article which might help with learning what you don't know: Reading Something in the N.F.L. Ratings? You’re Probably Wrong |
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602 
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 27, 2017 20:04:04 GMT -5
It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to silently protest when they are not in uniform or on company time. I can assure you that I would not tolerate my employees protesting while at work. You mean like the gal who posted something on her personal twitter account on her own time, but the White House said in a press conference that she should be fired? I didn't see this ;I've been away for two weeks(. Not sure who at the white hiuse said that but that is completely unacceptable. That being said, if she posted something outrageous that the employer had an issue with they have every right to fire her. People need to think before they act. And those goes for both sides of the political spectrum. And the White House needs to stop the bullshit |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2017 20:12:46 GMT -5
... Over the past three weeks, NFL viewership is down 11% YoY from 2016. How permanent it is, how much is due to the revolt against politicization, and how much worse it will get now that the league has gone all-in, I don't know. ... Here is an article which might help with learning what you don't know: Reading Something in the N.F.L. Ratings? You’re Probably WrongPage Not Found
We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page,
but we don’t want to lose you.
 |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 6:06:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 20:24:49 GMT -5
I wish it hadn't been said since it was BS and didn't relate what was quoted in any way. BS? I thin k I am not go by to say anything else, lest i get banned. Yes. It was BS based on its reference. It may have been a valid point against a different argument, but against what it was replying to as quoted, it was total BS. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 6:06:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 20:36:49 GMT -5
You must have missed the point of HER FREE CHOICE AFTER THE FIRST HIT. Please go back and re-read until it sinks in that it's a choice to stay after the first hit. The first hit you don't know or expect... every one after that should be expected. And go back and reread what I said. Where they wait to hit until their victim is properly isolated and lack the options to just walk away. Abusers already have their victims well in their clutches by the time they start hitting them - no one would go for a second date if the guy beat them up on the first. The hitting doesn't occur in a vacuum where that's the only bad thing. You obviously have done no research on the topic and have next to no knowledge on the psychology behind and around abuse. So it's probably best that you don't speak ignorantly on the topic. Oh, and don't come back with how isolated women can just go to shelters. There aren't as many as you think, they're often full, there's restrictions like no kids or pets or they're only allowed to stay for a short amount of time. And that's to say nothing of the fact that most shelters woefully lack security so there's nothing to stop the abuser from walking in and dragging his victim back. The option to walk away ALWAYS exists. It's a choice not to exercise it. And choices come with consequences. When you make that choice you accept the consequences that come with it. Actually I have done research on it. I helped my mother get presentations together, to get funding and grants, when she volunteered at the Rape Crisis and Battered Women's Shelter in Myrtle Beach, many years ago. I won't make a post if I don't know what I'm talking about. And yes, I agree that sometimes the choices suck, but that doesn't detract from the simple fact that there ARE choices. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 27, 2017 20:38:50 GMT -5
Page Not Found
We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page,
but we don’t want to lose you.
yeah, I don't know either. I can find it, just not get a good link. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 6:06:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 20:38:56 GMT -5
Patriotism shouldn't be forced, but you should be respectful while others show their patriotism. Why is it wrong to be respectful all of a sudden?That's not the issue. The issue is whether its OK to do silent protests when the national anthem is playing. And its interesting that Trump got on his bully pulpit about this given the player that started the controversy isn't even playing in the NFL now. Hasn't been playing since March.
I think this was a planned thought turd by Trump designed to distract his base from the hypocrisy of Jared, Ivanka and others using their private email addresses once they got to the WH for anything other than purely personal stuff.
It actually IS the issue for some of us. But I don't disagree with your point that Trump's meddling in it is probably meant as a distraction. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 6:06:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 20:42:05 GMT -5
this whole debaucle is just one more Slight of Hand trick by our government and media. There are real problems in the world and people are focusing on this. What's happening that we're NOT paying attention to? Trump and the NFL may not realize it... but... some of us can multi-task. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,694
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 27, 2017 20:45:14 GMT -5
Page Not Found
We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page,
but we don’t want to lose you.
Do a search for the wording in the link. It'll get you to the NY Times article detailing all of the factors involved in the ratings. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,694
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 27, 2017 20:48:23 GMT -5
Page Not Found
We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page,
but we don’t want to lose you.
yeah, I don't know either. I can find it, just not get a good link. I couldn't either. I wonder if it was because it was a secure "https" thing? I've never noticed if that might create a problem here. |
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,359
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 27, 2017 21:41:21 GMT -5
You state that their protest is improper behavior. That is not a fact, it's your opinion. Indeed. Not unlike your opinion that Pres. Trump shouldn't be demanding punishment for non-compliant players. But I suspect you'd prefer we not shrug away your argument with "That's not a fact, it's your opinion." Furthermore, you equate that innocuous act of kneeling when you'd prefer they'd stand (improper or not, it is innocuous) to a criminal and violent assault. There is no equivalence. Not by any means. They're equivalent by the means that the NFL has no authority or duty to police either, which is the only means that matters in this case. #1) That is your assumption of what my opinion may be, I've made no such statement. #2) That is one of your opinions. Or should I say three of your opinions? - They're equivalent
- the NFL has no authority or duty to police either
- which is the only means that matters in this case
opinions all.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2017 22:45:54 GMT -5
Indeed. Not unlike your opinion that Pres. Trump shouldn't be demanding punishment for non-compliant players. But I suspect you'd prefer we not shrug away your argument with "That's not a fact, it's your opinion." They're equivalent by the means that the NFL has no authority or duty to police either, which is the only means that matters in this case. #1) That is your assumption of what my opinion may be, I've made no such statement. #2) That is one of your opinions. Or should I say three of your opinions? - They're equivalent
- the NFL has no authority or duty to police either
- which is the only means that matters in this case
opinions all.
Uh... huh.  At least we can all be thankful you're here to remind us that opinions are opinions. If you'd care to express yours at some point, that would be great too. For instance, you could volunteer your opinion on the appropriateness of the players' protest and the White House reaction. Any time. |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2017 23:00:02 GMT -5
Page Not Found
We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page,
but we don’t want to lose you.
yeah, I don't know either. I can find it, just not get a good link. No worries. I assume it concludes that the ratings dip isn't due to the player protests, which wouldn't surprise me, given the spat only recently went "nuclear". It will take weeks or months to determine any macro trends. We can all look forward to the upcoming screaming match between NYT and Pres. Trump over who's "winning", as decided by football ratings.  |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 27, 2017 23:22:46 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 27, 2017 23:31:29 GMT -5
I couldn't respect myself if I actually clicked through to an article whose sole purpose is to do battle with Pres. Trump over football ratings. The "Page not found." error was me dodging a bullet. I can still claim I've never stooped that low.  |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,484
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 28, 2017 0:01:38 GMT -5
I couldn't respect myself if I actually clicked through to an article whose sole purpose is to do battle with Pres. Trump over football ratings. The "Page not found." error was me dodging a bullet. I can still claim I've never stooped that low. Yeah. U assume. Me? I read it. |
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 28, 2017 9:38:08 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 28, 2017 10:07:43 GMT -5
I couldn't respect myself if I actually clicked through to an article whose sole purpose is to do battle with Pres. Trump over football ratings. The "Page not found." error was me dodging a bullet. I can still claim I've never stooped that low. Yeah. U assume. Me? I read it. I'll read it if it doesn't mention Pres. Trump or the White House. If it's just an article about NFL ratings, I'll gladly take a look. Is this the case? If not, my apologies, but the idealist in me abhors the thought of rewarding the NYT for stooping to Pres. Trump's level. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,924
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 28, 2017 10:54:42 GMT -5
NFL TV Ratings Improve Overall in Week 3 After Boost from Monday Night FootballWe have never seen a week where more people were interested in NFL television viewership. You can thank President Donald Trump for that. Among his other tweets over the last 48 hours, Trump said the ratings for NFL football were “way down except before game starts, when people tune in to see whether or not our country will be disrespected!” The final viewership numbers based on projections from Fox Sports vice president of research Mike Mulvihill are that the NFL games from Sunday and Monday were up 3% in aggregate over Week 3 in 2016. NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy also confirmed those numbers. On Tuesday afternoon, CBS said its NFL coverage on Sunday drew 17.9 million viewers, up 2% from a year ago. The biggest factor in the weekly increase was the Monday Night Football game between the Cowboys and Cardinals. The game drew a 9.3 overnight rating, well over last year’s game between the Falcons and Saints, which was the least-watched Monday Night Football game on record (5.7) because it went up against the first Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton Presidential debate last year. It was also up over 2015 (the Packers-Chiefs drew an 8.9 overnight) and 2014 (the Bears-Jets drew a 9.2 rating). Late Tuesday afternoon, Robert Seidman of Sports TV Ratings reported that the Cowboys-Cardinals game drew 13.691 million viewers on ESPN, way up over 8.0 million viewers for the Week 3 Monday Night Football game last year and Packers/Chiefs in 2015 (13.5 million). NFL TV Ratings Improve Overall in Week 3 After Boost from Monday Night Football
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 28, 2017 11:11:27 GMT -5
You don't need links or stats to know this is going to affect ratings. You just need to listen to people. I've heard many, many people say they aren't watching anymore. My sister was complaining last night that her Facebook stuff was full of posts from people declaring their intentions to discontinue watching. If even a few of these people are telling the truth, it has to affect ratings. Period. Nobody needs a story on the internet to figure that out.
Now, if you have people who have never watched football before tuning in because of the controversy, that is going to affect ratings also. You don't need a link or news story to tell you this either.
Bottom line: This controversy IS going to affect ratings. The questions are, how much and which way? Is it going to be detrimental enough for owners to act action? Is it going to be such a boon, they don't give a darn? We'll see. |
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,359
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 28, 2017 11:12:55 GMT -5
I said all throughout this thread that is what matters. I do not watch football but it will be interesting to see if there is any impact to the revenues earned by the NFL. If the revenues remain flat or only take a tiny, temporary hit then nothing happens. If however, people truly are pissed and revenues tank, the owners would have to be morons not to change course in the future.
Over the past three weeks, NFL viewership is down 11% YoY from 2016. How permanent it is, how much is due to the revolt against politicization, and how much worse it will get now that the league has gone all-in, I don't know. |
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,359
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Sept 28, 2017 11:13:15 GMT -5
Yeah. U assume. Me? I read it. I'll read it if it doesn't mention Pres. Trump or the White House. If it's just an article about NFL ratings, I'll gladly take a look. Is this the case? If not, my apologies, but the idealist in me abhors the thought of rewarding the NYT for stooping to Pres. Trump's level. A bit lame of you since you were the one floating the idea the ratings were down. Should at do a bit of research into your earlier claim. |
|
