Microsoft Leaving MSNBC TV Partnership

pnewhook writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that Microsoft and NBC have announced that they will be dissolving their joint cable TV news channel, MSNBC, with NBC retaining control. From the article: "NBC has completed a deal to assume majority control of the channel immediately, with an 82 percent stake, and it will become the sole owner within two years, NBC executives said yesterday. The two companies did not disclose financial terms of the deal. But the partners will continue their 50-50 ownership of the MSNBC Web site, which, partly as a consequence of its affiliation with Microsoft, is the most-used news site on the Internet."

Comments

Over a barrel?

[Tufriast]

I guess NBC got tired of M$'s demanding ways. Either that, or M$ wasn't really doing anything with the TV division...and they just were using it for marketing.
Try the Guardian for better news, or the BBC. The Brits got one thing right in my opinion: good *newsworthy* journalism. (And yeah, I'm ignoring their tabloid division...lol.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Re:Over a barrel?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Those that prefer a left slant are watching CNN

Every time I see someone calling CNN "left-slanted", "left-biased" etc, I can't help but laugh at the success of the brainwashing of the American TV audience. "Left" biased?! Mother Jones or CounterPunch are examples of a "left-biased" media not CNN. CNN to many of us Canadians looks like a bastion of inane apologisms for the ruling elites (regardless of which side they are on), generic, incompetent disinformation (mostly right leaning) combined with massive amounts of brainless "infotainment". In short, CNN is a pathetic result of trying to appear "unbiased" while pandering to the lowest common denominator. As opposed to FOX which tries hard to pander to the lowest elements of the right-wing crowds and thus tries to inflame and profit from "us vs them" psychosis, persecution complexes, medieval theocratic throwbacks etc, and yet it loudly proclaims to be "unbiased" and "no spin". While offering nothing but.

In general it appears that the enemies of the liberal phillosophies managed to shift the lanugage so that "left" is now renamed "extreme loony left", "center" to "left" and everything else "conservative". It is an interesting -- albait sad -- Orwellian language war to watch for us outsiders.

Re:Over a barrel?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That study is positively bonkers.

From the article:

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants -- most of them college students -- to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

This would create massive "bias" towards the "left" as soon as ACLU (which I guarantee you was counted as "far left") enters the fray. It is an extremely active organisation, involved in a multitude of high profile lawsuits over the years and it alone, by the virtue of all of the news programs being forced to mention them, would, by this insane criteria, create "left bias".

The actual measuring stick is far harder and a matter of interpretation as the example of the so called Main Stream Media shows clearly, most liberals believe it to be slanted right and most conservatives the exact oposite.

What this whole hoopla misses is that the true reporters' job is quite different. They are not supposed to offer any commentary, by any think tanks, left, right, polka-dotted or any other kind. Their only masters are verifiability and accuracy. The rest is up to the think tanks and talking heads to deal with themselves on their respective obscure soapboxes, somewhere else. The reporter's job is to investigate and report anything of any consequence. They are in fact our, the voter's, "Intelligence Service". They are supposed to relentlessly spy on our behalf, particularly on the activities of our elected officials, regardless of party or affiliation.

For example, if the stupid news media were doing their job, the WMD Iraq fiasco would never happen. The Bush administration WMD rationale would have been shot down and deflated looong before any military action started and he would have to either get a new, more compelling, rationale or back off. That is the true measure of the media bias. In this particular case most media were cowed and submissive to the thundering "patriotic" rhetoric of the Bush administration and by doing so reinforced the jingoistic, uncritical march to war. Real newsmen would not be so easily "embeded" into the machinations of a few politicians, no matter how intimidating or popular.

Re:being a 'Brit'

[MoonBuggy]

What's the problem with Brit? You don't (often) hear Americans complaining that they're actually from a particular state, why's it any different for us? Hell, I'm happy enough to be grouped in as European to be honest (although the rest of Europe may not be so happy with that), it's not like it really matters exactly where you're from.

As for the BBC, I agree they aren't perfect, but they're also a far cry from being a 'mouthpiece for the government'. If they're guilty of anything it's the overall 'softening' to come into line with the likes of ITN - they're nowhere near as bad as that yet, but they're showing signs of definite dumbing down; that said, I'd rather a station like the BBC had mass appeal and kept the facts pretty much straight rather than going for super-detail and driving all it's viewers to Sky News or Channel 5.

Media and computers don't seem to mix

[hackstraw]

Despite the market demand for computer media and success of the cable industry and broadband internet over cable, with the AOL/Time Warner issues and now the NBC and MS issues, it appears as though the media are still content being rich like they are now (who wouldn't??). But their strangle hold on the content and their inability to change is still evident, and the only people that are really slightly inconvenienced by their actions are their paying customers. Their non-paying counterparts are just inconvenienced. FYI, convenience sells (see iTunes, "fast" food, and convenience stores for an example).

AOL/Time Warner should have been a complete success. Time Warner owns stuff like HBO, and if they adopted something similar to the subscription model like "premium" channels it would have been a remarkable success. Content (Time Warner) and the control of the distribution channel (AOL) is ironically what they want, but can't seem to understand their own business very well. Look at the success of the porn industry with almost the same product, but they do not have a lock on the pipe like AOL/Time Warner did.

Personally, I never understood the NBC and MS union or what their goals were, but apparently neither did they.

MS is damn lucky Office and Windows are popular.

[SensitiveMale]

Because they have lost money on 99% of their other ventures.

If Office and Windows wasn't keeping them afloat, MS would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

Re:Wait...

[tdubya]

maybe create an oribinal response next time rather than pulling it out a can... the only thing "more stupid" was your remark.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant - 360 as STB

[bshensky]

If you think the xbox is a gaming platform, then you clearly have your head on a collision course with your nearest rectal cavity.

The xbox is the manifest destiny of Microsoft - the acknowledgement that long term viability of their software - if only in the consumer market - is largely dependent on corresponding hardware...an appliance. In a world where Open Source has commoditized the OS to long-term irrelevancy, the Xbox 360 becomes M$'s iPod, destined to become the centerpiece of the digital home. And nary a game will need to be played for the 360 to fulfill that role.

It's Windows Media Center that is the maligned stepchild of this vision - a PC that poorly emulates a Tivo? The PC can never fill the role of Appliance in the minds of the market - it's just to generic of a unit to take on an appliance mentality or motif. No, if M$ executes correctly, the xbox becomes a head-end to IP-delivered media network content - Windows Media Center and your TV capture card together act as a headless Tivo "stop-gap" until IP media shows at the door.

I believe all this to be true after I (a) built a MythTV box and interfaced it to my local Comcast coaxial feed, (b) installed MythXBMC on my xbox, and (c) subscribed to countless RSS video feeds on XBMC. I now have IP-delivered cable TV and internet video coming to every xbox "set top box" and computer in the house. It's truly amazing.

To that end, I believe Myth, Slingbox, Sage, BeyondTV and the like are pioneers of the modern age - a bit ahead of their time due to an insufficient support network, ironically, a bit like MSNBC.

I say the rule goes: We don't see convergence until our parents see convergence. Even as they meander past the in-store kiosks, our parents are just now witnessing the enormous potential of the xbox 360 - and I don't mean the game-playing.

If MSNBC was a failure for M$, it is because broadcast TV itself is anachronistic to the next-generation media networks in which M$ hopes to thrive. If M$ gets out now, it saves millions per year until the "new" IP-delivered non-linear content (delivered to your local xbox 360) becomes ubiquitous. Maybe then Ballmer will knock on NBC's door whispering "hey, remember me?"

Any wonder why Cisco - yes, Cisco - purchased set-top-box manufacturer General Instruments this year? Cisco providing a game console? I don't think so. I see a future where xboxen win the appliance war against Cisco.

Re:Media Center

[93 Escort Wagon]

I am not a big MS fan, but ENOUGH with this infantile use of dollar signs already!!

Or at least be equal opportunity about it: E.g., Appl€, or perhaps ¥ellow Dog Linux! How about $u$€ and R€d Hat?

Re:being a 'Brit'

[HD Webdev]

That is a terrible term. I am English. There are Welsh, Scottish and Irish people... a 'Brit' is unknown here.

US Yanks will try to be a bit more careful in the future.

Re:being a 'Brit'

[Anonymous Coward]

this change has been widely accepted by everyone except Slashdotters from Canada.

You forgot Mexico. And it seems like there's another one or two...oh yeah, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Columbia, Bolivia, Paraguay, etc.

They tend to be a bit perplexed as to why "Americans" are from the U.S., when there are so few of them. This is true even among non-slashdotters. Those wacky Canadians, on the other hand, tend to be insulted if you call them Americans. Go figure.

Re:being a 'Brit'

[Anonymous Coward]

well, what the hell else are we supposed to call ourselves? Citizens of the United States of America? Now that's just a bit long-winded, don't you think?

Just because it's a problem for you doesn't mean you can simply pass it along to someone else. In Spanish, for instance, you're (in effect) a "United Statesian." It wasn't the rest of the world that chose for the U.S. to not have a proper name.

How are you even supposed to pronounce it? YOO-sian?

That's how I think of it.

Hell, the official name of Mexico is the Estados Unidos Mexicanos, quite literally the Mexican United States. Are they USians too?

They conveniently have the unambiguous "Mexico" part. If the U.S. were, say, "The United States of Jeffersonia," I'd have no problem calling people from there Jeffersonians. (Or Franklinians, Adamites, etc.). Say, even better - Paynes, or Cocks. Whaddaya think?