[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: NFL TV Ratings Slump Again
Source: Bloomberg
URL Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti ... ricane-coverage-steals-viewers
Published: Sep 13, 2017
Author: Lucas Shaw
Post Date: 2017-09-14 19:36:12 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 3114
Comments: 34

NFL TV Ratings Slump Again

By Lucas Shaw
Bloomberg
September 13, 2017, 1:40 PM CDT

Fewer people watched the opening week of National Football League coverage than they did last year, a decline TV executives chalk up to Hurricanes Irma and Harvey.

Cable news and the Weather Channel almost tripled their audiences in prime time and grew fourfold during the day, according to data from the networks, drawing fans away from football. “Thursday Night Football” was down 13 percent, and Sunday games on Fox and CBS also declined. “Sunday Night Football” on Comcast Corp.’s NBC, featuring the arch-rival New York Giants and Dallas Cowboys, was a rare bright spot.

A drop in viewing last year caused consternation at league offices and the major media companies that count on the NFL to deliver the biggest audiences on TV. Executives blamed several factors, led by interest in the presidential election and a poor slate of games. Pro football drew $4.2 billion in regular season ad sales last year, according to Kantar Media and SMI Media Inc.

Eager to get off to a good start this year, the league responded by scheduling more appealing match-ups early in the season. That didn’t work last week, and networks are now pointing to the weather.

Analysts, investors and advertisers will keep an eye on early-season ratings to see if last week’s hurricane-related drop is an anomaly or continues last year’s troubling downward trend. The NFL has proved resistant to the pressure affecting entertainment programming: the growing number of people who watch TV on demand rather than live, including some who don’t pay for TV at all.

“All eyes will be on this season’s ratings trends,” Michael Nathanson, an analyst with MoffettNathanson LLC, wrote in a note before the season started. “Why do we care so much about the NFL? Well, that’s where the money is.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

#2. To: nolu chan (#0)

Of course, it isn't just anthem protests and hurricanes.

The brain injury issue is hurting them. Parents don't want to support the NFL and buy merchandise or make a game day with the kids if they don't want the kids to play football at all.

The NFL is oversaturated. They need to dump the Thursday night games. There's too much football and it's become a commodity. That's a bad move for the NFL who should be in the business of making games a little scarce.

Too many replays and game delays and commercial interruptions in games.

Too many hacks at ESPN talking Lefty politics.

And, yeah, jerks like Kaepernick disrespecting the flag and the anthem.

Add them all up and you get significant declines in NFL viewership and revenue. And you lose that bandwagon effect where some people will watch the big game just so they don't get left out of water cooler talk at work about the game.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-14   20:52:17 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#2)

I don't think the brain injury thing hurts much with viewership now, but it is a future concern. Kids who do not play the game do not grow up to be fans of the game. Lose a generation and it will be a real problem.

Rules changes have left too little football and too much advertising.

"Sports shows" (e.g. First Take, Undisputed) are frequently overrun by politics. ESPN and FS1 are supposed to be sports channels.

I have more of a problem with jerks like Goodell permitting NFL players to act out on the field, in uniform, while representing the team and the NFL. They can sit or kneel or give their black power salute in the locker room.

BLM bitches about the Confederate flag. They and the NFL should consider how well dissing the American flag or the national anthem goes over in NASCAR country. And I believe veterans are not amused.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-15   1:24:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: nolu chan (#5) (Edited)

I don't think the brain injury thing hurts much with viewership now, but it is a future concern. Kids who do not play the game do not grow up to be fans of the game. Lose a generation and it will be a real problem.

I think the public perception of brain injury was what diminished boxing so much as a sport the public followed so much. Muhammad Ali was the last great boxer, starting with his gold medal at the 1960 Olympics in Rome.

Paradoxically, Ali resisted the draft as a champion boxer and never got the kind of hate that Kaepernick does. He did lose his boxing titles though until he sued and the USSC restored them and his boxing license.

Of course, it was the Sixties and the counterculture was rising as was opposition to a war in Vietnam among younger people. And Ali was a huge self-promoter who was mediagenic.

Even so, the parallels are worth observing. But it isn't the Sixties and Kaepernick is no Ali. I've wondered if Kaepernick is doing what he did, hoping to be another Ali or if he sees a big void in public leadership among blacks with 0bama off the national stage. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are too old and too scandal-ridden so maybe Kaepernick and his agents think Kaepernick had a big chance to be Da Man in the African-American community.

Rules changes have left too little football and too much advertising.

The NFL says they'll reduce that but I have to wonder if they can keep their money machine going if they do so. Those fat broadcasting contracts are based on selling very expensive ad slots.

I have more of a problem with jerks like Goodell permitting NFL players to act out on the field, in uniform, while representing the team and the NFL. They can sit or kneel or give their black power salute in the locker room.

Remember Ali and the restoration of his boxing title. If Goodell did ban Kaepernick in the prime of his career and the USSC eventually found it was unconstitutional to try to force a football player to stand for the anthem, the NFL could be sued for billions. So their lawyers are likely telling them not to do it. Not bad advice. If you can't make a Jehovahs Witness kid in public schools recite the pledge and observe other patriotic malarkey, then can the NFL compel a player to honor the anthem? I wouldn't bet on it if I were Goodell or any of the team owners.

BLM bitches about the Confederate flag. They and the NFL should consider how well dissing the American flag or the national anthem goes over in NASCAR country. And I believe veterans are not amused.
Maybe Kaepernick and the other players have put Goodell and the owners between a rock and a hard place. I have to wonder if the owners will quietly decide that they won't pursue contracts with any player that makes trouble over the anthem unless they are a total superstar. So a player like Kaepernick with marginal playing record and an offensive style that is not in concert with the dominant play style of the league can be cut out and left without a contract. But a Tom Brady wouldn't be cut out of the herd as an example to the rest for the same kind of behavior. Another black player, Vick, came back after going to prison for torturing dogs and he was not as controversial as Kaepernick overall even if some of the dog lovers resented him.

Of course, I'm not a sports guy anyway so I'm not sure that I care that deeply.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-15   7:10:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Tooconservative (#6)

If you can't make a Jehovahs Witness kid in public schools recite the pledge and observe other patriotic malarkey, then can the NFL compel a player to honor the anthem? I wouldn't bet on it if I were Goodell or any of the team owners.

Students are required to attend the school and are not private sector employees, as are the NFL players.

Employees can require a standard of conduct for an employee to represent the employer to the public. They can forbid public displays of expression while on the job, in uniform, representing the company. Do you think a Black Power salute is subject to a different law than a Nazi salute? If all the White players were to give a Nazi salute, do you think that would be defended as free speech, protected by the First Amendment? For yet another example, assume a White player, in uniform, takes out s small cross and burns it. Is that protected expression?

The First Amendment protects one's right to free speech from governmental interference. What it really says is, "Congress shall make no law...." The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states.

The First Amendment right to free speech does not reach the employee in the private sector, such as NFL players.

http://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

Is There Free Speech at Work?

On October 15, 2012, in Heather Bussing, HRExaminer, Social Media Policy, by Heather Bussing

[excerpt]

No Constitutional Free Speech At Work

Employees don’t have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution’s right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it’s not absolute. There is no free speech in your house; ask your mom. And there is no legal right to free speech or expression at work. (If you work for the government, there is a special set of rules that apply.)

So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html

Freedom Of Speech In The Workplace: The First Amendment Revisited

I spend a substantial amount of my practice on employment law issues, including workplace training on sexual harassment, discrimination and workplace violence. One question that frequently comes up during the training sessions is whether employees have freedom of speech in the workplace. The answer depends on whether the employer is a public or private entity, the type of speech involved, and the employee’s position.

No Constitutional Freedom of Speech in the Private Sector

Employees in the public sector – who work for governmental entities – have First Amendment rights in the workplace, subject to certain restrictions. The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. There are no Washington cases that this author is aware of where freedom of speech has been protected under the First Amendment in private sector workplaces.

Other Freedom of Speech Issues in the Private Sector

On one level, a private sector employer could take the absence of a direct First Amendment right as providing free rein to discipline, terminate or retaliate against employees for their speech in the workplace. Before doing so, however, the private sector employer should take into account the effect of the anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. These laws provide a level of protection for certain types of expression in the workplace, and thus should be considered even if the right of speech associated with these laws is not a “First Amendment” right per se. For example, punishing an employee because of his religion is not technically a First Amendment violation in the private sector, but it would be a violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Conversely, the anti-discrimination laws prohibit certain types of expression on the part of employers, such as comments that constitute sexual or racial harassment, thereby putting a limit on “free speech” in the workplace.

The Bottom Line

Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers, determine if there is some other interest that governs the employee’s ability top speak freely. The following are some examples:

  • Is this employee’s speech being restricted or punished because the employee is expressing religious or other beliefs that are different from the employer’s or from co-workers?

  • Are employees of some religions or national origins allowed to express themselves regarding religion or national origin, but not others?

  • Is the employee being punished for speaking a different language during lunch or breaks?

  • Are the employee’s rights to share information protected by some other right, e.g. union regulations under the NLRB or PERC that allow employees to share salary information?

  • Additionally, determine whether the employer has a duty to restrict the employee’s speech. For example:

  • Does the employee’s speech violate the anti-harassment or anti-discrimination laws, including local ordinances?

  • Are other employees using speech or expression to retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her legal rights?

    Is the employee entitled to whistleblower protection?

By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.

Specific legal problems need specific solutions. This article is a broad, general outline, and is not intended to provide legal advice, nor does it reflect the opinions of the author or her firm.

If their conduct is bad for business, they can keep them off the field and let them act out in the locker room. If their conduct or presence is detrimental to the league, they can be treated like Colin Kaepernick or Ray Rice. Teams cannot be required to employ individuals who will drive fans away. There is no First Amendment right to free speech which reaches employees in the private sector.

Teams may employ an athlete of questionable or unknown ability at the professional level if he offers to provide record breaking attendance. It is a business. Tim Tebow has a job, Colin Kaepernick does not.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-15   16:21:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#15)

Employees can require a standard of conduct for an employee to represent the employer to the public. They can forbid public displays of expression while on the job, in uniform, representing the company. Do you think a Black Power salute is subject to a different law than a Nazi salute? If all the White players were to give a Nazi salute, do you think that would be defended as free speech, protected by the First Amendment? For yet another example, assume a White player, in uniform, takes out s small cross and burns it. Is that protected expression?

Certainly, NFL players do wear uniforms as employees at work. And do fast food workers for various chains.

However, NFL players have extensive and detailed contracts on what is and is not required of them.

If they are not contractually required to display or feign patriotism, I don't see how they can be penalized for it unless their contract spells out that obligation in very plain language.

By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.

I would agree if you are talking about McDonalds employees instead of multimillionaire players with packs of lawyers and a strong players union to back them.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-16   6:38:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Tooconservative (#17)

Certainly, NFL players do wear uniforms as employees at work. And do fast food workers for various chains.

However, NFL players have extensive and detailed contracts on what is and is not required of them.

If they are not contractually required to display or feign patriotism, I don't see how they can be penalized for it unless their contract spells out that obligation in very plain language.

They are not required to show patriotism. They are required to display good character, and any conduct reasonably judged to been detrimental to the league suffices for termination.

NFLPA CBA at 262

APPENDIX A

NFL Player Contract

15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and pro-fessional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or pro-fessional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

Fans arriving disguised as empty seats do not pay as well as others. Blacking out a game in the local market really reduces the ad revenue. Failing to meeet the required quota of tv viewers costs millions.

Persisting in conduct known to empty statium seats and markedly reduce television viewership would seem to qualify as conduct detrimental to the league.

A player's on-field detrimental conduct which costs the league hundreds of millions of dollars would also seem to be applicable conduct.

Not even $6 seats could sell the LA Rams game in the colliseum.

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-18   18:37:45 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: nolu chan (#22)

That third empty-seats video should scare the crap out of the owners and the playas.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-18   19:11:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Tooconservative (#23)

That third empty-seats video should scare the crap out of the owners and the playas.

I have not watched much. Did they air the playing of the National Anthem this weekend?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-18   23:31:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nolu chan (#24)

Did they air the playing of the National Anthem this weekend?

Sorry, you'd have to ask someone who actually cares.

I did cheer the Pats for the Superbowl. Only because I found out that the Pats fans are considered total a-holes by everyone else so I realized that the Patriots must therefore be my team. Which tells you about how little I know about the National Foosball League and its machinations.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-19   12:18:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#25)

I did not spend a lot of time watching but it occurred to me that I did not hear the anthem or any comment about sitting or kneeling. I was wondering if it was a blackout on the anthem. My curiosity was piqued when I saw that one player had celebrated a sack with an on-field in-game Black power salute.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-09-19   19:28:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 26.

#27. To: nolu chan (#26)

My curiosity was piqued when I saw that one player had celebrated a sack with an on-field in-game Black power salute.

Didn't the owners tell them that they could engage in minor personal displays very recently? I thought I read that. The writer seemed to expect that what you'd get were things like Black Power salutes.

Prior to this, their behavior was as tightly regulated as wearing the team uniform exactly as specified contractually.

Encouraging NFL players to get even more political just seems insane to me.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-09-19 20:51:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com