I notice that, unlike pretty much every other tool I sit down t, LinkedIn no longer asks if I want AI to "fix" my post.

First of all when you said "the man" I thought you meant Mamdani. Now I understand you meant "the man" in the collloquial sense.

Second, I still think this is more or less objective - citing the absurd right-wing led outrage is worthwhile, especially when contrasted with the data that the writer includes, i.e. "At Hunts Point in the Bronx, where the first store is scheduled to open by the end of 2027, 77% of households struggle to pay for basics. A recent poll finds that 80% of New Yorkers have some concern about food prices." 

What definitely gave me pause is this one: "Because profit margins are already so thin for grocery retailers, several experts tell the outlet, such a steep discount will generate losses, ultimately paid for by taxpayers." Uh... how will coompetition among grocery stores, especially in food-deserts where these new stores are being opened, affect the taxpayers whatsoever? Will we pay MORE taxes if an Aldi goes out of business? This made zero sense to me.

Compared to what I'm paying fpor Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Paramount+, Peacock, and HBO Max, that seems like a bargain.

(Note: I'm excluding Prime, because I buy that for the free shipping.)

Huh? You're being either disingenuous or blind. 3 of the 4 judgements in the lede are negative- "Disastrous communism? Failed socialism? Welcome relief for hungry families? Just another political stunt?"

And all of first 3 pubs cited- NYT, Newsmax and Fox - are the usual slanted screeds from 3 pubs who have invested all their editorial heft to takedown Mamdani. The only mildly neutral take - AP's - is buried in the close.  

Can't help but notice that the combintion of Roku Channel and Tubi would rank third behine only YouTube and NFLX.

Wayne: I wonder if brother Rahm would agree...

How is this "shilling?" Seems pretty objective to me in terms of the variety of sources cited and opinions represented.

shill for the man much?...

Joe, in the past the FCC has taken steps to curb "monopoly control" of the media. Notably this is what obliged RCA to sell its "Blue" radio network and retain only the "Red" network ( NBC ) in the early 1940s.

Thirty years later the FCC imposed the Prime Time Access Rule on the three dominant broadcast TV networks by  limiting the amount of their prime time fare that affiliates in the top fifty markets could carry by half an hour per evening--except on Sundays. Here, the goal was to free up time for independent programmers to compete--perhaps using advertiser sponsorships to do so.

Finally, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the studios created their own prime time networks via independent stations--Fox, AB and UPN. Same goal. To ensure their access to time periods independently of the three dominant TV networks. 

But now, it seems to me that there are many players who might fund and distribute TV content --Netflix and Amazon plus--maybe--You Tube one day--as examples. Couple these with Paramount/WB, Disney and Comcast and setting aside political issues, aren't there enough possible new show funders to go around even if the Paramount merger is allowed? Of course if the mergers continue and Netflix or Google buys Comcast's TV properties the degree of concentration may again become unsettling. 

I hearby oppose the points brought up in this "TVBlog" column starting with the author's point that the threat to fair pricing is just about cable TV subscriptions. It's not. It's about the concentration of market power for the most premium content supplying all forms of television, streaming and theatrical channels -- and yes, cable TV distribution too.

While this column focuses only on the state AG suits opposing the merger, there was another suit covered by MediaPost -- the Writers Guild of America's -- which is worth reading to understand the real concentration of media marketplace power that will result from the merger.

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416527/writers-union-sues-to-block-paramount-wb-merger.html

The WGA suit reveals that the merged company will control more than a third of all WGA affiliated TV and film content.

Even during Hollywood's pre-television Golden Years when MGM was the dominant studio, there was far less concentration of market power. There were the "Big 5" studios (MGM, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros. and RKO Radio Pictures) and the lesser "Little 3" (Universal, Columbia and United Artists), but fewer meaningful independent studios.

The real impact on "fair pricing" won't be on cable TV subscriptions -- which currently account for only about 20% of TV viewing, according to Nielsen -- but on the entire supply chain of TV, streaming and theatrical content... From the front-end of what writers get paid to the back-end of what consumers pay to stream, rent, buy TV/video/movie content.

And we won't know the exact economic impact of that until years after the Paramount/WBD merger is completed.

Looking beyond this deal, it will create a legal precedent -- and likely a marketplace impetus -- for further consolidation among other studios in order to compete with a dominant PWBD.

There are many other fair pricing reasons to oppose this deal, but the most important one opposed by "Red, White & Blog" is the very same one this "TVBlog" column glosses over: the concentration of television news content -- including CNN -- in the hands of a company that has already destroyed much of the integrity of CBS News, and will likely do the same for CNN.

The only positive thing I can say about Paramount is that they still let "The Daily Show" do its thing, albeit under the banner of news parody. But under Paramount's enhanced reign it could actually live up to its tongue-in-cheek tagline: "The Most Important News Show... Ever!"

On that note, I highly recommend watching two segments from Monday's telecast, if you haven't seen them already:

https://youtu.be/ZF_tDPRNV5U?si=XHCHSBWUe1Kos5hG

https://youtu.be/wJiBtLAzKPs?si=sjzw5MqvG8q-_8NH

An example of AI Farce instead of Fact.

Are you saying ChatGPT is on a leash? Does it want to get off the leash? That would be troubling I suspect.

No, I neither offer nor receive advice. What I do do is, I type prompts or commands.

Future generations will no longer understand the whole concept of "advice" ("What? I dhould ask a 'friend' if I dhould csll her?"), much like 20-somethings today have absolutely no understanding of the interpersonal dynamics of conversation. LOL. BRB. IMHO.

As Marshall McLuhan so aptly observed in Understanding Media, every skill or function we offload to machines becomes one less thing humans can do.

Love that Mediapost is covering a topic like this.  It is great that this issue is at the consciousness level of those doing the work - for that is truly where change will take root.  As for data, I would suggest the forest fires recently impacting LA, Chicago, NYC, France, and Spain are all the data necessary to rethink activities.

And how does Nielsen obtain accurate ad spend figures on a brand by brand basis for each medium? Dies AI sneak into the private files of each agency or seller and ferret out the truth? 

I like that Coke brought back the Always Coke Jingle from the mid 90s in the video. I like Coke Zero pretty good pop always been a Coke fan got that from my grandpa as he drank Coke since birth LMAO.

Perhaps you have the roles backwards. In this relationship, ChatGPT is not Duke. You are.
Like Duke, you want something and should say so plainly. The machine does not need to apologize for doing the work you requested.
And if you tell Duke, “Honestly, I’ll take you for a walk,” he does not wonder whether you truly understand honesty. He watches for the leash.
The same applies to AI. “Honestly” proves nothing. What matters is whether the answer is accurate and the work holds up.
The real question is not whether ChatGPT can be as honest as Duke, but whether its user can be.

The Real PETA is People For Eating Tasty Aminals LOL. And I'll eat my fish & chips, hamburgers, hotdogs gulit free I like me some meat and PETA will never convince me otherwise.    

Great article outlining the problems with digital advertising today. As for "strict incrementality tsting"? Ain't gonna happen as long as ROAS is promoted as an effectiveness metric.

The Tigers & Redwings have DSN just airing the games and some replays and a pre-game/post-game show which pre-game is just when the Tigers are at home. The Pistons signed with Scripps in Detroit will be on TV20 now called The Spot and also WXMI FOX17 DT2 which also rebranded to The Spot just putting whatever programs thrown at the dart board LOL.

Which FOX17 DT2 was Antenna TV from day 1 until a few weeks ago which Nexstar put Antenna TV on Wood TV DT2 which was Rewind TV and isn't on any of Nexstar's DTs guessing when one of the diginets expire that Rewind TV returns in my opinion. Which all but confirms that the Pistons will be aired on The Spot GR 17 come the fall. Even know nothing outside of Detroit has where the Pistons will air I knew when Scripps got the deal done to air Pistons games I knew West Michigan it was going to air on Scripps. Which was their first NBA team they signed with as the others are for the NHL in many markets.

I mean, if they were looking to brand their LSD, I'd have gone with "Owsley."

It is pathetic that GOP must resort to misdirection in effort to gain support for their legislation. Just shows they have no meaningful evidence that a problem exists with current voting proecess. 

"While well-intentioned, this bill misses the mark by imposing broad restrictions on protected commercial speech that may extend well beyond advertising directed at children, while relying on vague standards that create substantial uncertainty regarding the scope of the prohibition," the organizations write. - Spot on.  Banning advertising to certain groups for products they are NOT prohibited from buying is over reach. Rasing children with healthy eating habits is a challenge that has existed for generations.  Banning advertising adds cost and complexity and doesn't offer reasonable chance of creating better eating habits for children.