Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Sarah Palin Channel: Will It Fly?
Variety:The Sarah Palin Channel, which costs $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a one-year subscription, will feature her commentary on “important issues facing the nation,” as well as behind-the-scenes looks into her personal life as “mother, grandmother, wife and neighbor.” Palin serves as executive editor, overseeing all content posted to the channel.
Further
“I want to talk directly to you on our channel, on my terms — and no need to please the powers that be,” Palin, who is also a Fox News contributor, said in a video announcing the channel. “Together, we’ll go beyond the sound bites and cut through the media’s politically correct filter.”
Will Palin be able to provide enough compelling content at those rates?
The channel is modeled after The Blaze, founded by Glenn Beck, but is it right for everyone?
Does this help the cause or is it just more fragmentation and isolation?
Published in General
I honestly can’t envision this being a success as measured by any reasonable standard.
What exactly are the accomplishments of other pundits, like Charles Krauthammer? Does anyone care that he used to be a psychiatrist? We respect his thoughts on their own merits, not because of his background.
If you think Palin would be a weak political candidate on the national stage and that she is gunning for such a role, fine. But if she’s just voicing her opinions like any other pundit, why the special criticism?
I haven’t heard much from Palin since I abandoned live TV years ago. But I always cherished her presence in the media because she well represented the views and manners one typically encounters in flyover country — a perspective sorely lacking in national punditry.
I assume that she needs bandwidth and a usable channel by the providers of those functions. If she is offering a service, presumably she has enough providers willing to provide bandwidth and a usable channel to do so.
Then she needs sponsors unless she can get enough people at $100.00 a pop to make it work. One would assume not, and that the providers of bandwidth and usable channels want to collect from advertisers who pay to display their business names in conjunction with Sarah, because someone has to pay the providers for that bandwidth and those usable channels and advertisers are a way to get that done.
Maybe the math is all worked out? I guess we’ll see how this does, but I do remember Rush on television and that as popular as he is, his television show did not work out the way he wanted. I am not sure that Sarah is more popular than Rush.
Well, I disagree with that poor a view. I remember her giving a speech worthy of a General to the cold protesters in Wisconsin. From time to time she gets out there and does what nobody else can. She ranges from popular to wildly popular with a huge swath of the base, and she enjoys it, which makes public speaking effective. She also drives the left to screeching insanity, which she also enjoys. Hard not to appreciate that.
You got some of your timeline out of order there, and it matters when you’re slinging hash like that.
Also, it’s a pretty far stretch to equate her with the fricking Kardashians. Sounds like you don’t have an argument. If you “don’t know why she’s popular” and that makes her a Kardashian to you, do you mean to so denigrate those among whom she is popular? You think that the Red Meat cons are a bunch of shallow drooling morons?
I’ll let half a point slide here: I suppose this million-dollar MySpace site is the one thing that does smack of “celebrity”, if we define that as “fame for being famous”. Forget where I came across that definition, like it a lot.
If 10% of her facebook fans signup she’ll get better ratings than the most successful msnbc show. Will she succeed? Im leaning towards yes.
Because, Sarah Palin!!! Palin-bashers need no other reason.
In a word, yes.
Always I am hearing about poor Sarah and how badly she was treated. How unfair SNL and Katie Couric were to her. Well frankly that is BS. The reason she got taken so thoroughly to the woodshed by the media isn’t because they are biased it is because she wasn’t good enough to stand up to them. What was her scathing come back? Calling the “the Lamestream Meida”, running to the warm embrace of the echo chamber of the Right? That showed them.
I dislike Palin because I think she is a quitter. Instead of staying in the political fight as Governor and maybe then a Senator and building up something real she has become a spotlight chasing pundit of low quality. She feeds red meat to the base because it is easy and it earns her money. But even in the world of conservative punditry she is second rate. She lacks Coulter’s chutzpah, Krauthammer’s erudition, and Glenn Beck’s entrepreneurship. What does she have or add to the argument? That’s what I don’t get.
I get it you’r fans and if my dislike is irrational so is your love of her.
Right, so don’t subscribe to her channel.
Valiuth: #40 “The reason she got taken so thoroughly to the woodshed by the media isn’t because they are biased”
Thank you for your perceptive comment on relationship between the unbiased media and Sarah Palin.
You misunderstand. The media is biased, Sarah Palin just wasn’t very competent at handling them that is why she failed as a VP candidate. She isn’t a victim here she stepped into the ring and got beaten. It is not their job to take it easy on her. But hey we can go at this all day and not get anywhere. Her fans see her very differently I get that, and really I don’t care that much because I don’t care about Sarah Palin. In a way I am amazed she is still around strugelling for relevance. So to all you Sarah Palin fans enjoy your 24/7 Palin channel.
Hey, thanks but no thanks for the trollish strawman. Nobody here has said they love her (to my recollection). You are flat-out unhinged, and see any defense of Palin as an affront. You have a real problem.
Charles “Amnesty” Krauthammer’s erudition?
And go listen to Ricochet 101 (the podcast episode, not some course) to hear Coulter’s hoot-spah as she shrieks and berates Peter Robinson for being insufficiently squishy. Coulter was a real catch for the RINO herd, and did real damage. At least Palin was running for something (how’s that for chutzpah?), and while I feel that her resignation bars her from my vote (if you quit, then stay quit), Palin pays her own way to speak at real-world events. Coulter accepts fees. I saw Palin at the march on the monuments in DC when Obama shut them down. I didn’t see Coulter and didn’t see you.
I had almost forgotten about Palin Derangement Syndrome on the “right”. Thanks; it’s all coming back…
I’ll subscribe just to spite the haters.