A bright side to Obama's recession...
Ubiquitous
Posted by Caroline McCarthy
There have been layoffs at Current Media, the cable network co-founded by
former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.
A statement from Current put the number of layoffs at about 60 positions,
with 30 more to be refilled, the company said in a statement. That's less of
a hard hit than the 20 percent cuts that a source close to Current hinted to
CNET News on Tuesday. The statement read: "Approximately 60 positions have
been eliminated in the company's three U.S. offices, and approximately 30
new positions created," the statement read. "Many of those whose positions
were eliminated have been placed in the new positions. Current will have
approximately 410 employees (after these staffing adjustments)."
The source also said additional layoffs would be coming in January, which a
Current representative denied.
Current had announced less than a day ago that it had partnered with the
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. to bring its network to Canada. Current's plans
for an initial public offering are on hold, employees have told CNET News.
The company filed for an IPO in January.
Approached outside the company's San Francisco headquarters, one laid-off
Current employee said that she hadn't seen it coming.
"Not only was this uncalled for, but there was continuous deliberation
during the last two or three months," the former employee said. "Every
meeting we've had with the VP of our department has been a lot of 'Don't
worry, your positions are secure.' And that has been repeated for the last
two to three months."
Changes in programming format are on the way too. Current's focus on indie
and amateur producers was a bold experiment, one that left some critics
scratching their heads when the channel debuted in 2005.
"As part of the impending transition at Current TV, one source says the
company is going to drop its shorter (user-generated content) videos in
favor of the more traditional 30-minute programs that have long dominated
television programming across all channels," David Weir, an analyst at CNET
News sister site BNET, reported on Monday night.
The statement from Current hinted at this change as well. "These changes
result from the development of a new, innovative programming strategy built
around eight cross-platform channels, including news, comedy, music, and
technology, slated to premiere in the first quarter of 2009," the statement
detailed. "Current's new programming strategy expands upon its pioneering
use of viewer-created content to include additional opportunities for
participation, creating a far more viewer-influenced network, and further
unifies the company's online and TV platforms by having each Web channel
paired with a companion TV show."
Current, which consists of the Current TV network and Current.com, had just
gone through a high-profile marketing effort in conjunction with the 2008
presidential election, for which it partnered with trendy social-media
brands Digg and Twitter.
Company representatives told CNET News last week that it had been a big
success, and Gore himself later gave a speech at the Web 2.0 Summit in which
he touched upon how he hopes Current will solve some of the problems
plaguing the television news industry.
At least one Current employee, associate producer Andrew Schneider, has
Twittered his departure. The company "just laid me off with a ton of my
colleagues," Schneider wrote.
Schneider's LinekdIn profile says that he worked in VC2, the "Viewer
Created" or user-generated content division of Current. A source told CNET
News that the VC2 division was hit particularly hard by the layoffs.
The company statement said the layoffs were a preventative measure: "These
changes enable Current Media to reduce its cost structure, thereby assuring
that it will be comfortably profitable in 2009, regardless (of) the depth
and length of the recession."
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Dave Fritzinger
Ubiquitous wrote:
> Layoffs hit Al Gore's Current Media
> Posted by Caroline McCarthy
[snip of Ubiquitous vindictive bs]
How can it be Obama's recession when he hasn't taken office yet, and
won't for over 2 months? It is now, and forever will be Bush's
recession. Get used to it.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
FDR
Ubi is deluded.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<FDR@fkfkdkfd> wrote:
Ubi has convinced me that it's standard practice for Republicans to
chortle over people losing their jobs.
Blaming Obama for the recession is just plain retarded. Then again, I
expect no less from Ubi. (Ubi will now note the "ad hominem attack,"
change the followups, and go outside so he can shit in his pants in
public. He will then blame this on Obama, too.)
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Layoffs hit Al Gore's Current Media
>> Posted by Caroline McCarthy
>
>How can it be Obama's recession when he hasn't taken office yet,
The same way Bush had one before he was inaugurated.
>It is now, and forever will be Bush's recession. Get used to it.
The facts do not support your ridiculous assertion. Get aquiainted with
them next time.
Tom
Dave Fritzinger
> dfrit...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >Ubiquitous wrote:
> >> Layoffs hit Al Gore's Current Media
> >> Posted by Caroline McCarthy
>
> >How can it be Obama's recession when he hasn't taken office yet,
>
> The same way Bush had one before he was inaugurated.
Actually, you are just playing victim again. Most of the things I read
didn't blame Bush for the recession. They did, however, blame Bush for
his response to the recession (huge tax cuts for the rich), and it
seems that the criticisms were right on the mark. After all, the
recovery from the 2000/2001 recession did not help the middle or lower
income groups much at all, which is very unlike previous recoveries we
have seen.
>
> >It is now, and forever will be Bush's recession. Get used to it.
>
> The facts do not support your ridiculous assertion. Get aquiainted with
> them next time.
Now, you will present some of these facts. Won't you?
Face it, the recession started while Bush was president, and was
caused by many of the Bush policies, such as heavy borrowing, etc. So,
deal with the *Bush* recession. It will be called that for years to
come...
FDR
Here's a fact. After 9/11 Bush told us to spend money and go shopping.
So we all had to pile on credit card debt to make him happy.
joned...@gmail.com
Holy cow. Do you really think it's as simplistic as that?
FDR
Bush thinks that the only way out of things is to throw money at them,
all at our collective expense.
JoneDark
Dude, you sound like an angry brainwashed 15 year old.
trotsky
I completely disagree with the first part of your statement, "Bush
thinks..."
JoneDark
Ubiquitous
>This is absolutely the most incompetent administration we've ever
>had...as proven by the financial meltdown we are now experiencing...
>which should have been addressed early last year.
Actually, it was addressed several years ago by the Republicans.
The Democrats, who caused this in the first place by forcing banks
to issue risky loans, accused them of racism and blocked any efforts
to pull the system's head out of its ass. (Several years ago this actually
happened - feel free to ignore these facts in your partisan stupor.)
garre...@yahoo.com
And you xposted this to r.a.t. because?
On Nov 13, 5:24 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> dfrit...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >It is now, and forever will be Bush's recession. Get used to it.
>
> The facts do not support your ridiculous assertion. Get aquiainted with
> them next time.
Oh Ubi, you sooo silly.
> It is simply breathtaking to watch the delusion and hysteria with which
> the Ubi and the Angry Right have been attempting to turn
> Obama's victory into a defeat. Too bad for them, it's failing.
I agree.
FDR
Wait, you're calling me a 15 year old and you're the one saying "OMG"?
FDR
> In article <m60Tk.1$V7...@newsfe10.iad>, m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> This is absolutely the most incompetent administration we've ever
>> had...as proven by the financial meltdown we are now experiencing...
>> which should have been addressed early last year.
>
> Actually, it was addressed several years ago by the Republicans.
Were these the same Republicans who ran us into the trillion dollar
debts we have now? Just curious.
> The Democrats, who caused this in the first place by forcing banks
> to issue risky loans,
Oh BS. Banks fell over themselves giving out loans left and right while
the housing soared. Ads were all over the tv enticing people with
little or no money down. Greed I tell you.
Ubiquitous
>On Nov 13, 5:24 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> dfrit...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >It is now, and forever will be Bush's recession. Get used to it.
>>
>> The facts do not support your ridiculous assertion. Get aquiainted with
>> them next time.
>
>Oh Ubi, you sooo silly.
No, just better-informed than you.
>> It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
>> the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
>> our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
>> for them, it's failing.
>
>I agree.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
Ubiquitous
wrote:
>>> This is absolutely the most incompetent administration we've ever
>>> had...as proven by the financial meltdown we are now experiencing...
>>> which should have been addressed early last year.
>>
>> Actually, it was addressed several years ago by the Republicans.
>
>Were these the same Republicans who ran us into the trillion dollar
>debts we have now? Just curious.
Irrelevant. The Republicans addressed the problem and the Democrats, who,
BTW, received big contributions from these institutions, shot it down.
>> The Democrats, who caused this in the first place by forcing banks
>> to issue risky loans,accused them of racism and blocked any efforts
>> to pull the system's head out of its ass. (Several years ago this actually
>> happened - feel free to ignore these facts in your partisan stupor.)
>
>Oh BS. Banks fell over themselves giving out loans left and right while
>the housing soared. Ads were all over the tv enticing people with
>little or no money down. Greed I tell you.
Did you actually read my explaination before reflexively typing up that
repsonse?
FDR
> In article <Jv-dna_FWdKDuoLU...@giganews.com>, FDR@fkfkdkfd
> wrote:
>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> In article <m60Tk.1$V7...@newsfe10.iad>, m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>>>> This is absolutely the most incompetent administration we've ever
>>>> had...as proven by the financial meltdown we are now experiencing...
>>>> which should have been addressed early last year.
>>> Actually, it was addressed several years ago by the Republicans.
>> Were these the same Republicans who ran us into the trillion dollar
>> debts we have now? Just curious.
>
> Irrelevant. The Republicans addressed the problem and the Democrats, who,
> BTW, received big contributions from these institutions, shot it down.
>
>>> The Democrats, who caused this in the first place by forcing banks
>>> to issue risky loans,accused them of racism and blocked any efforts
>>> to pull the system's head out of its ass. (Several years ago this actually
>>> happened - feel free to ignore these facts in your partisan stupor.)
>> Oh BS. Banks fell over themselves giving out loans left and right while
>> the housing soared. Ads were all over the tv enticing people with
>> little or no money down. Greed I tell you.
>
> Did you actually read my explaination before reflexively typing up that
> repsonse?
>
>
Would that be like reflexing saying we're victorious in Iraq after a
month there?
garre...@yahoo.com
> garrethh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Nov 13, 5:24 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >> dfrit...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >It is now, and forever will be Bush's recession. Get used to it.
>
> >> The facts do not support your ridiculous assertion. Get aquiainted with
> >> them next time.
>
> >Oh Ubi, you sooo silly.
>
> No, just better-informed than you.
If it were possible to have a negative level of being informed you
would have it.
Ubiquitous
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>> FDR@fkfkdkfd wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> In article <m60Tk.1$V7...@newsfe10.iad>, m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>>> This is absolutely the most incompetent administration we've ever
>>>>> had...as proven by the financial meltdown we are now experiencing...
>>>>> which should have been addressed early last year.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it was addressed several years ago by the Republicans.
>>>
>>> Were these the same Republicans who ran us into the trillion dollar
>>> debts we have now? Just curious.
>>
>> Irrelevant. The Republicans addressed the problem and the Democrats, who,
>> BTW, received big contributions from these institutions, shot it down.
No rebuttal, eh?
>>>> The Democrats, who caused this in the first place by forcing banks
>>>> to issue risky loans,accused them of racism and blocked any efforts
>>>> to pull the system's head out of its ass. (Several years ago this
>>>> actually happened - feel free to ignore these facts in your partisan
>>>> stupor.)
>>>
>>> Oh BS. Banks fell over themselves giving out loans left and right while
>>> the housing soared. Ads were all over the tv enticing people with
>>> little or no money down. Greed I tell you.
>>
>> Did you actually read my explaination before reflexively typing up that
>> repsonse?
>
>Would that be like reflexing saying we're victorious in Iraq after a
>month there?
Your weak attempt at deflection confirms my suspicions. Try reading the
entire response instead of reflexively regurgitating.
And by the way, it took less than a month to liberate Iraq.
Try not to cry, mmkay?
INDY
wrote:
> In article <F6WdndOS-PzaoobUnZ2dnUVZ_vadn...@giganews.com>, FDR
>
>
>
> <FDR@fkfkdkfd> wrote:
> > Dave Fritzinger wrote:
>
> > > Ubiquitous wrote:
> > >> Layoffs hit Al Gore's Current Media
> > >> Posted by Caroline McCarthy
> > > [snip of Ubiquitous vindictive bs]
>
> > > How can it be Obama's recession when he hasn't taken office yet, and
> > > won't for over 2 months? It is now, and forever will be Bush's
> > > recession. Get used to it.
> > > --
> > > Dave Fritzinger
> > > Honolulu, HI
>
> > Ubi is deluded.
>
> Ubi has convinced me that it's standard practice for Republicans to
> chortle over people losing their jobs.
>
> Blaming Obama for the recession is just plain retarded.
Did you actually read the article he posted?
INDY
Did you read the article he posted?
INDY
Holy cow, can you really be this stupid?
Ubiquitous
>> >> >It is now, and forever will be Bush's recession. Get used to it.
>>
>> >> The facts do not support your ridiculous assertion. Get aquiainted with
>> >> them next time.
>>
>> >Oh Ubi, you sooo silly.
>>
>> No, just better-informed than you.
>
>If it were possible to have a negative level of being informed you
>would have it.
Ad hominem noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
The stock market was down another 400 points or so yesterday. People are
wondering where in the world this will end. Retirement funds are being
devastated. People are losing jobs. The picture certainly isn't rosy right
now, and nobody can really explain why. The media, on the other hand, is
certain that there is one recent event that is having no effect whatsoever on
this economic slide; and that would be the election of Barack Obama.
OK ... why don't you try to put on an investor hat for a moment here. Let's
say you're considering getting back in the stock market. You know that some
stocks out there are at historic lows, and they're bound to bounce back ...
right? So why don't you just take some money out of your savings or out from
under your mattress and plow it back into the market?
Let's see if we can find any reasons why you might hesitate.
We have a president-elect who ...
... has promised to raise capital gains taxes, perhaps even double them. So
this guy is just waiting for you to jump into the stock market and make some
money so he can seize a huge portion of it. Why jump now? Obama has been asked
if he plans to go forward with his capital gains tax increase, but he's not
saying. Just hold off on your investments for a while until he tips his hand.
If he goes the tax increase route you might want to consider trying to move
your money offshore to grow until he's out of the picture.
... has promised to sign the so-called "Card Check" bill. Now again, you're
smarter than the average voter, and you realize that this
unionization-through-intimidation idea is going to have an adverse affect on
American business. As soon as the bill is signed union thugs (organizers) will
start their petition drives at thousands of businesses across the nation.
Large businesses and small businesses. America's largest employer, Wal-Mart,
will be one of the first targets. You don't know how far this will spread, but
you do know that every business that is unionized will be a poor investment
for you. So you wait .. you wait to see what is going to happen with card
check.
... has promised to raise income taxes on the largest jobs producing segment
of our economy, small businesses. During the campaign you heard him say that
he would not raise taxes on 95% of small businesses, but you know that most of
the jobs rest with the remaining 5%, and that's where most of the new jobs
would be created. The ignorant voters bought his 95% line, but you're not that
stupid. You saw through his rhetoric. So, again, why jump into the market now?
Wait until we see what Obama is going to do with these tax increases on
America's jobs-producing machine.
... has promised more business regulation. Obama is no fan of free enterprise.
He loves government. Obama believes America is great because of government.
You really think you need to wait before you make your investment moves until
you see just what regulatory punishment Obama has in mind for the free market.
So .. think about it. We've only scratched the surface here. We could also
talk about expanding the family leave act and many other little federal
anti-business goodies. Invest now? Why? Doesn't it make more sense to wait
until you get a true measure of our new anti-capitalist president?
--
Richard Evans
I did. Where in it is the vaguest indication that the recession is
Obama's fault? And even if the the article made an iron clad
allegation, you can't blame an effect on a cause that hadn't happened
yet.
tmurf1
> Ubiquitous wrote:
> > Layoffs hit Al Gore's Current Media
> > Posted by Caroline McCarthy
>
> [snip of Ubiquitous vindictive bs]
>
> How can it be Obama's recession when he hasn't taken office yet, and
> won't for over 2 months? It is now, and forever will be Bush's
> recession. Get used to it.
> --
> Dave Fritzinger
> Honolulu, HI
correction! This is bush's second recession.
William December Starr
Dave Fritzinger <dfri...@hotmail.com> said:
> How can it be Obama's recession when he hasn't taken office
> yet, and won't for over 2 months?
Any minute now I'm expecting to see an Onion headline like
"Historians Meet to Analyze Failed Obama Presidency."
-- wds
Ubiquitous
>correction! This is bush's second recession.
Except they are not. I recommend you look at facts instead of reflexively
trying to blame Bush for everything wrong in the world. You're welcome.