I don’t know much about him but man his CNN idea sure helped drive American politics down into the ground. Thank you very little, Ted!

Um, @outpaientzero that was Ted Knight who died 40 years ago.

And Kevin, I don’t think Lana or Tina were his sisters. Different Ted. Different Turner.

It shows he and Fonda are the most compatible exes, politic-wise.

On a personal note, during an interview he said something like, we don't own anything, we just borrow it for a while.

Yeah, we don’t really own anything forever - we just borrow it for a while, including our knees apparently. In the end, it’s the memories we make and the regrets we avoid that truly matter.

CNN was a fine broadcast to watch and my go to, until Jeff Zucker took over as president and ruined it. It would still be number one, fox #2 and MSBS number 92, right below the "watching paint dry" channel. I think if Ted would have left MJM-TV and bought WKRP in Cincinnati and married Jennifer there would be no CNN, FOX news or MSnothing. It's all Mary's fault.

I wouldn't blame Ted for what happened to the US media...so much other stuff going on too between technology changes and the legal and political environments. But I am a fan of TCM and so thankful we still get to see some really terrific old movies from Hollywood's hayday the way they were intended, without commercial interruption.

Fox is below watching paint dry. If any of my TVs inadvertently went to that network, there would be a massive explosion.

I always respected Ted Turner. From a business standpoint. His politics never did and still don't matter to me.

He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a head start (I note mention in the Wiki article about his inheriting his father's successful business at an young age). But what was impressive to me was how innovative and creative his thinking was.

A true entrepreneur in the classical sense (not the overused, misapplied term of today). He was a visionary, always coming up with new ideas others hadn't tried, always willing to try and fail. Find an opportunity not provided by others, and try to occupy the gap. Or try to find synergy between two different things you own that can make 1+1=3.

Also, importantly, he always wanted to help others. He was part of the Buffett/Gates Giving Pledge, to give the majority of his wealth to charities at death.

The world is a better place because of him, notwithstanding whether you like or dislike any of his many business innovations.

He was a real visionary, and ahead of his time. Whatever you think of CNN now, remember he hasn't owned it in 30 years, and it was, at one time, a really unique and well respected news outlet. Personally, I think his best venture was Turner Classic Movies, but WTBS was also way ahead of it's time (one of the first Superstations), and he won the 1977 America's Cup skippering his own ship.

He was also an environmentalist and a philanthropist.

^I agree he was a visionary and don’t really associate him with CNN’s shortcomings today.

”Who would of thunk he'd take creepy Jane as a wife.”

Agree!😵‍💫

My comment wasnt about CNN’s politics per se, it was the impact of the 24/7 news cycle. Yes there were politivsl divisions before, and it was provably inevitablie with growing technology, but I think needing to fill the day and bringing in divisive opinions for the sake of good television, is certainly not blameless. This is not a novel thoight.

I don’t know whether or which innovations credited to him were all his truly novel thoughts or not. But to me, taking the risk to be the first to implement a public-domain idea matters more than just having an idea and doing little or nothing with it. Some of the innovations he brought to market were genuine firsts, even if it's the case (who knows?) that some of the ideas themselves weren’t always original.

As for bringing in divergent opinions, here’s one reason why. A columnist who aimed to stay politically neutral once explained how he judged his balance: his staff tracked complaints about his articles that could be identified from the content to be likely from either the right or from the left. Since people are more likely to complain than praise, he figured he was being fair when the number of complaints from each side was roughly equal.

The NY Times has columnists representing each of the two major political alignments. The Washington Post does too. CNN does in its political discussion programs. I don't know if the Fox programs do, I suspect not. Listening to them is like listening to you-know-who, lots of talk, little substance, but predictable positions with double-talk for rationale.

There are millions of people who are conservationists, with many also identifying as environmentalists who are nothing close to being woke minded. There are many organizations who collect dues from members with no woke traits, which is used to fund countless conservation projects, such as Ducks unlimited to the NRA. The National Wild Life Federation partners with hunters and hunting groups along with environmentalists to protect habitats so it's not one sided.

conservationist and environmentalist issues are not connected to any one political affiliations and is really a bipartisan issue most agree on, and one thing Ted and Jane had in common. Ted had 100's of thousand of acres he kept wild to reinstate buffalo purity in the herds. You're walking on thin ice TV assuming conservation is the champion of only one side.

I know many little people people with hundreds of acres in trusts, or conservation easements which can never be developed even after it's sold, and all these people are conservatives, like me. I shut down a developer wanting my land and the 75 acres around me because I refused to sell for their inflated offer, and most of the neighbors weren't to happy about it. I could of found common ground with Jane, and the rest we could fight about, but the makeup sxx would of been fabulous, so maybe Ted liked it too.

Reminds me of the movie War of the Roses, starring Kathleen Turner, daughter of Ted Turner and his first wife Tina Turner. I could envision Ted and Jane (Tarzan's old flame) carrying on like in the movie.

“I don’t know whether or which innovations credited to him were all his truly novel thoughts or not.”

Since this immediately followed my comment about “novel thought”, it may have been a misunderstanding. If so, to clarify, I was saying I’m not unique in attributing some cause of our divisiveness to CNN and the 24 hour news cycle it created.

Kevin - You’re of course correct that there are conservative environmentalists. I know, and know of, many conservatives who on an individual level live and fund values that I share. I often have a hard time reconciling those values with their voting record. How many environmental protections have been revoked?

"And Kevin, I don’t think Lana or Tina were his sisters. Different Ted. Different Turner."

And different colors! LOL

I'm getting older. I get confused easily. I don't understand Kevin's posts at all! Lana Turner, Tina Turner, Kathleen Turner, WKRP? (Who is Jennifer?), MTM (Ted Knight?) ... have nothing to do with Ted Turner. At All!

I don't know if you are trying to be funny? Or having a stroke!

Kevin made a mistake. Rox made a joke. Nobody's having a stroke.

“Kevin made a mistake. Rox made a joke. Nobody's having a stroke.”

floral, yes indeed!

eta Your feet must be longfellows.😉

And I thought it was a very funny joke!

"Kevin made a mistake."

And, kept compounding on it over three different posts? (Or four. I think one was deleted.) With differing, erroneous, information on each?

" I was saying I’m not unique in attributing some cause of our divisiveness to CNN and the 24 hour news cycle it created. "

No but numbers don't translate into a measure of relative veracity or reasonableness of a position or idea. Our current mess results from a majority of people making the wrong decision, as an obvious example.

“Our current mess results from a majority of people making the wrong decision, as an obvious example.”

And those people who care enough to take part in the decision-making, are basing their decisions on the information they consume and how they consume it. Obviously.

Coincidentally, there’s an article in today’s WaPo about an ex-maga-influencer whose conscience caught up with her and is now making waves in a different direction. Turns out all that ”paid agitator” stuff is projection, no surprise. It’s worth a read, and watching some of her tiktoks is eye opening as well. Be forewarned of her makeup routine which I find simultaneously cringy, distraction, and fascinating. Of course she’ll be dismissed by the base as disgruntled or whatever, just like they write off anyone who has a moral awakening.

Gift link:

https://wapo.st/4tpgoL8

To be philosophical for a minute, there have been different influencers of significant impact in human history and the media used always changes over time. The innovations that fueled the changes were usually not what the developers envisioned and had in mind for use and impact. Major trends and changes include:

Religion and its leaders, what was said and taught orally and in churches, along with autocratic political leaders, could be thought of a starting point.

The printed word with the invention of the press. Without which, Martin Luther might have remained just a local and otherwise unknown agitator.

Later, newspapers, highly influential in the 19th to early 20th centuries. They're now mostly gone

Radio, now changed and mostly gone

Television, now fractionalized in different directions. At one time, the evening network news programs with their iconic anchors held sway over public opinion. Cronkite's heartfelt outpouring about the Vietnam War opened American eyes to what really was going on and what had to be changed.

Now, it's the Internet

“Now, it's the Internet”

Yep, and as someone who regularly criticizes those who get their information from the Internet (unless you approve of the source and information) I’m sure you’ll agree that the effects of these innovations aren’t always wholly positive. No disagreement here, I just singled out the 24/7 news cycle as it tied into the thread topic.

" as someone who regularly criticizes those who get their information from the Internet (unless you approve of the source and information) I’m sure you’ll agree that the effects of these innovations aren’t always wholly positive. "

I don’t criticize or endorse information sources themselves. I pay attention to whether the person sharing information seems to have adequately evaluated it: Is the source credible? Does the claim seem reasonable? Could there be an ulterior motive? Sometimes people pass along misinformation and even disinformation in good faith because they misunderstood it. Or didn't adequately consider whether it was reasonable. A basic common-sense “smell test” still matters.

There have always been dissenters, heretics, opportunists, and phonies. Methods of communication don’t create misinformation by themselves—they simply spread both good and bad information more widely. That’s why caution and critical thinking remain important: don’t automatically believe everything you read or hear. The medium changes, but the need for discernment stays the same.

This is getting way tangential to the conversarion but to be absolutely clear, you frequently criticize people for using internet sources, without know what sources in oarticular they’re using.

Back to Ted, I like what he did for fish and pancakes. Right Kevin?

Yes, when someone doesn't know the true source and intentions of where info comes from, they shouldn't grab it and hold tight too soon. Whether it's garnered in a conversation, a newspaper, a TV show, from the internet, or any other source.

"Back to Ted, I like what he did for fish and pancakes. Right Kevin?"

This took me a moment, but it's a good one.