1654 Comments
User's avatar
Sheila Bryan's avatar

Mark is a businessman. It’s bottom line that drives him. I’m sure you could work a deal for autonomy if he’s making profit. Start discussions. Keep Musk away!

Expand full comment
Sal Teodoro's avatar

Absolutely, Musk definitely has to be kept away. And work out a deal with Mark that lets you run it and make it profitable for him, it’s a win win.

Expand full comment
Therese Tetzel's avatar

I love the idea but 100% autonomy.

Expand full comment
makerspace1919 Mack's avatar

Agree totally.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Autonomy is 100% critical.

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

KEEP MUSK OUT OF IT!!!

Expand full comment
Bill Riley's avatar

Yes! Cuban should buy MSNBC right now, before Musk can wrap his fascist fists around it. We can all talk about who should administer it later on.

Expand full comment
KRISTEN STAFFORD -HOWE's avatar

He wants to buy everybody out and own the US and us that's slave laborers picture that with a Kodak

Expand full comment
DevineFeminine's avatar

You’re not wrong. But he won’t be allowed to

Expand full comment
Victoria Druding's avatar

He doesn't need to make money all the time. Check out his Pharmacy. it's amazing.....and he surely isn't making money off that pharmacy. he does have a conscious and is concerned about people which is more than we can say about many others.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

CONSCIENCE. A sense of right/wrong is a CONSCIENCE.

"Conscious" means awake, opposite of unconscious.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

This person is entitled to have an opinion, even if it may differ from yours. It's incredibly rude of you to think that you are entitled to point out improper use of words in another person's post just because their opinion may not be one that you hold.

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

conscious and conscience are two very different words, so the fact that the wrong one was used and was politely corrected means you're basically finger wagging at someone who's making sure that the OP's meaning is understood.

There is no opinion on what these words mean, they're in the dictionary

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

Well I think I would disagree with it being described as politely corrected. There was no explanation as to why he felt the need to point out the difference, just a blunt comment describing the meaning of the words, written using quite a curious mix of capitalisations.

"There is no opinion on what these words mean, they're in the dictionary" now you are either being ignorant or facetious.

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

It's self evident why there was a need to point out the difference, because different words have different meanings. If you can't see that using the correct word in a communication only via text is maybe important to the message that's trying to be sent, well that's on you.

We can agree to disagree if you're not convinced, because I'm not going to waste another second arguing about it. Your quote of mine is me highlighting that these are matters of fact and not opinion, there's no secret meaning behind it. Just as there didn't appear to be any secret meaning about that person's distinction between two words that mean very different things but sound alike, until you made it a thing. Was it even your post he corrected? Why do you care so much?

I don't really know or care what the answers to those questions are but maybe you wanna ask yourself why you're having such a visceral reaction to meaning that you assigned yourself - and seemingly no one else did so.

Good luck

Expand full comment
Jeff Potts's avatar

Lee was correcting Victoria's grammar, not saying her opinion was incorrect or different from his/hers.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

No, he wasn't correcting her grammar. Do you understand what grammar is?

Expand full comment
Jeff Potts's avatar

Do you? Grammar is using the correct words and/or phrases in a sentence. She didn't use the correct word. You tell me, was she trying to say that they didn't have a conscience or if they were conscious? She used "conscious". So that wasn't the correct word. Quit being so hateful. We need to unite against the MAGA agenda. Fighting amongst ourselves is just what they want.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

It was spelling, not grammar, and there seem to be so many people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE that I pointed it out.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

No, you weren't correcting her spelling.

She spelled the word correctly.

I suggest next time you feel the need to point out errors that you do it in a more positive and kind way , and not such a blunt and offensive way.

I doubt very much if Ben used a wrong word by accident that you would leave such a blunt comment.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

It's rather rude of you to correct me for letting someone know they were using the wrong word. I don't argue with her opinion. But there is no such thing as "a conscious." It may have been autofinish, and that can be reset. Please note I did not ridicule Ms Druding's opinion.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

It does not really matter how you choose to try to get out of the fact that you made the decision to bluntly point out someone's error. It says a lot about how riled you are by my pointing this out.

Expand full comment
Lisa Thalmann's avatar

Why did you feel the necessity of pointing out a misspelled word? We are in a fight to keep our democracy, not a spelling bee! Stay focused young MM! 🩷🩷

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

I can walk and chew gum at the same time and when someone says "they have a conscious" they sound silly. Don't tell me what to focus on, Lisa. Why did YOU feel the necessity to tell me it was naughty to point out that someone used not a misspelled word, but the wrong word? Hmm?

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

you're in the right here and people are doing what they do on the internet (which imo is one of the huge problems of it) , misreading the situation and using their self appointed righteousness to scold others.

The correct response to your post was "oh, you're right, oops" - and then keep it movin.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

Sigh

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

I once had an editor REWRITE a story I'd submitted without letting me see it before publishing. When I complained, she said every editor had that right (not true), and added, "My conscious is clear."

People don't read enough, don't learn to spell very well, and depend on spellcheck WAY too much. I make typos. If somebody points one out that screws up meaning, I fix it or say, "damn autofinish." Or maybe "whoops!"

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

This little microslice of 2024 life is a perfect caricature of what technology has done to our attitudes. Someone makes a well meaning post, uses the wrong word with a similar sounding word that has a vastly different meaning. Someone corrects it, maybe slightly annoyingly but not wrongly or in a way that denigrates original poster. People take sides, waste words judging each other on a matter that shouldn't have taken up more than 10 seconds of anyones day.

MAGA maybe full of morons and scumbags and assholes, but what boggles my mind are that the same people who call them out for it have their own very flawed version of themselves that they show to the world, thus talking out both sides of their mouth.

No one can convince me that my social theory about how asynchronous text only communications over the internet have taken up alot of time and energy on things that in a different world where people focused on more important things and had meaningful, real human connection, is flawed. I've been observing communication patterns (and also participating in them myself, I'm not perfect and I can admit that) for 5 years now and if there was one thing I could pick that no one typically thinks about when trying to figure out why things are on fire, it would be this reason. Just my take on why the culture seems so broken that I've almost self selected out of it.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

I can't believe you two are still banging on about this.

Lee is it because you actually realise that you very possibly, maybe just a tad, could have been just a teeny weeny little bit kinder in the way you pointed out that lady's mistake?

It's ok to admit things like that, and guess what, I'm also allowed to take umbrage at the way you said it.

I'll bid you both farewell now.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

And here you are banging on yourself. I don't think there is ANY WAY I could have been a 'teeny weeny little bit kinder.' Any correction is seen as flaming. It's a shame I can't block all you "kindly" people who seem determined to lecture me on etiquette. I hope you mean it when you bid farewell. But I doubt it.

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

Whoever thought social media was a good idea, I don't think they understood human interaction very well. Asynchronous, text only communication has probably produced more pointless arguments and misunderstandings than anything else.

What people like that don't realize is that they're actually revealing their own intentions and projecting them onto other people, which is just another form of cognitive dissonance.

Case in point : the "banging on" she referred to was about 3 out of my day that I would have forgotten about had I not checked my email today.

Expand full comment
Moon Cat's avatar

I've found that I can type the word I want and as I continue on spell check changes it. So now I stop and carefully review my text before hitting send. Even then things slip through.

Expand full comment
Susan G Unkert's avatar

Hell yeah, Mark Cuban would be great!

Expand full comment
Dave Cassenti's avatar

There’s probably a way to have someone invest in Meidas but remove them from any control. Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust when he was president; could something like this be done for anyone wanting to invest in Meidas?

Expand full comment
If I was a duck's avatar

This would be perfect, to keep is out of Muskrat's filthy paws!

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

Of course there is. And you may not know that the blind trust Carter hired screwed up his investments something awful. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Expand full comment
Moon Cat's avatar

So sorry to hear that.

Expand full comment
Deeann Gibbs's avatar

Do you suppose Cuban could buy a Supreme Court Justice as well? Apparently they are for sale.a

Expand full comment
Gatekeeperken's avatar

It's a chess game for billionaires. We lost because we had no microphone. Repubs own all the media. It's simple math but big money.

Expand full comment
Dennis Ryan's avatar

I like the objective of "discussions". The idea(s) that come from doing so - good ones and not-so-good - can have significant benefits.

Expand full comment
Lana Clasen's avatar

...- I agree. 💯👍

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Nov 24
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

He's also a savvy businessman and if he invests in MSNBC he will expect to make a profit. It can be win-win. Giving away 100% ownership...? What if Musk attacks it and tries a takeover. Altruism is a fine thing but you should remember that the super-altruistic doctors who discovered insulin, Banting and Best, SOLD THE PATENT for $1 so nobody would ever die of diabetes again.

And then the corporate pharma cannibals got it. It's best not to give things away that may need to be protected.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Nov 23
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Deborah Martin Shorter's avatar

There's been reporting that Musk wants to buy MSNBC. Excuse me while I go throw up.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

MEE TOO! DON'T LET HIM DO THAT!!!!! PLEASE CONTACT MARK ASAP!

Expand full comment
Diana Mauro's avatar

Why do we care? Haven't you already stopped watching TV media? They're the same exact thing as Fox. Except for our side.

Expand full comment
JJ Jimenez's avatar

Not everyone is going digital. I am very random online. I get newsletters from MTN, a few others but I watch t.v. A lot! And I like a lot of the shows on MSNBC, tho' they do irritate sometimes. And, yes...I am a boomer....

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

That'll get you made fun of in some circles. Even though a lot of boomers voted for Harris--and a lot of younger people voted for Trump.. I'm a Boomer, too, BTW.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

NO-we cannot stop watching or supporting.... WE MUST HAVE THE CORRECT, democratic, and TRUTHFUL commentary going out daily! Many times daily!

Expand full comment
Sheila S's avatar

That’s the thing, though.. if Elon buys up MSNBC, there will be no “us”😏.

Expand full comment
Rose Maly, MD, MSPH's avatar

Fuck Space Nazi Musk, aka “Elonia” (Melan-ia, get it?).

Expand full comment
Moi's avatar

Musk could easily enter the equation, and it would be a mistake to ignore him.

Expand full comment
Claude Hopkins's avatar

Some entities Need to be Ignored!!

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

You don't ignore a rattlesnake under your bed, Claude.

Expand full comment
Moi's avatar

Not when they're a threat.

Expand full comment
Shame On ‘em's avatar

How would it be a mistake to ignore Musty? 🤔

Expand full comment
Moi's avatar

Seriously? The same way it would be a mistake to ignore the lion that's about to eat you.

Expand full comment
KRISTEN STAFFORD -HOWE's avatar

Has anybody learned any lessons yet about that

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Apparently not.

Expand full comment
TCinLA's avatar

He's talking about jumping into the equation is why.

Expand full comment
Steve Fredrick's avatar

I see him as desperate to be in Trump's orbit to the point of doing whatever Trump wants...a fluffer wannabe.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

No. Musk's the same sort of psychopath Rump is -- and he's younger, and has way more money. He wants to see Rump destroy the Constitution and then make himself dictator. With narcissists it is ALWAYS ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

true, but their personalities are not compatible. I believe people who are saying Trump is going to get rid of him are correct. dt already has all the millions in his pocket, he doesn't need more right now. He can't have somebody speaking louder and faster than he is.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

We still need to see if Mark Cuban would be interested in something with MTN. Call it...anti-Elon insurance. We're not guaranteed that YouTube will always be there allowing all points of view. This way, MTN can get info out to so many others.

Expand full comment
Monique Ponsot's avatar

But they can't do it without the expertise of someone from the industry, like Keith Olbermann. Great and important as they are and have been, MTN needs experienced voices too. Enthusiasm is crucial & critical but time is short. This needs consideration, if serious, ASAP. IMO

Expand full comment
Gina's avatar

Wannabe? He already IS.

Expand full comment
Susan Weiss's avatar

Didn't nearly half the country vote for him to be vice president?

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

Fucktard trump could not even get a majority...He is below 50% of the popular vote. So answer to your question is NEARLY doesnt count.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

RIGHT! EAT IT, rump jr. DT has no mandate- he won by a hair.

Expand full comment
Susan Weiss's avatar

I didn't bother with the total count on his winning. I was looking at the group as a whole.

Expand full comment
MarieMeagan McLellan's avatar

MUSK is never to be underestimated ! In chess, to win is to know your opponent as well as yourself , and think ahead!

MUSK is omnipresent in all current means of communications- from satellites to his social media platform.

MTN intrigues a genius mind and Elon is a genius.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

Apartheid Clyde is a con artist -- not a genius. He's probably the only person who ever spent 44 billion$ on a company which he subsequently trashed. He's not good at ANYTHING but conning suckers.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Doesn't he just take others' work and claim it...kind of like Edison?

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

Yep. And like Edison, he has media access so credulous people tend to believe him.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Yep. Sadly.

Expand full comment
Jaws's avatar

the amount of money Musk has to play around with is dazzling, & that's what passes for genius - he plays them as soon as he sees someone start to salivate at the thought of the power they'd have for a portion of his $$$ - so to be called a genius because Musk has so much to piss away that his dribbles reveal the crap characters among us, well, call it genius if you want

Expand full comment
Steve Doll's avatar

You don't have to be good or care about others to be rich. And you only have to be devious to succeed in getting other people's money away from them to the extent that Muck has.

Expand full comment
Kiwi4Kamala's avatar

Have u not heard??!

Expand full comment
SatanicMajesty's avatar

He is already very much in the equation, unfortunately.

Expand full comment
Lisa G's avatar

Yes. We need honest factual reporting ON TV. if Cuban (or anyone) is willing to put up the money and give MTN FULL CONTENT/CREATIVE CONTROL, then yes. That has to be the condition though!

Expand full comment
nothappynow's avatar

Plus Cuban hates trump

Expand full comment
WJB Motown's avatar

When Howard Stern left KROC to go to Sirrius he took Robin and the entire staff with him.

That was part of the deal.

If Cuban hates Trump and Musk is never a factor.....that is positive for sure.

There must be no changes in the staff, guest lists or regular contributors.

Do not rush into this.........amazing you are asking for our ideas.

Lots of preparation, research...timing so vital.......have until Nov 20 until the shit show kicks off

Expand full comment
Linda Morway's avatar

Not Mica and Joe

Expand full comment
Sheila S's avatar

They can go have sex with themselves! I will never watch that show again! I’m sure Faux News can find a safe spot for them.

Expand full comment
Marilyn Montgomery's avatar

I'll never watch again, either. Turncoats!

Expand full comment
Mark Lidman's avatar

January 20??

Expand full comment
nothappynow's avatar

Jan 15 is the date that douce bag get inaugurated...the irony of that date is...MLK birthday! Love it! The racist becomes president on the day of one of the most famous black person in the USA!

Expand full comment
Tina hennessey's avatar

Wow great insight into the headspace of a professional. Ty, today I learnt from you, you/we never see or get to know the impact we make. Ty 😊 from across the pond...

Expand full comment
Francine Koski's avatar

He has very good taste. What I see of him I like. If he’s sincere, I think that it would be good to have his support.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

Dont get me wrong I like Mark Cuban, but um, trump is sincere as well...at least a large portion of the US population thinks so....I say sincerely going to try to burn down this country with every fiber of his being.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

With the vote-count checks going on, it appears that Rump got slightly *less* than 50%. So it's hardly a mandate.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

nope he definitely did not get that (mandate).

Expand full comment
S Resnik's avatar

There is that!

Expand full comment
Robin's avatar

They can shuffle off to fox… their true home

Expand full comment
Philip Sheldon's avatar

Keep in mind that the Bezos with the WaPo left creative and content control to the management until he didn't. I believe, although I would need to research, that Patrick Soon-Shiong of the LA Times did the same.

Expand full comment
maxgal's avatar

THANK YOU for saying this! I think it's unrealistic to try to make a "deal for autonomy" when it's such a tenuous thing, in this capital-based society.

Expand full comment
Crystal's avatar

Agreed!

Expand full comment
LK's avatar

exactly!

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

There's a way for Mark Cuban to help finance it without corrupting it, the MT people are smart enough to figure it out. Definitely don't make it so that they would be dependent on him till the end of time though.

Not that i have an issue with Mark Cuban but at the end of the day, people are protecting their own investments. I'd be more comfortable about the idea if Mark did it without any strings attached to it

Expand full comment
Moon Cat's avatar

No the LA Times changed and is very biased. They did 3 major things and I cancelled them as they were unreliable.

Expand full comment
Victory Renfrew's avatar

Patrick Soon is from South Africa and is friends with Musk and Theil.

Expand full comment
Patricia Johnson's avatar

I agree! The big IF is will he stay out of the decisions on formats and content.

Expand full comment
Kathleen's avatar

I wholeheartedly agree with you Lisa.

Expand full comment
Nancy Minter's avatar

Yes and a source that isn't priced al la carte would be nice. I don't begrudge anyone making a living, but all the paid subscriptions are Nickle and Diming me to death. When the economy starts to contract don't know if I will be able to afford it.

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

yep I'm already cutting off non essential subscriptions and memberships, I see the economic writing on the wall. Everyone's trying to start their own premium media company right now, everyone wants my money. Money I don't have

Expand full comment
John O’Neill's avatar

I don’t like the idea of MTN having outside investors. You/ we have built a great network without that. At this time ongoing independence seems more

Important than anything else. That being said, it would be great if someone like Cuban purchased MSNBC ( not Elon) and wanted to enlist MTN as a program consultants to help position MSNBC in the future .

Expand full comment
Santos Chavez's avatar

I do like this idea a lot. Perhaps this way MSNBC could even have Ben and others from MTN appear as guests to deliver their thoughts or news, or to debunk claims alongside whoever remains after the transition, but MTN remains entirely independent.

Expand full comment
Rob and Diana's avatar

They are so busy already on Meidas! When would he ever see his new baby!? Not to mention his wife!

Expand full comment
Victory Renfrew's avatar

Adding in people like @BTC , Brian, John Collins, and others would be fantastic. There are so many that are currently independent who are really valuable to provide us all with facts.

Expand full comment
Holly Groach's avatar

I think your opinion is the best. It sounds like it would be the most sustainable and preserve MTN in the best way, while continuously getting the truth out.

Expand full comment
Holly Groach's avatar

Ben Meisalas listen to John O’Neill!! 🤓👍👍

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Do you realise that YouTube may not always allow all points of view and that MTN needs to think ahead?

Expand full comment
Victory Renfrew's avatar

Agreed. Trump is going to try to rule over all media.

Expand full comment
Jan Sutherland's avatar

Please explain?

Expand full comment
Holly Groach's avatar

See John O’Neill’s comment above. Best way to explain.

Expand full comment
Holly Groach's avatar

GREAT suggestion!! I agree with you the most!

Expand full comment
Moi's avatar
Nov 23Edited

MTN would have to establish a separate division to run the TV station. That way, any interference from the investor would be isolated from MTN's other operations.

Expand full comment
Lois's avatar

Great idea. But wouldn't it be nice to have a voice and platform as big as trump's little media slaves.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

This is what some here may not have considered: YouTube may not always allow a point of view such as MTN and their contributors. There needs to be some thinking ahead as to what to do if/when that happens.

Expand full comment
Carol's avatar

Oh, I really like this idea!

Expand full comment
Carolyn Fulton's avatar

This is a good idea

Expand full comment
Dr. Sam's avatar

This is an interesting compromise.

Expand full comment
Laurie Lawrence's avatar

👍👍

Expand full comment
Margaret's avatar

I really like this. It will be hard for anyone to remain independent with what is coming. But we desperately need an independent network.

Expand full comment
Janet Andrea's avatar

Hell yes! Please before that Russian agent Musk does!

Expand full comment
Bonnie Hokanson's avatar

Good point.

Expand full comment
Jen Senko's avatar

REALLY good point.

Expand full comment
Teanne Tulip's avatar

Shoot your shot. Develop a plan and send it to him. U have the numbers on your side. You’ll never know if you dont reach out to him

Expand full comment
Sandie Becker's avatar

Nothing ventured, nothing gained as momma always said!

Expand full comment
Tasmin Gardner's avatar

Right now, it is imperative that we don’t let Musk and Rupert Murdoch acquire more power, and continue to dominate the airwaves with lies and propaganda.

Mark Cuban worked his butt off for Kamala. I believe he is a good person. I vote YES!

Expand full comment
Philip Sheldon's avatar

We may want to broaden the view with regard to potential buyers of networks/cable companies might be if a as they come available. For example, in addition to Mush adn Murdoch there are Chris Ruddy (Newsmax), Robert Herring Sr. (OANN), the Sinclair Group (was Julian Sinclair Smith), as well as a host of others.

Expand full comment
Victory Renfrew's avatar

He's a truly strong advocate and supporter of democracy. If we're not careful Kevin Oleary, Stephen Harper, Putin or Theil will buy it. Nazis need to monetarily nuked from society. Take away their money and it deflates them.

Expand full comment
Denise Sorensen's avatar

I’m a no vote. I know it’s unpopular, but I fear that media dystopian practices will destroy the content.

Expand full comment
Alisa Quint's avatar

I agree.

What if Mark Cuban decides to sell as Air America was sold for Sports Networks.

However I don’t know how to get the truth out there to the uneducated voters who voted for Trump and now or will regret it.

We cannot let even the nicest foxes (Billionaires) into the hen house.

I am sure there is a contractual way to remain independent BUT all contracts are negotiable; and with this SCOTUS down is up and up is down.

CONGRATULATIONS on keeping this information clean.

Expand full comment
Bombay Troubadour's avatar

SCOTUS up is down…..Roberts court killed the experiment of democracy. Starting with CU and Shelby. Clarence and Sammy are a cruel joke.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

And what does MTN do if YouTube refuses to carry their content? Anyone think about what to do if that happens? It's all very well to maintain a politically pure stance but how to proceed if YouTube goes totally fascist? The only way I could go with this if Cuban started his own streaming service.

Expand full comment
Victory Renfrew's avatar

He may need other partners to invest. Who would you suggest? He's not as wealthy as Theil and Musk.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Twardowski's avatar

I agree. This is a pipe dream. Sorry to burst any bubbles but let's slow down and process realistic goals.

Expand full comment
Dan R's avatar

Debbie,

I agree with you 100%!!

MTN is best when they have complete Content AND Financial control, answering only to their subscribers… and even then they maintain control. Mark Cuban is intelligent, level headed and a welcomed source of support (not necessarily ($$$); he’d make a terrific scheduled editorial contributor!!

Expand full comment
Gatekeeperken's avatar

Cuban is hands on. He can buy it and give MTN a few hours a day , prime time, and we compete with Fox for the first time.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

It's worth a shot. Currently MTN is YouTube only, yes? What happens if YouTube will no longer carry MTN? Is anyone besides me considering that eventuality.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

Another unpopular no vote here as well.

Expand full comment
Gatekeeperken's avatar

How silly.

Expand full comment
Devin Miller's avatar

Absolutely. We cannot lose this important left leaning media. Medias touch is also an incredible media. The RW media has taken over and played a huge part in trumps win. We need a voice with facts and strong personalities to prove Joe Rogan wrong and to inform America with ethical and honest perspectives and news that counters the rights lies and propaganda.

Expand full comment
Devin Miller's avatar

Additionally we cannot let Elon Musk acquire MSNBC.

Expand full comment
Rodney D. Tanner's avatar

Could be happening already!

Expand full comment
Dem4ever's avatar

VERY well said !!

Expand full comment
Ruth Baker's avatar

Might be tempting as a thought experiment for a minute, but I think the strength of the Meidas touch is the fact that you all are independent. I would be afraid that an entity like MSNBC would bury you so stay independent, be our pro-democracy home!

Expand full comment
Cheryl Bolen Smelson's avatar

My 2 cents is to stay the way you are online. Even if Cuban gave you free rein, you’d still be beholden to him in ways you probably can’t anticipate now.

Expand full comment
Jolly Jime's avatar

And - consider the nominated FCC director who’s threatening to withdraw broadcasting certificates! Stay where you are. Be your own boss.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Has anyone considered that YouTube may at some point no longer be willing to carry MTN.

Expand full comment
Bombay Troubadour's avatar

Uh, can you name any billionaires, that are not flying around on their private pollution jets trying to make their next billion?

Expand full comment
Mary McDonald's avatar

Stay lean and independent. It is the only way to insure autonomy. However Mark Cuban should buy a network! ⚡️

Expand full comment
Susan Pelton's avatar

Yes! Let him buy it but leave MeidasTouch out of it. It might be nice for awhile but eventually it would turn on you and your network would be just another corporate talking point.

Expand full comment
Colleen Brady's avatar

Many regular people have an instant dislike or mistrust of billionaires. Obviously there is validity in their feelings. Marc Cuban is very concerned and willing to support our country and our Democracy. Not every rich person is a jerk or selfish. Not every poor or middle class person is a good, caring person. Meidas Touch has become very successful independent of any outside investors. There are people who would quickly lose trust in Meidas Touch for combining with MSNBC. Ben, so many details. Thanks for our input.

Expand full comment
Carol Moore's avatar

What worries me a great deal are the rumours going around that if MSNBC goes up for sale, Musk will buy it. And that cannot be allowed to happen. The Guardian is not corporate owned -- they are financed through a combination of subscriptions, donations and a trust fund that is mandated not to have any role in content. I wonder if a closer look at The Guardian's business plan/structure might give you some other ideas of how this might work.

Expand full comment
Diane's avatar

I wonder if Cuban could set up a similar trust for MTM.

Expand full comment
Kisha Manley's avatar

Yes, as long as reporters don’t have to pledge allegiance to him or the company

Expand full comment
Jessica Marcillo's avatar

Of course they wouldn't

Expand full comment
Chloe Humbert's avatar

they always wind up controlling the narrative for the elite lords

Expand full comment
Gina Lind's avatar

Better idea. Continue to fully own your company, content & shows without outside interest and let Cuban license on a larger platform like MSNBC but not as an exclusive. You would keep your YT channel but be available to do live interviews on his network.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

That would perhaps be doable but insist upon complete autonomy/control of commentary and content to Meidas.

Expand full comment
Blue Lioness's avatar

I say yes, but only under extreme circumstances in the contract. # 1 MeidasTouch controls everything # 2-infinity-see number 1

Expand full comment
Sue Neville's avatar

Yes!

Expand full comment
Bob Warren's avatar

Oh hell yes.

Expand full comment
ErrorError