Cheat, get caught, pay the consequences.

"ABC Loses 5 Major Advertisers After Debate, Costing the Media Company
$27 Million: “We Won’t Host Any Debates in the Future”

<https://luxury.amazingtoday.net/abc-loses-major-advertisers-after-debate-costing-the-media-company-million-we-wont-host-any-debates-in-the-future-congtung/>

'In a plot twist that could only happen in 2024, ABC has officially lost
five major advertisers following the fallout from its controversial
handling of the latest presidential debate. The network, known for its
polished news broadcasts and long-standing tradition of hosting
political events, has now been hit where it hurts most: its wallet. The
post-debate advertiser exodus has cost ABC a whopping $27 million, with
the network now vowing to never, ever host another debate again.'

'“We’re done,” said an exasperated ABC spokesperson during an impromptu
press conference. “We hosted debates to promote democracy, but it turns
out we were just promoting cancellations.”

The trouble began on Tuesday night when ABC’s moderators, David Muir and
Linsey Davis, dared to do something radical during the presidential
debate: they fact-checked. Real-time. On live television. As if anyone
tunes into a presidential debate expecting the truth.

The moderators stopped former President Donald Trump mid-sentence
several times to correct false claims, including his infamous assertion
that Ohio immigrants were eating pets and that Democrats supported
“executing babies after birth.” These moments, while earning applause
from viewers who appreciate reality, didn’t sit well with advertisers
looking for a good, drama-free ROI on their millions.

One of the first advertisers to pull out was a luxury car brand, whose
spokesperson lamented, “When we signed up to sponsor the debate, we
didn’t realize it would turn into a live fact-checking extravaganza. We
expected a classy, uninterrupted political brawl, not a ‘Gotcha!’ fest.”

Soon after, a major fast-food chain followed suit, saying, “Look, we’re
all for informed voting, but our customers don’t come to ABC for facts.
They come for spectacle. Our customers want to enjoy their burgers and
fries without the uncomfortable side dish of reality-checking.”

And so, one by one, major advertisers jumped ship, leaving ABC’s finance
department scrambling to figure out how they lost $27 million faster
than Trump could shout “fake news!”

The debate, while a ratings hit, quickly became a nightmare for the
network’s marketing team. It wasn’t just about the fact-checking—it was
the entire atmosphere. The moderators, despite their best efforts, had
managed to alienate everyone. Trump supporters accused them of bias,
Harris fans complained they were too soft, and even the ABC
fact-checkers themselves reportedly filed grievances, claiming they were
overworked and underappreciated.

But the real blow came when the advertisers—those sweet, moneybags
sponsors—decided they’d had enough.

“We paid for prime time ad spots, not political commentary,” fumed an
executive from one of the now-absent sponsors. “I was halfway through
our product placement for a high-end electric car when suddenly Muir is
talking about Springfield, Ohio’s dog-eating crisis. I’m sorry, but
that’s not the kind of attention we’re looking for.”

Another advertiser, a household cleaning product brand, pulled no
punches in their criticism. “We clean up messes, but ABC made one so big
even our best-selling bleach can’t fix it.”'

'ABC’s executives, faced with the harsh reality of a $27 million
shortfall, still tried to salvage the situation. “Look, we’re not going
to apologize for fact-checking,” said an unnamed ABC official. “If we
wanted to host a fantasy debate where people can just say anything and
no one challenges it, we’d run a reality TV show. Oh wait, we already
do.”

Despite this brave face, the financial blow was undeniable. Losing $27
million in a single swoop of advertiser rage doesn’t just sting—it
leaves a mark. And the executives at ABC, realizing they can’t exactly
bill the DNC or RNC for the damage, have made a bold decision: no more
debates.

“We’re done with debates. Completely,” the official continued. “No more
moderators getting yelled at, no more advertisers jumping ship, and no
more real-time corrections that turn our stage into a game show where
facts actually matter.”

So, what does this mean for future political debates? If ABC’s decision
is any indication, the days of fact-checking, journalistic integrity,
and high production value may be behind us.

Insiders suggest that the 2028 election debates will be unmoderated,
unstructured, and held on the front lawns of the candidates themselves.
“It’ll be like the Wild West out there,” one political analyst joked.
“Just candidates shouting at each other while the audience throws
tomatoes—or tweets.”

In fact, ABC’s rivals are reportedly eyeing the situation closely,
wondering whether they should get in on this new wave of debate-free
debates. “Why bother moderating at all?” asked one industry insider.
“Just let the candidates talk for two hours, sell ad spots in between
the shouting, and call it a night. No one fact-checks anyway—it’s all
about entertainment now.”

As news of ABC’s advertising exodus spread, it became a trending topic
on social media, where users debated not the issues of the candidates,
but which brand was the first to bail. #WhoJumpedFirst quickly became
the hashtag of the week.

“I’m just mad that my favorite cereal brand bailed before the second
half of the debate,” tweeted one user. “Now I’ll never know if Trump was
right about the aliens hiding in cornfields.”

Another user posted, “I wasn’t even watching the debate, but I’m here
for the chaos. Losing $27 million in one night? That’s record-breaking!”

ABC, in damage control mode, tried to downplay the controversy by
offering a free 30-day streaming trial for anyone who had been
“emotionally affected” by the debate fallout. Spoiler alert: It didn’t
work.

For ABC, the future is now a murky, fact-checked-at-every-turn path.
With $27 million gone and five major advertisers retreating faster than
a political candidate faced with a tough question, the network has to
reconsider its approach to hosting political events.

“We’ll still cover the news, obviously,” said the exasperated ABC
spokesperson. “But as for debates? We’ll leave those to the networks who
are willing to take the risk. Maybe Fox News or CNN will be braver than
us—or just more willing to lose $27 million.”

And so, with its final debate behind it, ABC bows out of the political
stage, leaving behind a legacy of bold fact-checking, angry advertisers,
and a pile of shredded contracts. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned
from this ordeal, it’s that in 2024, even facts come with a price
tag—and ABC is no longer willing to pay it.'

On 2024-09-14, John Smyth <smythlejon2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Cheat, get caught, pay the consequences.
>
> "ABC Loses 5 Major Advertisers After Debate, Costing the Media Company
> $27 Million: “We Won’t Host Any Debates in the Future”
>
><https://luxury.amazingtoday.net/abc-loses-major-advertisers-after-debate-costing-the-media-company-million-we-wont-host-any-debates-in-the-future-congtung/>
>
>
> 'In a plot twist that could only happen in 2024, ABC has officially lost
> five major advertisers following the fallout from its controversial
> handling of the latest presidential debate. The network, known for its
> polished news broadcasts and long-standing tradition of hosting
> political events, has now been hit where it hurts most: its wallet. The
> post-debate advertiser exodus has cost ABC a whopping $27 million, with
> the network now vowing to never, ever host another debate again.'
>
> '“We’re done,” said an exasperated ABC spokesperson during an impromptu
> press conference. “We hosted debates to promote democracy, but it turns
> out we were just promoting cancellations.”
>
> The trouble began on Tuesday night when ABC’s moderators, David Muir and
> Linsey Davis, dared to do something radical during the presidential
> debate: they fact-checked. Real-time. On live television. As if anyone
> tunes into a presidential debate expecting the truth.
>
> The moderators stopped former President Donald Trump mid-sentence
> several times to correct false claims, including his infamous assertion
> that Ohio immigrants were eating pets and that Democrats supported
> “executing babies after birth.” These moments, while earning applause
> from viewers who appreciate reality, didn’t sit well with advertisers
> looking for a good, drama-free ROI on their millions.
>
> One of the first advertisers to pull out was a luxury car brand, whose
> spokesperson lamented, “When we signed up to sponsor the debate, we
> didn’t realize it would turn into a live fact-checking extravaganza. We
> expected a classy, uninterrupted political brawl, not a ‘Gotcha!’ fest.”
>
> Soon after, a major fast-food chain followed suit, saying, “Look, we’re
> all for informed voting, but our customers don’t come to ABC for facts.
> They come for spectacle. Our customers want to enjoy their burgers and
> fries without the uncomfortable side dish of reality-checking.”
>
> And so, one by one, major advertisers jumped ship, leaving ABC’s finance
> department scrambling to figure out how they lost $27 million faster
> than Trump could shout “fake news!”
>
> The debate, while a ratings hit, quickly became a nightmare for the
> network’s marketing team. It wasn’t just about the fact-checking—it was
> the entire atmosphere. The moderators, despite their best efforts, had
> managed to alienate everyone. Trump supporters accused them of bias,
> Harris fans complained they were too soft, and even the ABC
> fact-checkers themselves reportedly filed grievances, claiming they were
> overworked and underappreciated.
>
> But the real blow came when the advertisers—those sweet, moneybags
> sponsors—decided they’d had enough.
>
> “We paid for prime time ad spots, not political commentary,” fumed an
> executive from one of the now-absent sponsors. “I was halfway through
> our product placement for a high-end electric car when suddenly Muir is
> talking about Springfield, Ohio’s dog-eating crisis. I’m sorry, but
> that’s not the kind of attention we’re looking for.”
>
> Another advertiser, a household cleaning product brand, pulled no
> punches in their criticism. “We clean up messes, but ABC made one so big
> even our best-selling bleach can’t fix it.”'
>
> 'ABC’s executives, faced with the harsh reality of a $27 million
> shortfall, still tried to salvage the situation. “Look, we’re not going
> to apologize for fact-checking,” said an unnamed ABC official. “If we
> wanted to host a fantasy debate where people can just say anything and
> no one challenges it, we’d run a reality TV show. Oh wait, we already
> do.”
>
> Despite this brave face, the financial blow was undeniable. Losing $27
> million in a single swoop of advertiser rage doesn’t just sting—it
> leaves a mark. And the executives at ABC, realizing they can’t exactly
> bill the DNC or RNC for the damage, have made a bold decision: no more
> debates.
>
> “We’re done with debates. Completely,” the official continued. “No more
> moderators getting yelled at, no more advertisers jumping ship, and no
> more real-time corrections that turn our stage into a game show where
> facts actually matter.”
>
> So, what does this mean for future political debates? If ABC’s decision
> is any indication, the days of fact-checking, journalistic integrity,
> and high production value may be behind us.
>
> Insiders suggest that the 2028 election debates will be unmoderated,
> unstructured, and held on the front lawns of the candidates themselves.
> “It’ll be like the Wild West out there,” one political analyst joked.
> “Just candidates shouting at each other while the audience throws
> tomatoes—or tweets.”
>
> In fact, ABC’s rivals are reportedly eyeing the situation closely,
> wondering whether they should get in on this new wave of debate-free
> debates. “Why bother moderating at all?” asked one industry insider.
> “Just let the candidates talk for two hours, sell ad spots in between
> the shouting, and call it a night. No one fact-checks anyway—it’s all
> about entertainment now.”
>
> As news of ABC’s advertising exodus spread, it became a trending topic
> on social media, where users debated not the issues of the candidates,
> but which brand was the first to bail. #WhoJumpedFirst quickly became
> the hashtag of the week.
>
> “I’m just mad that my favorite cereal brand bailed before the second
> half of the debate,” tweeted one user. “Now I’ll never know if Trump was
> right about the aliens hiding in cornfields.”
>
> Another user posted, “I wasn’t even watching the debate, but I’m here
> for the chaos. Losing $27 million in one night? That’s record-breaking!”
>
> ABC, in damage control mode, tried to downplay the controversy by
> offering a free 30-day streaming trial for anyone who had been
> “emotionally affected” by the debate fallout. Spoiler alert: It didn’t
> work.
>
> For ABC, the future is now a murky, fact-checked-at-every-turn path.
> With $27 million gone and five major advertisers retreating faster than
> a political candidate faced with a tough question, the network has to
> reconsider its approach to hosting political events.
>
> “We’ll still cover the news, obviously,” said the exasperated ABC
> spokesperson. “But as for debates? We’ll leave those to the networks who
> are willing to take the risk. Maybe Fox News or CNN will be braver than
> us—or just more willing to lose $27 million.”
>
> And so, with its final debate behind it, ABC bows out of the political
> stage, leaving behind a legacy of bold fact-checking, angry advertisers,
> and a pile of shredded contracts. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned
> from this ordeal, it’s that in 2024, even facts come with a price
> tag—and ABC is no longer willing to pay it.'
>

Does anyone actually watch ABC?

--
Charlie Glock
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
- Thomas Jefferson 1776

>https://luxury.amazingtoday.net

What bullshit. What kind of a source is luxury.amazingtoday.net for
business news on a weekend? You'll believe anything, what an idiot.

Your gullibility is laughable.

Stupid Trumpers.

>Cheat, get caught, pay the consequences.

der Fuherer is mighty!

This is why he is so feared by all his followers!

Must be the Trump curse.

The real Trump curse:

Trump�s failed businesses:

1. Trump Steaks

2. GoTrump

3. Trump Airlines

4. Trump Vodka

5. Trump Mortgage

6. Trump: The Game

7. Trump Magazine

8. Trump University

9. Trump Ice

10. The New Jersey Generals

11. Tour de Trump

12. Trump Network

13. Trumped!

Trump companies that sought bankruptcy protection:

1. Trump Taj Mahal

2. Trump�s Castle

3. Trump Plaza Casinos

4. Trump Plaza Hotel

5. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts

6. Trump Entertainment Resorts

Peter White wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> <snip>

I am a fan of your smooth-jazz work.

--
Prepare for tomorrow -- get ready.
-- Edith Keeler, "The City On the Edge of Forever",
stardate unknown

In article <mdfbejhmvkdusipaip3bq44ca9r3tocelf@4ax.com>,
smythlejon2@hotmail.com says...
>
> Cheat, get caught, pay the consequences.
>
> "ABC Loses 5 Major Advertisers After Debate, Costing the Media Company
> $27 Million: ?We Won?t Host Any Debates in the Future?
>
> <https://luxury.amazingtoday.net/abc-loses-major-advertisers-after-debate-costing-the-media-company-million-we-wont-host-any-debates-in-the-future-congtung/>
>
>
> 'In a plot twist that could only happen in 2024, ABC has officially lost
> five major advertisers following the fallout from its controversial
> handling of the latest presidential debate. The network, known for its
> polished news broadcasts and long-standing tradition of hosting
> political events, has now been hit where it hurts most: its wallet. The
> post-debate advertiser exodus has cost ABC a whopping $27 million, with
> the network now vowing to never, ever host another debate again.'
>
> '?We?re done,? said an exasperated ABC spokesperson during an impromptu
> press conference. ?We hosted debates to promote democracy, but it turns
> out we were just promoting cancellations.?
>
> The trouble began on Tuesday night when ABC?s moderators, David Muir and
> Linsey Davis, dared to do something radical during the presidential
> debate: they fact-checked. Real-time. On live television. As if anyone
> tunes into a presidential debate expecting the truth.
>
> The moderators stopped former President Donald Trump mid-sentence
> several times to correct false claims, including his infamous assertion
> that Ohio immigrants were eating pets and that Democrats supported
> ?executing babies after birth.? These moments, while earning applause
> from viewers who appreciate reality, didn?t sit well with advertisers
> looking for a good, drama-free ROI on their millions.
>
> One of the first advertisers to pull out was a luxury car brand, whose
> spokesperson lamented, ?When we signed up to sponsor the debate, we
> didn?t realize it would turn into a live fact-checking extravaganza. We
> expected a classy, uninterrupted political brawl, not a ?Gotcha!? fest.?
>
> Soon after, a major fast-food chain followed suit, saying, ?Look, we?re
> all for informed voting, but our customers don?t come to ABC for facts.
> They come for spectacle. Our customers want to enjoy their burgers and
> fries without the uncomfortable side dish of reality-checking.?
>
> And so, one by one, major advertisers jumped ship, leaving ABC?s finance
> department scrambling to figure out how they lost $27 million faster
> than Trump could shout ?fake news!?
>
> The debate, while a ratings hit, quickly became a nightmare for the
> network?s marketing team. It wasn?t just about the fact-checking?it was
> the entire atmosphere. The moderators, despite their best efforts, had
> managed to alienate everyone. Trump supporters accused them of bias,
> Harris fans complained they were too soft, and even the ABC
> fact-checkers themselves reportedly filed grievances, claiming they were
> overworked and underappreciated.
>
> But the real blow came when the advertisers?those sweet, moneybags
> sponsors?decided they?d had enough.
>
> ?We paid for prime time ad spots, not political commentary,? fumed an
> executive from one of the now-absent sponsors. ?I was halfway through
> our product placement for a high-end electric car when suddenly Muir is
> talking about Springfield, Ohio?s dog-eating crisis. I?m sorry, but
> that?s not the kind of attention we?re looking for.?
>
> Another advertiser, a household cleaning product brand, pulled no
> punches in their criticism. ?We clean up messes, but ABC made one so big
> even our best-selling bleach can?t fix it.?'
>
> 'ABC?s executives, faced with the harsh reality of a $27 million
> shortfall, still tried to salvage the situation. ?Look, we?re not going
> to apologize for fact-checking,? said an unnamed ABC official. ?If we
> wanted to host a fantasy debate where people can just say anything and
> no one challenges it, we?d run a reality TV show. Oh wait, we already
> do.?
>
> Despite this brave face, the financial blow was undeniable. Losing $27
> million in a single swoop of advertiser rage doesn?t just sting?it
> leaves a mark. And the executives at ABC, realizing they can?t exactly
> bill the DNC or RNC for the damage, have made a bold decision: no more
> debates.
>
> ?We?re done with debates. Completely,? the official continued. ?No more
> moderators getting yelled at, no more advertisers jumping ship, and no
> more real-time corrections that turn our stage into a game show where
> facts actually matter.?
>
> So, what does this mean for future political debates? If ABC?s decision
> is any indication, the days of fact-checking, journalistic integrity,
> and high production value may be behind us.
>
> Insiders suggest that the 2028 election debates will be unmoderated,
> unstructured, and held on the front lawns of the candidates themselves.
> ?It?ll be like the Wild West out there,? one political analyst joked.
> ?Just candidates shouting at each other while the audience throws
> tomatoes?or tweets.?
>
> In fact, ABC?s rivals are reportedly eyeing the situation closely,
> wondering whether they should get in on this new wave of debate-free
> debates. ?Why bother moderating at all?? asked one industry insider.
> ?Just let the candidates talk for two hours, sell ad spots in between
> the shouting, and call it a night. No one fact-checks anyway?it?s all
> about entertainment now.?
>
> As news of ABC?s advertising exodus spread, it became a trending topic
> on social media, where users debated not the issues of the candidates,
> but which brand was the first to bail. #WhoJumpedFirst quickly became
> the hashtag of the week.
>
> ?I?m just mad that my favorite cereal brand bailed before the second
> half of the debate,? tweeted one user. ?Now I?ll never know if Trump was
> right about the aliens hiding in cornfields.?
>
> Another user posted, ?I wasn?t even watching the debate, but I?m here
> for the chaos. Losing $27 million in one night? That?s record-breaking!?
>
> ABC, in damage control mode, tried to downplay the controversy by
> offering a free 30-day streaming trial for anyone who had been
> ?emotionally affected? by the debate fallout. Spoiler alert: It didn?t
> work.
>
> For ABC, the future is now a murky, fact-checked-at-every-turn path.
> With $27 million gone and five major advertisers retreating faster than
> a political candidate faced with a tough question, the network has to
> reconsider its approach to hosting political events.
>
> ?We?ll still cover the news, obviously,? said the exasperated ABC
> spokesperson. ?But as for debates? We?ll leave those to the networks who
> are willing to take the risk. Maybe Fox News or CNN will be braver than
> us?or just more willing to lose $27 million.?
>
> And so, with its final debate behind it, ABC bows out of the political
> stage, leaving behind a legacy of bold fact-checking, angry advertisers,
> and a pile of shredded contracts. But if there?s one thing we?ve learned
> from this ordeal, it?s that in 2024, even facts come with a price
> tag?and ABC is no longer willing to pay it.'

Amazing Today?
Who the fuck are they?
Russian troll bots?

--
Signature provided on request.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:09:10 -0400, unknown <novalidemail@toss.net> wrote:

>In article <mdfbejhmvkdusipaip3bq44ca9r3tocelf@4ax.com>,
>smythlejon2@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> Cheat, get caught, pay the consequences.
>>
>> "ABC Loses 5 Major Advertisers After Debate, Costing the Media Company
>> $27 Million: ?We Won?t Host Any Debates in the Future?
>>
>> <https://luxury.amazingtoday.net/abc-loses-major-advertisers-after-debate-costing-the-media-company-million-we-wont-host-any-debates-in-the-future-congtung/>

Fake News.

>Amazing Today?
>Who the fuck are they?
>Russian troll bots?

Most likely. It's also called "Luxury Blog".

This story is appearing only in Facebook references and unknown sites with
little previous history of operation.

Another version going around is that Muir and Davis got fired.

"USA Today after fact checking and verifying the news from multiple genuine
sources asserted that the post actually originated from a satirical website
named Esspots which belongs to SpaceXMania network of websites on Sept 12 and
was disguised and presented as an Authentic and True News whereas there was Zero
Truth in the claim. There was no disclaimer whatsoever in the subsequent posts
following that which could reiterated the claim, added USA Today."
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/did-abc-fire-u-s-presidential-debate-moderators-david-muir-and-linsey-davis-heres-what-we-know/articleshow/113396517.cms?from=mdr>

Regarding the lost advertizers and ad dollars ...

"Claim that ABC 'lost’ $27 million in ad revenue after 2024 presidential debate
stems from satire"
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/15/threads-posts/claim-that-abc-lost-27-million-in-ad-revenue-after/>

Iow, the story isn't real.

""ABC lost $27M in ad revenue after advertisers pulled ads from the network
after the way they hosted the debate on Tuesday, September 10th, stating that it
wasn't conducted fairly," read a Sept. 13 Threads post. "GREAT. WONDERFUL. I
COULD NOT BE HAPPIER."

"This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and
misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta,
which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads.) "

"The post cited no particular reports as evidence, but a Google search of "ABC
lost" and "$27 million" turned up a page on SpaceXMania.com that was clearly
labeled "satire." "

"trustnewsonline" is carrying the story. It also tries to install something
through my browser ever time I click inside the article to scroll.

"tigerdroppings.com" has a version of it.

--
Where's Melania?