Roseanne stars John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, Sara Gilbert, Lecy Goranson and Michael Fishman will star in the spinoff. Additional castmembers and a premiere date will be announced at a later date. “We have received a tremendous amount of support from fans of our show, and it’s clear that these characters not only have a place in our hearts, but in the hearts and homes of our audience,” Goodman, Metcalf, Gilbert, Goranson and Fishman said in a joint statement. “We all came back last season because we wanted to tell stories about the challenges facing a working-class family today. We are so happy to have the opportunity to return with the cast and crew to continue to share those stories through love and laughter.”
ABC says the new take will explore issues with parenthood, dating an unexpected pregnancy, financial pressures, aging and in-laws in working-class America. The series will take over Roseanne’s Tuesdays at 8 p.m. time slot. The Conners hails from the creative team behind what was to be the 11th season of Roseanne, including showrunner Bruce Helford, Gilbert, Dave Caplan, Bruce Rasmussen and Tony Hernandez. The series hails from Werner and Werner Entertainment.
“The Conners’ stories demonstrate that families can always find common ground through conversation, laughter and love. The spinoff will continue to portray contemporary issues that are as relevant today as they were 30 years ago,” ABC said in a statement.
the most interesting part of this show is it’s both a win and a loss for ABC and the actors at the same time.
It’s a win because any contracts that they were on the hook for concerning Roseanne will be covered by the show rather than being an overhead expense.
It’s a win because even if (ok when) it draws a much lower rating than Roseanne, it would likely still outdraw any replacement show that they would have plugged in as it has a built in customer base and a pretty skilled cast.
It’s a win because they are guaranteed favorable press from all those who savaged the original series who will now be desperate to show that the new “woke” Roseanne has gotten it right as opposed to that awful pro-trump old version.
It’s a loss because the ratings are unlikely to come anywhere near what the actual series was bringing in and therefore even if the show has what would be acceptable ratings for a 2nd year sitcom it’s failure to approach the previous rating will be the story and that failure is going to reflect large on ABC
It’s a loss because it’s also a revenue loss as it won’t command anywhere near the advertising revenue as the first one did, plus it’s possible that said advertisers might be marked by pro-trump consumers as companies to be avoided.
It’s a loss for the cast and the production as well because they will be associated with failure rather than success, particularly since it’s the absence of one particular cast member that is the only difference t, but it’s still a payday which despite all the piety thrown around, is what this business is all about
While it’s slightly possible that ABC will decide that the new “woke” Roseanneless Roseanne (Hey they can always bring in Ted McGinley if he’s free to fill her role somehow) is drawing enough to renew it for a 3rd season and I’m sure the MSM will push that to prove that it never needed pro-trump viewers to make it but I think it’s more likely that once those bills are paid it will be allowed to die a well deserved death.
One of the things about the MSM is they have professional editors with years of experience in the News Business. Because of this we are often told that this gives them the edge in promoting newsworthy stories that the public needs to know.
Now I’ll concede that I’m just a poor blogger with a few brilliant writes posting at our site and that our annual tip jar hits don’t’ compare with the expense account of a MSM reporter that sets the news agenda, but it seems to me this story just might be a tad more newsworthy than the attention it is being given:
ISIS Fighters, Having Pledged to Fight or Die, Surrender en Masse
That’s the headline at the NY Times (this and Weinstein this week? Amazing!) and the body of the story is even more encouraging:
More than a thousand Islamic State fighters passed through that room this past week after they fled their crumbling Iraqi stronghold of Hawija. Instead of the martyrdom they had boasted was their only acceptable fate, they had voluntarily ended up here in the interrogation center of the Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq.
For an extremist group that has made its reputation on its ferociousness, with fighters who would always choose suicide over surrender, the fall of Hawija has been a notable turning point. The group has suffered a string of humiliating defeats in Iraq and Syria, but the number of its shock troops who turned themselves in to Kurdish officials at the center in Dibis was unusually large, more than 1,000 since last Sunday.
Given the threat of ISIS and the spectacular attacks they had achieved in the past you would think this story would be leading everywhere, particularly since the source is the New York Times from which all other media tends to take a lead.
Let’s take a peek and see.
Here are the top stories at CNN.com as of 12:02 PM sunday when I am writing this
Trump trashes outgoing Republican Sen. Bob Corker Sen. Murphy: ‘Willing to move forward’ with GOP on bump stock ban Tapper to GOP senator: Will you vote against NRA? Zelizer: Tillerson should quit now Russian police arrest hundreds in protests on Putin’s birthday Charlottesville mayor slams white supremacists after another torch rally is held Senator: Renegotiatiing Iran nuclear deal is a ‘fantasy’ Analysis: Supreme Court rookie takes on the chief Spain’s PM considers dramatic measure for Catalonia Marijuana is going mainstream
In fact there is no mention of ISIS at all on cnn’s home page
Hmm you would have thought CNN would have covered this. How about NBC Here is the latest news there:
GOP Sen. Calls White House ‘an Adult Day Care Center’ After Trump Attack Dove on Clean-Up Duty After Racially Insensitive Ad Why Geography Stops Gun Control White Nationalist Richard Spencer Leads Torch-Carrying Crowd in Charlottesville Sanctuary Cities: Three States, Three Very Different Approaches Jason Aldean Pays Tribute to Las Vegas Victims, Sings Tom Petty Song on ‘SNL’ TV Deadly Ambush in Niger Highlights America’s Growing Mission in Africa
How about ABC? What makes their newsworthy list? at 12:15 PM on Sunday(which gives you an idea of how long this post takes)
Resignations, fallout grow for embattled producer Weinstein 4th US soldier killed in Niger ambush identified London crash that injured 11 was accident: Police Hundreds of thousands rally against Catalonia secession Kim’s murder trial to resume with lab visit Rapper Nelly arrested for alleged rape 3 arrested during protest at Virginia University Attack on Saudi palace in Jiddah kills 2 guards Trump administration rolls back birth control mandate Thousands demand Spanish-Catalan negotiations
Is there a mention of the story anywhere, let’s look at the search:
One story and that’s about migrant in Libya. Nothing about ISIS fighters surrendering there.
Well how about CBS surely they will find the NYT Isis story worth covering
NRA leader weighs in on bump stocks, tells ATF to “do its job” More than 100,000 are without power as storm surge pushes over beachfront highway and floods streets Details revealed about Las Vegas shooter’s note “First Ex” Ivana Trump on parenting and the president’s tweets How Facebook ads helped elect Trump Trump says Bob Corker “begged” for endorsement — and senator fires back
Finally let’s try NPR. They’re publicly funded so naturally they’re going to be right on top of news that matters there aren’t they?there:
Biloxi Faces Flooding As Nate Makes Second Landfall On Gulf Coast Pence In Las Vegas: ‘We Are United In Our Resolve To End Such Evil’ Lawyer Lisa Bloom Resigns as Harvey Weinstein Adviser Russia Investigations In Congressional Cliffhanger, Trump Jr. May Revisit The Hill
Come on! Isn’t there even a mention of the ISIS on the page?
So the question remains, Why isn’t the “Isis fighters surrender en masse” story the lead everywhere, or at least listed in the top stories anywhere in the MSM? The best answer comes from a fellow named Dodd
The MSM narrative is Trump is bad, Trump is childish and Trump is an incompetent failure and ISIS cutting and running 9 months after he vowed to destroy them just doesn’t serve advancing that message. I’l leave you with one last image Memeorandum at 12:45 PM Sunday Oct 8th the moment I finished this post.
As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.
If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.
Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer
Third-Quarter 2014 Primetime Averages
FNC: 1,797,000 viewers, up 12 percent (313,000 adults 25-54, up 12 percent)
CNN: 555,000 viewers, up 2 percent (186,000 adults 25-54, up 4 percent)
MSNBC: 557,000 viewers, down 2 percent (150 adults 25-54, down 21 percent)
HLN: 352,000 viewers, down 4 percent (120 adults 25-54, down 12 percent)
Yes FNC is outdrawing them all combined and yes we can joke about Shark Tank re-runs beating MSNBC but let me throw a dose of reality at you. Those FOX numbers mean nothing as long as these broadcast news numbers remain true:
You will note that Fox total views barely beats the 3rd place CBS number for 18/54 year olds. Furthermore If we combine the totals of these 25,821,000 & 6,089,000 in the 18-54 demo for the seven networks in question here is what we get for numbers by comparison
NBC 31.6% 29.7%
ABC 31.1% 32.9%
CBS 24.5% / 24.7%
FOX 7.0% /5.1%
CNN 2.1% / 3.0%
MSNBC 2.1% / 2.5%
HLN 1.3% / 1.9%
So for all their power in cable Fox news reaches a whopping 7% of news viewers and not even Megan Kelly beauty has gotten them above 5.1% among 18/54 year olds.
Furthermore when you remember that the 25.8 million number represents only 10.7% of the voting age population and and 18.4% of the number of people who actually voted the impact of Fox (and to some degree the networks) is really understood.
Now to the left, being totalitarian in nature, even this modest bit of the electorate getting an opinion differing from their message is dangerous which is why FOX remains a target, but lets not kid ourselves. As long as we are crowing about FOX News vs CNN/MSNBC/HLN we are like the toughest player on the JV football team talking smack.
Until we break into those newsrooms thing swill not change and frankly until we break into the greater culture where the 89.3% of voting age people who don’t watch news go even that move will be wasted.
Conservatives pride themselves on seeing things as they are as opposed to the utopian left. Let’s start acting like it.
If you think this site and the writers who write here are worth your support please consider kicking in so we can reach our final goal for the year
Update: Hotair gloats over Media Matters failure but as long as Fox is only reaching 7% of news consumers and under 1% of the electorate they are winning.
I regret to say it has reached the point in our society that people figure a moment of mass murder is an excellent chance to score political points. As our friends have decided to do this left me answer them briefly:
On Brian Ross and ABC news who breathlessly blamed the Tea Party for these murders:
I submit and suggest that if the killer James Holmes had been a convert to Islam and told the police “God is great” rather than “I’m the Joker” Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos would have been telling people on Good Morning America not to be jumping to conclusions or tarring an entire religion for one man’s actions.
I submit the following passage from Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle’s excellent book Escape From Hell
“And that one?” I pointed to a man up to his chin in boiling blood. He was screaming in agony so his face was distorted, but he looked Oriental.
“New one,” Billy said. “Seung, something like that. Went out and shot a bunch of people in the college he was at. Allen, it puzzles me that a man can shoot thirty-two full-grown men and women before the sheriff’s men gun him down. You’re more his time, maybe you can tell me. Why didn’t someone just shoot the son of a bitch?”
I scratched my head. Billy’s viewpoint seemed skewed, alien.
“Five of ‘em where teachers,” Billy said. “They had to protect their kids. How could they now be armed? It’s as if someone has been taking away their guns.”
You really should buy that book , but you might want to pick up the first volume in the series Inferno first.
Might I suggest that it takes very little effort or discretion to show self-restraint
And this in a nutshell is the Modern left/Democrats, not much difference than the old Richard Russell Democrats where intimidation of a Black political activist and his family to keep him quiet was not only how things were done, but was not something the media talked about.
It also shows why, with respect to my friend Ace, his idea is for a day of silence is horrible!
The goal of the left is to silence us, to keep our voices to break through the media silence on issue after issue. It has been our success at this that has driven them to try to silence us.
So in order to protest the attempt to keep our voices silent, we are going to…do what they want?
Remember this is the same MSM that ignores the largest march in DC every year, it will be no trouble for them to pretend bloggers who challenge their narrative don’t exist. For them that’s the good old days.
I think an even better plan idea would be 100 bloggers calling each of these media outlets, and then perhaps more local papers to see if they are going to cover it, I think calling the NAACP the congressional black caucus and seeking comment would be more effective. I think a headline at Memeorandum that says…
“NAACP silent on attempt to intimidate black political activist through family”
…just might draw a few eyeballs, then perhaps we can contact the British Press and see if THEY will cover it.
Maryland courts have been incredibly lenient with the Kimberlin/Rauhauser axis, but Ali assures me that Texas won’t take too kindly to the purposeful harassment of one of its law-abiding citizens. Ali’s mother has harmed no one, and whoever thought up this sick stunt might find themselves prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law — Texas law.
For some reason his post reminds me of this scene from Casablanca:
Update 2: I can’t stress this enough: All of these tactics are not signs of the strength of the left, it’s a sign of their weakness and desperation These are not things you do when you are winning. That means any counter to them should include this simple piece of advice:
I hit the sack shortly after yesterday’s debate and made it a point to not look at any analysis as to what anyone said other than the quick few moments at the end of the debate the ABC did in the spin room. I’m writing this in the morning because it is what you take from it the next day that is the real test of how a debate went.
Let’s go right down the line:
Rick Santorum: Santorum had some strong moments in the debate, he effectively portrayed himself as the “consistent” conservative” which is important, and I loved the unwillingness to quantify a jobs was excellent. His exchange with Bachmann was also important since they are pretty the closest.
He had two weak moments. One when asked on the Gingrich/Romney exchange concerning Israel he split the difference pointing in an homage to truth and tact the contrast with Reagan’s situation was credible but even though it was a fair point it was a bad visual.
Secondly was the question concerning faithfulness. This was a bit of a trap and I think he fell into it, Perry had to go there he didn’t but there really wasn’t a good answer.
Santorum showed he belonged on the stage but didn’t make a significant move to a national audience. B.
Rick Perry: I think Perry had a decent debate. Part of that is due to the low expectation of his previous performances, but there was very little pressure on his comparatively speaking. He did a fair job highlighting Texas and the “Romney Bet” moment assured him that he would get some post-debate conversation. I think the entire, “if you will betray your wife you will betray your business partner bit, made his point (although frankly you are dealing with two different appetites) If he was looking for a break out moment to get back in the top-tier, this wasn’t it. C+
Newt Gingrich: Debates are always the strongest place for Newt and even through he had a target on his back he thrived. He parried every attack, he stood strong on the Palestinian issue in a way that many pro-Israel people like myself could only dream of, and he read my mind when a few seconds after I tweeted: He should follow up with the “Evil Empire” line from Reagan and he did, his answer concerning the infidelity question was exactly right.
All the take away from this debate for him are positive, he couldn’t have had a better debate if he tried. A
Mitt Romney: He had memorable exchanges with both Rick Perry and Newt and his answer to the “How poor are you” question was really good. I was surprised how much people seemed to make of the $10,000 bet business. I thought it was a throw away line myself and a pretty good counter but people see to be taking it wrong. His hit on Gingrich vis-a-vis the Palestinians was fair but it was reactive. He also seemed odd to watch him make a 10th amendment case.
You need to be remembered after debates but Mitt needed to slow down Newt and he just couldn’t do it. B-
Ron Paul: This was one of Ron Paul’s best debates. He was crisp, he was strong and he looked every bit the statesman. He played off his record and when he countered on Israel he came across better than he actually is. I’ve written recently that Paul is a serious candidate this time, and the most important thing he needs to do is to appear as a serious and credible alternative. He did that and was the clear runner up in this debate A-
Michelle Bachmann: Her best debate since St. Anselm. She was crisp and strong, her “Newt-Ronney” line was memorable and I think she actually managed the most subtle hit on Newt that nobody noticed. When she talked about how divorce had really been painful as a child. She may not have been swinging at Gingrich’s infidelity there but it was the most profound illustration of the cost. Her bringing up Herman Cain and 9-9-9 multiple times was a bit obvious and overdone, you do it once to make the point, twice was more “please please come to me”. B+
ABC: I was actually surprised at how well they did. Again I had how expectations and ABC beat the game, Dianne Sawyer’s attempt to manage the debate seemed weak but by letting people at each other they provided both good television and informative debate. I didn’t like cutting 10 min from the debate at the end for the spin room but it was pretty good B+
Bottom line, Newt clearly won this debate on substance and style. Of the others at the debate Paul and Bachmann did the most to achieve their objectives. Santorum was steady, Mitt and Perry kept themselves in the conversation but not in ways that will achieve their objectives.
I think if the other campaigns are hoping to knock Gingrich off the top, debates aren’t going to do it. It’s going to take a Politico/Cain type operation or a gaffe of major proportions to do it.
Kirk: Mr. Spock, have you accounted for the variable mass of whales and water in your time re-entry program?
Spock: Mr. Scott cannot give me exact figures, Admiral, so… I will make a guess.
Kirk: A guess? You, Spock? That’s extraordinary.
Spock: [to Dr. McCoy] I don’t think he understands.
McCoy: No, Spock. He means that he feels safer about your guesses than most other people’s facts.
I think I’ll take Stephen Green drunk over Jennifer Rubin sober.
I honestly don’t see any point in trying to sugar-coat this: why are we letting the enemy moderate our debates? If the big networks aren’t willing to hire any non-liberal-Democrats full-time, they should at least have access to some who are willing to moderate GOP debates on a contract basis.
Most of the questions Stephanopoulos and Sawyer came up with tonight were clearly designed to do one of two things:
1) Throw out more heat than light, and set the candidates to squabbling over non-issues, while making sure there is as much bad blood on the stage as possible; and
2) Put each potential candidate in a position such that he/she had to either throw out red meat to the base (which can be used in attack ads next year in the general election, to turn independents against whoever the candidate is), or stand there holding their dicks/boobies looking stupid.
We certainly didn’t see a question about Eric Holder, Fast and Furious or the Climate Gate e-mails
Update 5: Joy spots a misplaced blockquote, corrected.
This confuses me. Back in Oct and Dec. we posted on the Wikileaks memos (you remember the wikileaks memos? You know the leaks that the left is so supportive of. The leaks that got Mr. Assange a nomination for a Nobel peace prize?) the left was all over the leaks and have even defended the leaker from the military.
Strangely enough that same media and left decided that some of those leaks are more worthy of notice than others. And one of the most unworthy leaks for the MSM are the leaks concerning WMD.
Don’t expect any apologies from the rest of the world or even any acknowledgment that they were wrong. The narrative is set and nothing will change it.
ABC’s Diane Sawyer’s interview proves Rick right. Willie Geist’s lead in confirms it, Morning Joe is on Egypt right now but as there is a 2 hour delay today for my kid’s school and I’ll be getting ready for my flight to CPAC tomorrow I’ll be available to watch the rest of the show to see if they touch it too.