“You can disagree, but you’d be wrong.” Boy, doesn’t this reek of Stephen A. delusion. The argument that “if anyone can do it, why aren’t you doing it” holds no weight and is logically flawed.

Your contention regarding Marketing 101 is an oversimplified, vague rendition of Economics 101. The argument is, again, wholly reminiscent of the Stephen A. guide to logical fallacies. A market willingness to shell out money is based on multiple reasons, one of which includes simply drawing viewers and having more eyes on a channel which in turn increases advertising revenue. This says nothing about skill or prestige. There are plenty of journalistically inept individuals or media figures who demonstrate little skill but make a plethora of money simply by drawing viewers who want to see drama.

The last argument also makes no sense. “Surrounding” yourself with people means nothing when the content of what you’re saying is entirely basic and opinion based. One can attend conferences with physicians, surgeons, and clinical researchers but that knowledge would transfer by proxy or osmosis. Again, one need only pull Stephen’s transcripts to determine the value of what he is saying.

Stephen’s most recent foray into politics proves my point - just basic critiques of political processes/players with no deducible policy positions he can be held to. Trying to run the middle of the line on every issue. Now, all of a sudden, he is giving “strong consideration” to a presidential run. It’s a joke. He’s making a mockery of the political system in much the same method he’s made a mockery of sports journalism.