Reply With Quote
Anytime you want to do something about it speak up and we'll go. I've takin' all the guff from you that I'm takin'. We're a snake & mongoose here on in.
Yeah, I saw that. Wtf?
Anytime you want to do something about it speak up and we'll go. I've takin' all the guff from you that I'm takin'. We're a snake & mongoose here on in.
Nobody leads Cubby around by the in' nose. Nice square ing number is hammered up our asses for decades. I see the symbolism, where's the substance? And I ain't talkin' about that pic of Hitler dancin' around likes he's doing the jig.
Protests Are Winning As Desperate Trump Issues Statement Blaming Obama For His Muslim Ban
The protests against Trump's Muslim ban are having an impact on the White House as the President has released a statement defending his executive order.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/01/...iticus+USA+%29
As Flip Wilson would say, "da black debbil made me doit"
Trump lashes out at ‘sadly weak’ McCain and Graham because they criticized his immigration order
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/trum...e+Raw+Story%29
and McConnell says "We don't have religious test for immigrants"
Senate conviction looking better, it won't take long
NYTimes went paywalled a while ago. I don't know how WaPo operates, but they're owned by Amazon now, right?Well, it depends on how you define the consumers getting what they want. To me, that varies based on what you expect going into a certain outlet. If I'm reading Breitbart or Salon, I expect a blatant partisan slant going in. Chances are, I'm reading it because I want to know how one side or the other feels about current events. But with a legacy outlet like the New York Times or WaPo, I expect hard news and a level of professionalism that lives up to their lofty reputations. I don't want a one-sided narrative shoved down my throat at all times. I don't want reporters colluding with a certain party. I don't want to have to read partisan blogs to know what's going on in the world because the legacy media ignores or lies about stories that are inconvenient to a certain party. I'd imagine many people feel the same way.
If the media's approval ratings are any indication, the only people who are getting what they want from the media right now are partisan Democrats:
I mean, ultimately it became increasingly obvious that money trumped journalistic integrity. At some point the newscasters, instead of the news, became the stars of the shows. That's terrible if you ask me. It's a world of political pundits doing 24/7 op'eds right now. But, it must sell. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
How many Jews did Hitler kill?
Well, it depends on how you define the consumers getting what they want. To me, that varies based on what you expect going into a certain outlet. If I'm reading Breitbart or Salon, I expect a blatant partisan slant going in. Chances are, I'm reading it because I want to know how one side or the other feels about current events. But with a legacy outlet like the New York Times or WaPo, I expect hard news and a level of professionalism that lives up to their lofty reputations. I don't want a one-sided narrative shoved down my throat at all times. I don't want reporters colluding with a certain party. I don't want to have to read partisan blogs to know what's going on in the world because the legacy media ignores or lies about stories that are inconvenient to a certain party. I'd imagine many people feel the same way.
If the media's approval ratings are any indication, the only people who are getting what they want from the media right now are partisan Democrats:
relying on polls
Less than 6 million.
I agree, but the change is that consumers see a product that's just as trustworthy yet more entertaining coming from blogosphere than MSM. It's because many have fallen off the trail due to the slant from either side.
Go look at CNN.. all Trump bashing with maybe a dissenting piece for sake of "fairness". Go to Fox news, just the opposite. It's all Trump praising except the one piece from a "liberal". If someone is telling you the weather is sunny and another is saying it's stormy, you might as well just disregard the weather reports and dress how it suits you.
Click count is more important. Since money started flowing for clicks, everything went to . MSM now is just the modern day ".99" gimmick that stores use to fool the mind into not seeing the actual price "hey it's below 20.00! 19.99!" It's done with almost all retail pricing. Now it's the clickbait les "You won't believe what happens next!" and "ARE MOBILE PHONES NEXT?" in >70 font size, flashing red banner above it with another headline that's also not really newsworthy.. but look at how large the font is! It must be important if it takes the entire page!It's all within a context of rapidly changing technology too. A lot of traditional media had to make strong changes because they were a dying breed. It's clear sensationalism and catering to certain demographics is much more important than journalistic integrity.
That shouldn't be the question. The news shouldn't be consumer driven insofar as what they report. What if the weather was like that?But the question ultimately is, are consumers getting what they want? In this polarized point in time, apparently they are.
Philo getting his passive aggressive/neutral stance on; lobbing attacks from the safety of neutrality.
Careful Philo, you might appear to pick a lane!
5,999,999 Jews?
Thread flailing, so sad
This is twixt bum & I, Heath. Get out of it.
Not sure what that means, o but I ain't heath and you're twisting in the wind on the tree of woe.
That means the barn in on fire and mother wants you to get up offin' Audra & tend it.
Ok avante
I'm honored to be likened to A.
I completely agree. There's a dichotomy here where the consumer is really the loser, but at the same time, the consumer also actively seeks the CNNs and FOXes of the world.
I read not that long ago a somewhat provoking analysis that the reason there's a free/ad model for news is basically because they're subsidized by being the direct conduits for certain corporations/interests. And it's an analysis that makes a lot of sense to me in retrospect.
Like I said before, the actual news should be the star, not the newscasters or the medium they come through. It's unfortunate that what appears in high demand right now is more op-eds than actual news. It's like a good portion of consumers want somebody else to think for them, I don't really get it.
Sounds like you're describing ESPN
The problem is the profit motive doesn't work when you're peddling real news.
The Pusher
ESPN followed the model. It's clear that's what keeps them afloat.
Cable news with Fox and CNN is a more recent phenomenon. They pioneered the celeb talking head particularly Fox. The main issue has been Fox and then the alt-right's steady propaganda about MSM and to only trust them. Combine that with Ailes and now Bannon being in key posts of the GOP and it is what it is.
When it boils down to it, while there are quite a few celeb talking head venues, not all of them are like that particularly when it comes to the written press. Then of course when you study the veracity of their reporting it ends up being the GOP outlets that are the least adherent to the truth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
