ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, August 05, 2017

The outdated Fake News model

The mainstream media model was always fraudulent, and is now an artifact of a bygone era:
Wealthy traders and merchants underwrote the first news in the Americas, and it was all route intel. In the colonial period political parties footed the bill for most papers—party organs that were far more partisan and acrimonious than what we cry foul at today. It wasn’t until the penny-press era—the 1830s on—that a new funding model developed: scale up the circulation, then sell readers’ attention to advertisers. That advertising revenue could bring the cost of the paper down to something many could afford.

Writing to a mass audience, publishers began to recognize there was a market for real, honest news that could cross political divides and speak with a relatively neutral voice. This paved the way for professional journalism standards. And for most of the 20th century, it made newsrooms the information power brokers.

Then the internet smashed the model.

“For the last decade, we have seen a steady erosion of the advertising economy for newspapers,” says Campbell. That’s the nice way of saying it. Revenue streams have been gutted.

Department stores and auto malls, the go-to advertisers, cut back on ads, facing their own disruptions: e-commerce competition and recession. Craigslist happened to the classifieds. And reader eyeballs, once concentrated among a few media outlets, are now diverted to Facebook, YouTube, and that thing you just Googled—and the bulk of advertising has followed them.

As they say in the industry, the digital transition traded print dollars for digital dimes and, in turn, digital dimes for mobile pennies.

One thing is certain: it’s a fascinating time to study the news. Alum Seth C. Lewis (BA ’02) holds the Shirley Papé Chair in Emerging Media at the University of Oregon and is a leading scholar on the digital transformation of journalism.

“We’ve gone from media monopoly to media disruption and ubiquity,” says Lewis. And in ubiquity, no one gets a sizable piece of the economic pie.

Lewis suggests that maybe the last century of advertising-based news subsidy—which fostered these objective, non-partisan notions—“was just a happy accident. Maybe instead we’re returning to other forms of funding and thinking about the news.”
Now, instead of feigned objectivity provided by a limited number of tightly controlled sources paid for by advertisers with a surreptitious influence over what is, and is not reported, we're returning to the openly subjective model, which is to be preferred because it is more honest and accountable.

Labels:

134 Comments:

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey August 05, 2017 8:29 AM  

"...we're returning to the openly subjective model, which is to be preferred because it is more honest and accountable."

Yes. The pretense of objectivity is far worse than multiple, frankly subjective versions openly competing.

Blogger The Z Blog August 05, 2017 8:43 AM  

While I would agree with the larger points made in the linked article, the truth is the economic argument does not quite hold up. Newspapers started failing in the 1970's. That was long before the internet and well into the era of TV news.

Of course, cable news is running into trouble today, despite having the right to tax cable homes, regardless of who is watching. If CNN had to exist on ads and voluntary subscribers, it would go bankrupt in weeks. Not enough people watch to make it a viable business, but that buck per month per cable home keeps them afloat.

Regardless, the fake news era in on us. Only Boomers and fools take the news at face value now.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer August 05, 2017 8:45 AM  

The comment section is a tool for that accountability. It helps avoid confirmation bias if there is honest debate instead of trolling.

Lack of comment section is why I don't take CNN, Popular Science, or USA Today seriously.

Anonymous Mr. Media August 05, 2017 8:50 AM  

"we're returning to the openly subjective model, which is to be preferred because it is more honest and accountable."

But less substantial, less comprehensive, and less able.

It is a trade off.

"a limited number of tightly controlled sources paid for by advertisers with a surreptitious influence over what is, and is not reported."

People like to claim this all the time. But they never have any proof that it regularly happens. And when it does happen, it rarely matters because we are talking about stories about clothing lines, winemakers and TV shows.

Anonymous grayman August 05, 2017 9:02 AM  

Mr media

Thats the equivalent of the old,"BTAALT". I guess you're part of operation paperclip????

Anonymous Rocklea August 05, 2017 9:04 AM  

News has transformed from kinetic energy to potential energy. This is why many outlets have now switched off their comments. Comments are perspective filters that redirect the kinetic to potential and those potentials will in turn be realised, creating their own movement. But switching the comments off does not mean you maintain momentum, you've really just put on the hand brake.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. August 05, 2017 9:06 AM  

OT: George Washington was a cad who desperately wanted to bang Fairfax's wife, married Sally for her money, was an self-embellisher at best and a liar at worst; and, only won the battles he did because of his po dunk knowledge of faming.

And Hannibal was black.

Blogger Cataline Sergius August 05, 2017 9:07 AM  

Even when they were trying to be impartial, they really couldn't manage it.











People like to claim this all the time. But they never have any proof that it regularly happens. And when it does happen, it rarely matters because we are talking about stories about clothing lines, winemakers and TV shows.

And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's IT guy.













Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 9:07 AM  

Walter Duranty is my model of "neutral objectivity" from the last century.

The NYT's own personal apologist for Joseph Stalin.

Objectivity is the mask donned by professional liars & propagandists.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. August 05, 2017 9:10 AM  

*farming

Anonymous Laz August 05, 2017 9:12 AM  

"But less substantial, less comprehensive, and less able."

That's an unsubstantiated claim. Read the rules of the blog.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 9:13 AM  

Funny how leftists (post-modernists all) claim that only identity creates reality, and each identity's reality is different from each other's, but there's one objective model for ABCNNBCBS et.al.

Which is it, Mr. Media?

One ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

Blogger dvdivx August 05, 2017 9:15 AM  

I don't think it is an outdated model. Problem with news outlets is the get infested with SJWs over time irregardless of if they are tv or internet based. Slashdot used to be more politically neutral and libertarian. Years ago they got infested with SJWs and now is unreadable on anything regarding politics and untrustworthy on everything else. It's like being in a lake with brain eating amoeba. Eventually the outlet gets infected and dies a hideous death as it's brains get eaten. So even new news outlets get taken over and destroyed from the inside attacking any intelligent debate and dissent.

Blogger Cataline Sergius August 05, 2017 9:18 AM  

I think Mr Media is a paid commenter.

His feels like rolodex boilerplate. Insert where vaguely appropriate.

Blogger Cataline Sergius August 05, 2017 9:27 AM  

@13 Hell, I remember when Wired was Libertarian magazine.

Then again, I remember when Reason was a Libertarian magazine.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 9:29 AM  

Everyone knows that ten people watching the exact same event see it differently.

Picking one of those perspectives as "official" always comes with bias.

Today's Fake News is a direct result of the deafening amplification of cultural Marxism, where only the most zealous cultists were employable in media.

The "objectivity" of the Cronkite/Duranty era is itself Fake News.

Anonymous Looking Glass August 05, 2017 9:31 AM  

The article is a little glib about what the Newspaper has been since the 1850s or so: it's the mouth-piece of a Rich Man. However, he normally left his less competent son to run the place. (Newspapers were hard to screw up for about 150 years.)

They've always been propaganda outlets, they just got less blatant about it, as it used to sell more papers when you didn't. William Randolph Hearst died in 1951. It's not like the papers have gotten "better" since then.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 05, 2017 9:37 AM  

I don't think it is an outdated model.

The whole model -- ad-supported mass media -- is outdated. I was saying the same thing the other day about ad-supported free content online. People keep getting more ad-blind (or outright blocking them), the return on ad dollars keeps dropping, sites squeeze in more ads to compensate, users get more ad-blind. It's been spiraling downward since the first banner ads were created.

The same sort of thing has happened with traditional mass media. VCRs and DVRs made it increasingly easy to skip TV ads, and an increased number of channels made it harder to reliably target the mass audience. MP3 players did the same for music listening versus radio. So many people have dropped the newspaper that a free weekly sample paper has started showing up in my mailbox every week as a way to try to entice readers back.

Unless you're buying Super Bowl ads, they can't promise you that big captive audience of a full cross-section of Americans like they used to. The ad bubble hasn't popped yet like it should because sellers haven't really come up with an alternative yet, but they will.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 05, 2017 9:39 AM  

I think Mr Media is a paid commenter.

Someone who ham-fistedly defends the media while calling himself Mr. Media is either trying to do Elfwickian satire and failing, or the laziest troll in the world. What he is not is someone trying to make a point and have a discussion.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan August 05, 2017 9:40 AM  

No comments, no lookee

Blogger VD August 05, 2017 9:44 AM  

I don't think it is an outdated model.

Then you're not paying attention. At all.

Blogger Salt August 05, 2017 9:49 AM  

It's interesting the rise of the Internet and alt-news reporting coincides with social convergence. CNN is going down the tubes while Fox is so far holding its audience. NYT and WaPo did it to themselves. #Fakenews.

Blogger James Dixon August 05, 2017 9:53 AM  

> But they never have any proof that it regularly happens.

And what kind of proof would you accept, exactly?

Blogger James Dixon August 05, 2017 9:56 AM  

> The whole model -- ad-supported mass media -- is outdated.

Part of the problem is that there really isn't a "mass media" anymore. The marketplace has gotten too fragmented.

The second part is that Gen-Xer's and later seem to have far different reactions to advertising than the boomers and their parents did. I'm not sure that something the advertising industry is even capable of taking into account.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan August 05, 2017 9:57 AM  

The Left is a woman with a mind of a 13 year old girl trapped in a post wall body. Most of the legacy media and much of the new click bait media is captured by that demographic, and there is nothing going to save it.

The white knighter leftard shemales are not going to save it, the Soros oligarch types are captured in that web of teen girl envy and spite and the absolute worst the conservative cucks cannot legitimize it fast enough before that girlish spite turns on them to keep them outgrouped.

Blogger James Dixon August 05, 2017 9:58 AM  

> Part of the problem is that there really isn't a "mass media" anymore. The marketplace has gotten too fragmented.

Which I see you emphasized later in your post. Always finish reading the post before commenting...

Anonymous Uncle John's Band August 05, 2017 10:02 AM  

@16

"The "objectivity" of the Cronkite/Duranty era is itself Fake News."

The media has spent a long time building and pushing myths like objectivity and the courageous crusading journalist. Nice to see it starting to crack. Spotlight was cringeworthy.

It would be interesting to know who gets let go when media outlets downsize. It's fitting that failing economics just strengthen the echo chamber and speed the decline.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab August 05, 2017 10:06 AM  

Wasserman's IT guy is calling you. Whoops, he just skipped the country with half a mil inn cash and stolen hard drives. You legacy guys better get on that. Or not.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab August 05, 2017 10:10 AM  

The Potemkin Daily News is looking for one reporter to pose as half a dozen.

Anonymous Bomb Thrower August 05, 2017 10:11 AM  

@2:
Only Boomers and fools take the news at face value now.

Why did you include Boomers in this statement?

Boomers have their failings, but being more gullible than most about the nature of the media is not one of them.

If anything, Boomers are far less likely to take the news at "face value," simply because they have had decades of exposure to media deception, media bias, and fake news.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab August 05, 2017 10:13 AM  

I've never once clicked on an ad deliberately. I never use them as reference either. I imagine most ads simply lose moneythat could be better spent else where.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 10:14 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. August 05, 2017 10:19 AM  

Boomers are the overwhelming consumers of tv news

And constitute the overwhelming majority of newspaper subscribers, both print and online.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 10:19 AM  

If anything, Boomers are far less likely to take the news at "face value," simply because they have had decades of exposure to media deception, media bias, and fake news.


Boomers watch over 51 hrs of tv a week, and they're the only age group whose tv watching has increased over the last five years.

Blogger Ransom Smith August 05, 2017 10:19 AM  

You could make the argument for the local paper more so than a national one.

The Anytown Gazette does supply some information like zoning information, high school sports, new planned laws and ordinances, etc.

Local papers will still be viable.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:21 AM  


Then again, I remember when Reason was a Libertarian magazine.


I still have back-issues in my basement from Reason's legacy libertarian era, pre-1995?

Soon to be collector's items, perhaps? (Chuckle)

Easy times, creating disrespect for the hardships endured by our predecessors to create ease, bring out the self-aggrandizing sophists (like Nick Gillespie & Cathy (((Young.))))

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:23 AM  

The "outdated model" for advertising I hope to see destroyed soon is the FB, Google and all other eyeball & click-based one.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 10:24 AM  


Local papers will still be viable.


Local papers have seen worse declines than national ones

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:25 AM  

Boomers watch over 51 hrs of tv a week, and they're the only age group whose tv watching has increased over the last five years.

Increased due to expansion of cable's Hallmark Channel. At least it's G rated.

Anonymous Mr. Media August 05, 2017 10:28 AM  

Every mainstream media outlet eventually reported that President Trump blatantly lied to the American about his receiving a call from the head of the boy scouts praising him as having given the greatest speech ever to the Boy scouts.

The facts here are undisputed. The president lied about this. It didn't happen. There may be questions about why the president did this. It may have been a tactical lie meant to impact some domestic policy. It may have been a political lie to help change perception about his presidency or about him. You can't know the mind of a person.

A couple things are notable nonetheless. It is legitimate news story. It is a news story that has implications concerning the nature of the president. And it is a story that required investigation and that investigation happened by a mainstream media organization: Time.

There is at least one thing that could be concluded from all this: The legacy media, which commits more to its reporting function than any of the new, hyper partisan media on the left or the right.

The mainstream, legacy media with the means to invest in reporting will remain in place and be irreplaceable until any of he partisan media has the means to invest in real, substantial reporting.

Blogger Phillip George August 05, 2017 10:28 AM  

Vox,
sad to say but it isn't the media, reporters, and the lens ins't out of focus.

It's conditions on the ground. Right now the world lacks a few good men to report on..

Sodom suffered a decline in papers as well. And God fixed it.... cheers.

If the Overton Windows in your building are too narrow get outside the building and/or shoot the architect and rebuild.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:28 AM  

It's fitting that failing economics just strengthen the echo chamber and speed the decline.

It was a feedback loop on the way up.

It's a feedback loop on the way down.

This applies to EVERYTHING.

Anonymous Bomb Thrower August 05, 2017 10:30 AM  

@32, @33, @34

Irrelevant.

You're assuming that TV news and newspapers are more biased than, say, right-wing talk radio, left-wing HuffingtonPost.com, and this blog.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:32 AM  

There's no mainstream, muddy middle populace for the MSM to target.

The MSM only reports one side. Trump's actions are picked apart while Obama's were entirely ignored. Only a leftist partisan cannot see this.

Political triangulation is OVER. So is the Mass Market on which ad revenue depended.

Wake the F up.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:36 AM  

You're assuming that TV news and newspapers are more biased than, say, right-wing talk radio, left-wing HuffingtonPost.com, and this blog.

Prechter once wrote that in a Social Mood bear market groups of people would spontaneously form on opposite sides of the street to hurl invectives at each other.

This partisanship & in grouping bias has only just begun.

We're nowhere near its peak.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 10:37 AM  


Irrelevant.

You're assuming that TV news and newspapers are more biased than, say, right-wing talk radio, left-wing HuffingtonPost.com, and this blog.


No, I'm assuming that boomers are gullible idiots because they watch more tv than anyone else.

If boomers were as aware of media bias as you claimed, why do they watch so much tv?

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 10:37 AM  

Increased due to expansion of cable's Hallmark Channel. At least it's G rated.

I don't think this is true

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:38 AM  

Lots of people are going to find themselves defenestrated OUT the Overton Window.

Anonymous BBGKB August 05, 2017 10:38 AM  

And when it does happen, it rarely matters because we are talking about stories about clothing lines, winemakers and TV shows

Or local stories like blacks on the wine train http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547267/Black-women-s-book-club-win-11m-discrimination-lawsuit-against-train-company-kicked-Napa-wine-tour-laughing-loudly.html

OT:Idiot faggot tries to say alphas don't exist
CollegeHumor Attacks Alpha Males & Masculinity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YsLl5Wb_7g

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 10:39 AM  

Josh, given my superior data set (one boomer to your zero), it's true. (Grin)

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 10:41 AM  

I don't think it is an outdated model.

Then you're not paying attention. At all.


Given that the three main us papers (WSJ, NYT, WAPO) have changed their model to focus on growing digital subscription revenue, the old model is literally outdated.

Anonymous Bomb Thrower August 05, 2017 10:44 AM  

If boomers were as aware of media bias as you claimed, why do they watch so much tv?

Wow. This one is simple:

If Millenials and Gen-X'ers are more aware of media bias, as you suggest, why do they get their news primarily from the internet, which is equally as biased?

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 10:45 AM  

If Millenials and Gen-X'ers are more aware of media bias, as you suggest, why do they get their news primarily from the internet, which is equally as biased?

I never made that claim

Anonymous Rocklea August 05, 2017 10:47 AM  

"If Millenials and Gen-X'ers are more aware of media bias, as you suggest, why do they get their news primarily from the internet, which is equally as biased?"

What does equal mean?

Anonymous Taco Town August 05, 2017 10:50 AM  

The difference is the internet being transparent about its bias compared to old media's false pretense of objectivity.

Blogger tuberman August 05, 2017 10:56 AM  

46. Josh

"If boomers were as aware of media bias as you claimed, why do they watch so much tv?"

Here's the way it works. At least 7-8 Boomers I met for chess at McDonalds would be watching CNN, which was on constantly there. All of these, including the two Leftist Boomers would sneer and laugh at the content, and usually make disparaging remarks. Yet they would still obsessively keep watching. Habit?? Some level of awareness of the bias did not keep them for continuing to watch.

Blogger mark auld August 05, 2017 10:56 AM  

Yes,and they've shown us how important fighting to keep the internet is...if in fact the Fed's allow it to remain free and open.

Anonymous VFM #6306 August 05, 2017 11:03 AM  

This is why the Fake News has become so ridiculously fake now:

It is more entertaining this way. Thus, it theoretically sells more ads than the phony but objective-sounding Cronkite.

Years ago, both pro wrestling and its fans swore it was not scripted. Then, wrestling began creating obvious storylines, but swore that wrestling was real.

The "wrestling is fake" grew and wrestling adjusted until it realized that admitting all the backstage terminology (bumps, turning heel, etc.) actually increased its popularity and water cooler talk .

Pro wrestling had its "professional" stage, its cartoon era, its attitude era, and eventually promoted itself not as sport but as sport entertainment.

Fake News is News Entertainment: all the news, none of the feigned honesty.

Anonymous Rocklea August 05, 2017 11:05 AM  

"President Trump blatantly lied to the American about his receiving a call from the head of the boy scouts....

A couple things are notable nonetheless. It is legitimate news story. It is a news story that has implications concerning the nature of the president. And it is a story that required investigation and that investigation happened by a mainstream media organization: Time."

Ah yes, twas a terrible day, The Boy Scout Deception of 2017, scholars will study this through the ages..... oh the humanity, worse than Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Blogger SemiSpook37 August 05, 2017 11:07 AM  

My FIL is at the front of the Boomer line. Retired at 65, lives reasonably enough. Planning on having him move in with us as he's living in a high tax area, and owns his home outright.

Problem is he sits in front of that damned tube all day, taking in all the crap on both cable and local. Insists on repeating said crap ad nauseum, and unsolicited. Even the rest of the family, who has the same ideological bent (they grew up and stayed around D.C., after all) can't stand it. Then again, they all spend their time doing things other than watching TV.

Blogger NO GOOGLES August 05, 2017 11:11 AM  

The major networks have already happened upon a new model: Corporate propaganda outlet. Notice how basically all of these networks are owned by a handful of very large corporations that can easily absorb whatever losses the news generates?

In reality, even if an outlet costs $50 mil a year in losses, if it is still getting a lot of attention that is still a totally worthwhile investment... as long as the outlet is running your propaganda. It's especially relevant now that most major corporations have long given in to rent-seeking as one of their most profitable enterprises now: political propaganda supports their other businesses and eating the losses of a major news network can just come right out of the marketing budget.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 11:11 AM  

Problem is he sits in front of that damned tube all day, taking in all the crap on both cable and local. Insists on repeating said crap ad nauseum, and unsolicited.

Have similar relatives, can confirm.

Blogger tuberman August 05, 2017 11:19 AM  

58. VFM #6306

"This is why the Fake News has become so ridiculously fake now:

It is more entertaining this way. "


Ha! This is quite likely. Everyone knows it's lies, but narrative people are entertained by people blatantly lying for their side. And, Boomers, who don't necessary believe in the whole narrative are entertained by dissing the news they obsessively watch, while feeling superior.

Just do not watch I tell them, but entertainment sources are limited.

Blogger NO GOOGLES August 05, 2017 11:20 AM  

@40 The legacy media, which commits more to its reporting function than any of the new, hyper partisan media on the left or the right.

Wow, this just proves you know literally nothing about the legacy media. They've gutted their reporting bureaus and fired most of their reporters. 95% of their content is just AP/Reuters wire stories barely rewritten or "Reporters" who are basically writing stories about what they read on twitter.

There are basically no real investigative reporters left in the legacy media. The reporters that have done good work in the past are mostly working for new media or they are independent (Sharyl Atkisson, Tim Pool, etc).

The thing is that you seem to believe that the legacy media is less bias than the new media - that's wrong. The difference is HOW that bias is executed. The legacy media exhibits its bias in more subtle ways (at least it used to - now it's mostly just manufacturing stories wholesale) like gatekeeping, lying by omission, etc. New media wears its bias on its sleeve - it does not hide the fact it is bias. That is the difference between dishonesty (the legacy media exhibiting bias in "deniable" ways) and honesty. And that's why no one trusts the legacy media and why the new media is on the rise.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 05, 2017 11:24 AM  

@ mark auld, history rolled on before Al Gore invented the Internet. If the Internet becomes useless, history will continue to roll.

No one controls the tide. Any appearance to the contrary is but an illusion.

Blogger James August 05, 2017 11:28 AM  

Mr. Media wrote:Every mainstream media outlet eventually reported that President Trump blatantly lied to the American about his receiving a call from the head of the boy scouts praising him as having given the greatest speech ever to the Boy scouts.

The facts here are undisputed. The president lied about this. It didn't happen.....You can't know the mind of a person.

A couple things are notable nonetheless. It is legitimate news story. It is a news story that has implications concerning the nature of the president. And it is a story that required investigation and that investigation happened by a mainstream media organization...

There is at least one thing that could be concluded from all this: The legacy media, which commits more to its reporting function than any of the new, hyper partisan media on the left or the right.

The mainstream, legacy media with the means to invest in reporting will remain in place and be irreplaceable until any of he partisan media has the means to invest in real, substantial reporting.


What has amused me over the past few months is how "lying" has become important to the media, and by extension, you. Where was this concern of the media for "lying" when the Clinton Crime Family and the gay mulatto were spinning their own "lies"? There was none. The media is one tool used to enforce what the de facto owners of this country want the masses to focus on. To say that the media was ever an independent watch dog whose function was to speak Truth to Power is a fiction designed to change the appearance of journalists from political operatives into noble professionals whose standards are rooted in objectivity. Have you ever noticed the quality of student that goes into "journalism"? They are not the cream of the crop, intellectually, academically, or ethically. Probably no worse ethically than most college students, but once out in the real world their historic role model was the "hard drinking", hunt-and-peck typist little guy that stands up to those that try to take advantage of others. Unfortunately, their lack of objectivity is displayed when they ignore facts to focus on innuendo. Plus, they get more money, more publicity, and better promotions when they do what is demanded of them. Face it: media talking heads, whether of the print or video version, are just self-righteous narcs and gossip columnists. Those of the past that are remembered as proponents of the journalistic ethos merely brought down an opponent of someone else who was also violating the "rules". Pulitzer Prizes and Sunday talk shows were some of the sops the media whores were thrown.

Blogger tuberman August 05, 2017 11:30 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Bomb Thrower August 05, 2017 11:36 AM  

@53
I never made that claim

Yes, you did. You just made it implicitly, rather than explicitly.

If you claim that "A" is the most of something, then "Not A" by definition must be less than "A". Shall I draw you a Venn diagram?

"A" = Boomers. "Not A" = Everyone else, including Millennials and Gen-X'ers.

You're off your game today, Josh.

Blogger Quilp August 05, 2017 11:38 AM  

"Local papers will still be viable."
The last time I went looking for a local Sunday paper at my neighborhood gas station/convenience store, I was told they don't sell newspapers anymore. The look I got from the clerk made me think it had been a long time since they had. Since the grocery stores close here (Utah) on Sunday, I was SOL.

Blogger tuberman August 05, 2017 11:38 AM  

I have a Boomer sister, who remembers some channels the way they were 10 years ago, and she does not want to believe they are completely converged today. HGTV is a great example. My sister was into refurbishing and flipping houses. MY sister is over half red pilled, even likes VD, and this blog, but when I said to her that HGTV was completely a SJW channel (aren't they all?) these days, she said, "They are a little PC, but not totally converged." I answered, "They were a little PC long ago, and now they are 100% flakes."

This show was info and entertainment to her, and she still wants to believe it has not changed much.

Anonymous Bomb Thrower August 05, 2017 11:42 AM  

I have a Boomer sister who remembers some channels the way they were 10 years ago, and she does not want to believe they are completely converged today.

Anecdotal. I have a Millennial niece who believes everything she reads on Daily Mail and Buzzfeed.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 11:44 AM  

Yes, you did. You just made it implicitly, rather than explicitly.

I did not. Cite where I did or retract.

Blogger Ransom Smith August 05, 2017 11:53 AM  

The last time I went looking for a local Sunday paper at my neighborhood gas station/convenience store, I was told they don't sell newspapers anymore. The look I got from the clerk made me think it had been a long time since they had. Since the grocery stores close here (Utah) on Sunday, I was SOL.

I'll rephrase. I think some local newspapers will still be viable, and a lot of it has to do with where.

Here (VA), the more rural communities still have papers and I've never had any trouble finding one. But the bigger areas don't have them.

Farming counties are more likely due to limited internet access and such.

Anonymous I'm Not a Fascist. But My Sons Are. August 05, 2017 11:55 AM  

@43

Irrelevant.

You're assuming that TV news and newspapers are more biased than, say, right-wing talk radio, left-wing HuffingtonPost.com, and this blog.


Bias is bias but not necessarily fake for being bias. Therein lies the difference.

Or you could go full retard and claim there is no such thing as Truth. Which, of course, leads to the pickle we're in today.

Why even Alt-Right Boomers feel compelled to stand and mount a defense on behalf of their ridiculous generation is a fucking head-scratcher. A solid half of my generation (Gen X) is more Boomer than Boomer and I can't think of a single time I've ever seen or heard a Gen Xer reflexively spring-forward to mmmmmuhhh, yeah, but, whereas it is atypical for a Boomer of any stripe not to.

It's like you're all ready to eat each other's shit and it's mystifying to anyone outside of the Boomerverse.

Blogger modsquad August 05, 2017 11:55 AM  

"Writing to a mass audience, publishers began to recognize there was a market for real, honest news that could cross political divides and speak with a relatively neutral voice. This paved the way for professional journalism standards. And for most of the 20th century, it made newsrooms the information power brokers.

Then the internet smashed the model."


When mass media was soaking up most of the advertising dollars, they could afford to be honest and objective? Print news has been controlled propaganda since the day after Gutenberg invented the press. "Let us go back to controlling the bulk of the ad revenue stream and we can go back to not being #fakenews." That's their message.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab August 05, 2017 12:07 PM  

Used to love the days somebody would pin a troll with the rules of the blog and we'd all watch them squirm like a bug on a pin.

Good times. Waiting for bomb throwers answer.

Blogger tuberman August 05, 2017 12:13 PM  

Personally, I don't look at my posts as defending Boomers, but rather expressing disappointment in my generation that the ones that see part of the problem, cannot fully disconnect and face reality without any neurotic reactions.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine August 05, 2017 12:33 PM  

@74. Readiness to eat shit seems to be likely among those who believe they shit gold.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 05, 2017 12:34 PM  

This show was info and entertainment to her, and she still wants to believe it has not changed much.

People are that way with a lot of things: schools, churches, governments... They remember what they grew up with and project that onto the current versions, blurring over the changes until they're too extreme to ignore.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey August 05, 2017 12:35 PM  

@9 dc.sunsets
"Walter Duranty is my model of "neutral objectivity" from the last century.

The NYT's own personal apologist for Joseph Stalin."

And the Pulitzer Prize that he won for his work in covering up the Holodomor is still hanging on the wall at the NYT. They never disavowed. Tells you all you need to know about "objective journalism."

As a side note, the only two mainstream journalists to expose the reality of the Ukrainian genocide, and of "dekulakization" in general, were Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones. Both were blacklisted for their failure to stick to the "objective" party line, and Jones was murdered a year or so later by communist agents.

Anonymous Jeff August 05, 2017 12:44 PM  

@26 James Dixon - Always finish reading the post before commenting...

Always read the posts twice is my motto.

The Dark Lord is not only Supreme, but also subtle.

Blogger SouthRon August 05, 2017 12:51 PM  

Ditto here in rural NC. Some of the small country papers still survive without being a 2-page wrapper around the nearest city paper.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 05, 2017 12:52 PM  

Problem is he sits in front of that damned tube all day, taking in all the crap on both cable and local.

Yes. Even the TV-watching conservatives I know -- while they don't believe everything they see on it, they still take it all in. It's still their frame of reference, and they accept far more of it than they realize.

For instance: They don't think Trump is the devil, and they might have voted for him. But they assume he's a globalist because the TV keeps reminding them that he has international business interests. They tell me his canceling TPP was no big deal, because Hillary was against it too (they don't know she flip-flopped and no one paying attention believed her). They have no idea that jobs are increasing -- or how fast they were disappearing under Obama.

They're not leftists, so they'd be willing to believe the truth, but they're not getting it, and they don't even know that. They think they're getting the truth with some bias that they can filter out, but that doesn't work when many stories simply aren't told to them at all.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 05, 2017 12:59 PM  

Anyway, it's a lot more fun to absorb random procedural details and the names of government functionaries when you're indignant about something or other.

Want to teach blacks how to read? Get a bunch of white people to pretend to try and stop them.

Blogger tuberman August 05, 2017 1:01 PM  

The ultimate difference between Alt Media sources and MSM is values. They are both biased in their value system, yet the Alternative medias tend to be fairly consistent with their value systems, although those values can vary even within the Alt medias.

The MSM is, on the other hand, completely, fake, phony, and hypocritical with their value systems, letting people like the Clinton's , and the O'Muslim administration get away with obvious criminal activity many, many times, while trying to persecute their enemies even when no crime is even close to be proven to have happened.

The MSM also promote criminal violence by various groups to undermine due process. This is traitorous, and will eventually reap the whirl wind.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band August 05, 2017 1:05 PM  

The Boomers grew up in a mass media monoculture (everyone watched Howdy Doody, saw the Beatles on Sullivan,, etc.) that was historically unique, and seems to have permanently imprinted a collective mentality on them. They mark their progress through time by endlessly revisiting the mass media events that "defined our generation." Not watching t.v. is unimaginable to most of them. This was already breaking up as Gen X (my generation) was coming up, and those younger never experienced it at all.

Blogger Duke Norfolk August 05, 2017 1:07 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:Increased due to expansion of cable's Hallmark Channel.

Yep, my wife's a fan (54 yo). It's mostly cheesy but at least it's not the increasingly degenerate crap elsewhere (yet?). And it seems to be almost all white, from my limited observation.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band August 05, 2017 1:13 PM  

@85

It's as if outrage over what the boy scout leader really said while continually pushing a civilization-destroying false narrative doesn't really prove objectivity.

Blogger tuberman August 05, 2017 1:16 PM  


So, the next stage, true Alt-Right people will have no values either when facing down all the anti-Christian fragments of all kinds, as they need be destroyed. No quarter given.

yet I still expect the herd mentality of certain Leftists including lots of women will kick in when the tide turns against the SJW crowd. These people will then FEEL BETRAYED, and be the harshest warriors against the remaining hard core Globalists/Leftists.

Anonymous Becky August 05, 2017 1:18 PM  

I work at a small newspaper. It's had decline but not nearly as much as the big paper in the capital city of the state. It's easily found in most grocery and convenience stores in the county and nearby towns. We provide a lot of information on local businesses that can't be found online, and many people in the county have limited internet access, so there's a need. We claim objectivity, e.g. when we get press releases from political offices we're told to omit any subjectivity except in direct quotes. But there's still a bias because of the advertisers and local influences. Stories get silenced to avoid offending the school board, city council, etc. If people want to know the whole truth, they have listen to gossip.

Blogger Were-Puppy August 05, 2017 1:19 PM  

The MSMs values are whatever Project Mockingbird tells them.

They were never objective. It's probably the same for a lot of internet sources as well.

I catch people all the time passing around a pic of Seth Rich at a bar like setting. There is a bearded guy there and a lot of people think it is Awan.

That was debunked some time back. But it keeps making the rounds. I wonder if that was slipped in to discredit the entire thing in the future.

Not to mention it's beside the point that you have other people, including Roger Stone and Seymore Hirsch claiming Seth Rich was partying with Awan the night of the "robbery".

Blogger Were-Puppy August 05, 2017 1:22 PM  

Don't forget, this really happened
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law

Anonymous Mr. Media August 05, 2017 1:26 PM  

@66 James.

You quote my entire comment, yet studiously avoid addressing the point. That's fine. But, that's also an admission of agreement.

Is it or is it not news that the public may be interested in that the President of the United States purposefully lied? Is it not true that the mainstream media uncovered it.

Blogger Marsh August 05, 2017 1:29 PM  

Please pardon this off topic question, but I'm trying to reason w/ a young girl, who believes the 1 in 4 girls are raped stat. Does anyone have a link that debunks this stat? TIA

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky August 05, 2017 1:38 PM  

In my experience, the problem with the press was always a very social, human problem. The national press corps is very small, cliquish, and equipped with a pecking order. It is very much like high school. On any press bus you will find only one or maybe two thought leaders on the whole bus. They will formulate their take, and viola all the others follow in lockstep.

A self-enforced orthodoxy emerges, one dare not oppose it, that's too professionally and socially costly. So, they are worms. You cannot get them from parroting the approved view.

The great thing about the Internet is it dilutes the press corp's influence. You can see that the world really is a lot bigger than that little high school they run in.

Blogger DonReynolds August 05, 2017 1:47 PM  

I am not sure which is worse....refusing to believe that near substitutes exist (and they are competitive) or insisting on using monopoly pricing methods, because you think yourself a monopoly.

Print newspapers and the US Post Office made both kinds of errors. They refused to believe that there could possibly be near substitutes.....AND they both adopted the price dynamics of a public utility.

When an entity thinks they are a monopoly, they come to believe the demand they face is a rectangular hyperbola....which is the unique situation where every combination of price and quantity demanded results in the same total revenue. If the quantity demanded declines, they should raise prices to restore total revenue. This may be appropriate for a public utility, but it will murder a newspaper (and the post office) because it will create even more opportunities for substitutes to compete...and they did. Raising prices was ignoring the competition and that accelerates the decline.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab August 05, 2017 1:48 PM  

@62 Maybe, no. All we have for the accusation of lying is the unsupported word of a person who accepts deviants in an organization for children. No more needs be said. The public appears entirely jaded due to decade after decade of ideologically motivated media distortion and lies. The idea the public believes our cares about the same institution that produced Rather's, Duranty's and countless other lies misdirection and ideology oriented hit pieces is dubious at best. The idea the public cares is shaky and fading.

Tl:dr The asteroid already hit. You were fading fast in the seventies without massive outside support and crony capitalist laws you'd be gone. Don't forget to stagger away from the water hole before you croak your last. The spring is not entirely pain yet.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab August 05, 2017 1:51 PM  

Sorry that was directed @92. I hate mobile.

Blogger DonReynolds August 05, 2017 2:02 PM  

@92 Mr. Media
"Is it or is it not news that the public may be interested in that the President of the United States purposefully lied?"

First to answer your question....
No, it is not NEWS that the president tells lies. EVERY president tells lies, but the "Media" is very selective about their indignation. They did not even roll their eyes when the Obama administration broke every record for the most lies told the public, but now they are fixated on whether they can find lies in the Republican administration.

So you get a choice, either you are a Political Partisan (which I believe) or you are a friggin Pollyanna (which is equally likely, but inexcusable). WE have a Liars Contest in this country every four years and the best liar gets to be president until the next Liars Contest. The public knows this already, even if the "Media" are coy and naive when the Republicans occupy the White House. By being so selective about your indignation over fibs, you destroy what little credibility you have. Once you paint yourself as a Political Partisan, it does not matter what you write or how emotional you get on camera....the public knows you are lying. So why would it be Newsworthy that the partisan liars complain about how the other side lies?

Blogger Greg Hunt August 05, 2017 2:08 PM  

The mainstream media purposefully lies.
What are they not talking about while they talk about this?
Why are you pretending that "the public" are interested in what liars claim is news?

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 05, 2017 2:14 PM  

Don't touch the poop, regardless how how much their (((gaslight media))) flickers. There is no more effective lie than the half-truth.

Anonymous Something to say August 05, 2017 2:29 PM  

2 points i wanted to put out into the universe. 1) there is no honor in sanctions its dirty fighting it invites bad kharma and creates conditions and climates for wars and war profiteers. 2) Ann Coulter supported Romney who regularly contradicts much of what she has written her whole career ...anyway peace

Blogger Matthew August 05, 2017 2:35 PM  

I swear you people. (not Josh this time)

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) August 05, 2017 2:58 PM  

I swear you people. (not Josh this time)

(Thank you)

Blogger tz August 05, 2017 4:06 PM  

There is a good demand for raw (unfaked) news like live-leak or wiki-leaks.
The MSM was for the first part of its existence careful how it spun things (Murrow simply broadcast a rather bad example of McCarthy grilling some black cleaning woman). By Vietnam, they were good at subversion - but the war was a waste by itself. By Reagan, they were subtly biased. By the 2000s, they didn't bother but Bush was so bad by himself, though St. Obama made things obvious.

Now with Trump - and mainly from the partisanship during the campaign - they have played their hand and lost.

Yes, there are leftys and never-trumpers, but they will tune in to anything which agrees.

The particular change is that there is live cell phone video shared on social media. This is distressing for both sides. Brutal police that bash people's heads in while they are handcuffed are exposed, but also crony capitalists. "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" - a Grouchy Marxist might say.

Anonymous Bowman August 05, 2017 4:16 PM  

The quoted article starts in such an (((original, unbiased way))) :
"The Simon of Trent humdinger: in 1475 a prince-bishop in Italy set off a story that local Jews murdered missing 2-year-old Simon—and used his blood for rituals. Fifteen Jews burned at the stake.
[...]In short, fake news is old news."

Blogger tz August 05, 2017 4:19 PM  

One of the points of the transition is that newspapers had high economic friction costs. Sometimes there were two papers with different bents, but more commonly now there is only one big one, and a small dissenter.

Between Twitter and Drudge, I get news in almost real time. Why do I need to wait for the evening edition?

Even the editorial echo chamber (on either/both sides!). The talking points are dispensed by Faux News or MSNBC. Editorials used to make people think. Now it is to confirm their biases.

And they must publish online. One thing missing in the argument is "news radio" which should be real-time but often is owned by the majority newspaper. I'd extend it to some talk radio.

If another 9/11 happened, what would you tune into?

The friction costs have been reversed. Papers now have high latency. Radio can cover things, but most are owned by large conglomerates that can't even report a toxic train derailment locally.

My worry (except that I'm a Ham Radio licencee) is if the internet goes down. Imagine if a flaw was found in all the big iron major router hardware... Oh, some have been, they haven't been used to simply crash everything. Even if it doesn't go down completely, most places require downloading a megabyte before you can see anything with all the javascript an CSS.

Blogger DonReynolds August 05, 2017 5:02 PM  

@106 tz
"My worry (except that I'm a Ham Radio licencee) is if the internet goes down."

It is not something that requires imagination, just be anywhere the electric power has been shut down for an extended time. Back in the bad old days, some of the Ham Ops were battery powered, but these days...that may not be many. Even if you could talk to another Ham, if he was also without electric power, there would not be any official news.

I was in Wilmington when hurricane Hugo hit in 1989. The storm was expected to make landfall about 2am, but we completely lost all power about 1030pm. (I had battery powered tv and radio, but all of the broadcasters were shut down.) The national press corps was in town to ride out the storm. Wilmington was going to be ground zero for Hugo. We did not know until days later, that the hurricane made a hard left turn after we lost power and hit Charleston instead. We still got a heck of a storm, but nothing like the devastation that hit Charleston. There was no news for days.

Blogger SirHamster August 05, 2017 5:38 PM  

tuberman wrote:Here's the way it works. At least 7-8 Boomers I met for chess at McDonalds would be watching CNN, which was on constantly there. All of these, including the two Leftist Boomers would sneer and laugh at the content, and usually make disparaging remarks. Yet they would still obsessively keep watching. Habit?? Some level of awareness of the bias did not keep them for continuing to watch.

The key idea here is the frame of reference. Those Boomers may have a negative view of the news shown on the TV, but their point of reference is the TV news. They are actually little different than the Boomer who believes everything on TV - skeptic or believer, both are using the same point of reference.

Mayhaps a Vox Day and a Boomer will both sneer at the TV news anchor, but VD doesn't depend on the #FakeNews. The Boomer does,
as revealed by his quantity of tube time.

This is the same problem as conservatives and leftists - the conservative's point of reference is the liberal's position, so when the liberals move left, the conservative follows. Yelling Stop! ends up being theater.

It is impossible to oppose the very idea/institutions that you rely on.

Looking at it another way, the Left knows the difference between opposition sharing a reference and those that do not. See how they treat Literally Hitler Bush/McCain vs. the Alt-Right. The former will be opposed vehemently, yet praised occasionally. The latter, on the other hand, is Can't Even

Another example: Blacks reacting to other blacks using "nigger" (shared reference) vs. non-blacks using the exact same word (non-shared reference).

Anonymous Poz world August 05, 2017 5:45 PM  

>>The quoted article starts in such an (((original, unbiased way))) :
"The Simon of Trent humdinger: in 1475 a prince-bishop in Italy set off a story that local Jews murdered missing 2-year-old Simon—and used his blood for rituals. Fifteen Jews burned at the stake. [...]In short, fake news is old news."

Lol... same shit forever. These Khazars never forgive any perceived slight.

If you want the truth, check out this heavily banned book—“Blood Passover” by Ariel Toaff, son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome.

http://bloodpassover.com/xbp1aug2016withspacesbetweenparagraphs.pdf

You will NOT find this book on Amazon. Why? Because like holohoax revisionism, the goyim are not supposed to know, and thus the book is now censored by Amazon.

Blogger James August 05, 2017 5:53 PM  

Mr. Media wrote:@66 James.

You quote my entire comment, yet studiously avoid addressing the point. That's fine. But, that's also an admission of agreement.

Is it or is it not news that the public may be interested in that the President of the United States purposefully lied? Is it not true that the mainstream media uncovered it.


Actually, no, I didn't quote your entire comment. Does that make you a liar? Look, douchious, I honestly don't know whether he did or not. Nor do I care. You're the idiot that stated you can't know a person's mind, didn't you? Isn't a lie determined by intent? Do I think it that some people might find it interesting? No. A large percentage of the population already believes Trump is a liar whether he lies or not. Do I think the media uncovered this? Fuck no. I think someone in the BSA, someone that is into inserting their genitalia in young boys colon, leaked this. Why would I think that? Because SJW's always lie. Like I said, I will begin to trust the media when they actually spend time on uncovering all lies. Like the lies of the hildebeest, the gay mulatto, members of the Church of Climatology, and everyone on the left. Which is to say, "Never", since that stands no more chance of occurring than the Earth stopping its revolution around the Sun. Hey, it could happen!

Blogger praetorian August 05, 2017 6:00 PM  

It's like you're all ready to eat each other's shit and it's mystifying to anyone outside of the Boomerverse.

That's an interesting point. Seems like there is some generational identity present there that isn't found in the following generations. Boomers are like Jews in that regard.

{{{Boomers}}}

Anyway, {{{anyone}}} who can't tell the difference between narrative-control-uber-alles old media and UFC-sans-gloves new media is probably too short for this ride.

Blogger Gospace August 05, 2017 6:06 PM  

Speaking of fake news, the NY Slimes isn't allowing comment on the following article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/us/minnesota-mosque-explosion.html Possibly because anyone who follows the news knows it will be only a short time before it's discovered the bomb was self inflicted to generate hate crime news coverage. Let's face it- no was injured or killed. If someone really wanted to make a statement, the building would have come down after it was full.

Blogger seeingsights August 05, 2017 6:24 PM  

Concerning Boomers watching a lot of TV. TV is addicting. One time when I was at home sick I was watching one of those JerrySpringer/Maury Povich freakshows and I later realized I had watched over 20 minutes of it. Boomers watch TV because they grew up watching TV and are addicted to it. I'm a Gen Xer and I haven't had a TV set in 17 years. I spend a lot of time on the Internet.
Breaking the TV habit is not hard and the recidivism rate is low. I'm not surprised that Gen Xers and Millenials watch less TV for early in their lives they had alternatives to TV.

Blogger SemiSpook37 August 05, 2017 6:44 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:Yes. Even the TV-watching conservatives I know -- while they don't believe everything they see on it, they still take it all in. It's still their frame of reference, and they accept far more of it than they realize.

For instance: They don't think Trump is the devil, and they might have voted for him. But they assume he's a globalist because the TV keeps reminding them that he has international business interests. They tell me his canceling TPP was no big deal, because Hillary was against it too (they don't know she flip-flopped and no one paying attention believed her). They have no idea that jobs are increasing -- or how fast they were disappearing under Obama.


That's the frustrating thing out of all of this. Just because someone puts it on the teleprompter, it doesn't make it true.

seeingsights wrote:I'm a Gen Xer and I haven't had a TV set in 17 years. I spend a lot of time on the Internet.

A fellow Xer, I still have it, but watch a lot less because of the Internet. Mainly do a lot of streaming and have some cable channels, but that's more for keeping up on certain things. I stay as far away from the news networks as humanly possible. There's maybe a couple of shows I'll watch on broadcast, but even then, it may be to catch favorite teams during football season if they're in the broadcast footprint. Network and local news is too damned pretentious for its own good.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey August 05, 2017 8:45 PM  

@108 SirHamster


"The key idea here is the frame of reference. Those Boomers may have a negative view of the news shown on the TV, but their point of reference is the TV news. They are actually little different than the Boomer who believes everything on TV - skeptic or believer, both are using the same point of reference"

Metaphor time: many realize that the man with the megaphone is often shouting lies, but still fail to realize that they are still reflexively looking wherever he shines his spotlight, and ignoring the darkness beyond the edges of its beam.

Anonymous Precious August 05, 2017 9:03 PM  

Of all the fake news topics someone could raise on this site you would think a media defender could come up with something slightly less imbecilic than Donald Trump lied when boasting about his Boy Scout speech.

Can the next shill at least make an effort to discuss something relevant?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 05, 2017 9:58 PM  

Precious wrote:Can the next shill at least make an effort to discuss something relevant?
You're new here then?

Anonymous Jack August 05, 2017 10:18 PM  

Next, the outdated education model.

In the future, I want to read articles in which someone is quoted who holds the Surely Pepe Chair in Emerging Media at Voxiversity.

Blogger Tom Terrific August 05, 2017 10:22 PM  

I don't know if it's good or bad, but when a "poll" comes across my Twitter feed that shows 13% of the people answering the poll think Donald Trump is doing a bad job, I immediately tweet:

"Who the Hell are these 13% and what the F**k are they doing in MY Feed?"

If I ever want a Lefties opinion I'll just shoot myself.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 05, 2017 11:53 PM  

@4 Mr. FakeNews

'"a limited number of tightly controlled sources paid for by advertisers with a surreptitious influence over what is, and is not reported."

People like to claim this all the time. But they never have any proof that it regularly happens. And when it does happen, it rarely matters because we are talking about stories about clothing lines, winemakers and TV shows.'


COMPLETE B.S.

Before Bill Gaines died, MAD Magazine absolutely REFUSED any and all offers (by a great many companies) to purchase advertising space in the magazine.
Gaines was quite clear about the reason: "If we had advertisers, we wouldn't be able to do what WE want to do, and what our readers want us to do."

Blogger Owen August 06, 2017 5:47 AM  

WRH was no slouch as a publisher. Sure he egged on a war to sell papers but he also campaigned against child labor and his paper the Atlanta Georgian was probably right about Leo Frank.

Blogger Owen August 06, 2017 5:52 AM  

Um, no. Even mass markets can barely sustain one paper and many are bleeding red ink

Anonymous patrick kelly August 06, 2017 9:04 AM  

One thing my parents successfully instilled in me was careful rationing of passive consumption of media.

At the time that was mostly TV but I was constantly encouraged to get outside do something read play music build something.

It feels like it has been more difficult for me to transfer this to my children who seem to want to be in front of a screen all day. I realize that is not necessarily passive consumption there are creative activities and interaction with that screen but I still think it's more healthy to take long breaks and do something else.

I make a living staring at those blinking pixels and pressing keys all day but when I'm off work I prefer to do other stuff.

Anonymous patrick kelly August 06, 2017 9:15 AM  

" Back in the bad old days, some of the Ham Ops were battery powered, but these days...that may not be many."

No. Most rigs can be powered by 12 volt batteries including big amplifiers as long as you have enough batteries with the current capacity and many have mobile rigs that can work the world from their driveway when the conditions are right.

Even under conditions coast to coast in the US is possible 24/7.

Anonymous Pennywise August 06, 2017 11:01 AM  

Fake News only makes people increasingly ignorant. Each major news outlet, from mainstream to alternative, to Alt Right to Alt Left, has a narrative they craft. They have a bias. Rather than simply dismiss their stories as being completely false, a person who seeks to become well informed actually reads several articles from various sources and draws their own conclusions. Otherwise, a person just tries to find information that conforms to their worldview by insisting that a particular outlet is "fake news".

"Like I said, I will begin to trust the media when they actually spend time on uncovering all lies."

Assuming that the media is lying and other than finding time to uncover other people's lies.

Blogger James August 06, 2017 1:15 PM  

Hey, Mr. Media. I'm sure you're long gone, since paid trolls don't work on Sunday, but have you seen this?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/boom-loretta-lynch-lied-oath-told-trey-gowdy-uses-official-email-video/

"Lying" is a major issue for you and the media? How about perjury? Is the MSM saying anything about this? Of course not!. This is why no one that doesn't have an interest in the libtard's religion trusts the media. The media you think is doing "God's work".

Anonymous Pennywise August 06, 2017 6:05 PM  

Speaking of lying...

http://gizmodo.com/kim-dotcom-says-fbi-file-about-seth-rich-is-fake-but-h-1795646891

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 06, 2017 7:05 PM  

Well, Pennywise, did you actually read the article? Or just the headline. The author obviously has a serious crush/animus for Kim, and for anybody Left of Anita Sarkeesian, really. Which, being Gizmondo, is to be expected.

Seriously, citing Gizmondo as some sort of impartial source?

Anonymous Pennywise August 06, 2017 8:13 PM  

You are acting like an SJW--you attack the source, not the substance. In the process, you are supporting Fake News.

Remember, Fox News retracted their claim. Are they an impartial source in your eyes?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 06, 2017 8:33 PM  

Pennywise wrote:You are acting like an SJW--you attack the source, not the substance. In the process, you are supporting Fake News.


Youare and SJW. No weapon the enemy uses is forbidden me. So bite me, you moron.

You want to conflate a document being fake with the charge being fake. That's simply ludicrous. Especially since it's a known tactic of the Deep State to discredit their opponents using exactly this maneuver.

Anonymous Pennywise August 07, 2017 12:01 PM  

Projection, doubling down, and a sophomoric quip. Clearly, you are an SJW.

The charges surrounding Seth Rich are bogus. KimDotCharge admitted that the document was bogus. There is no conflation here. Fox retracted their claim about Seth Rich. Are they being impartial here or are they being Fake News?

And, yes, the Deep State uses whatever means necessary to win. So what are you going to do about it, considering they have a dossier on you and your family?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 07, 2017 12:30 PM  

Pennywise wrote:The charges surrounding Seth Rich are bogus. KimDotCharge admitted that the document was bogus. There is no conflation here.
That is the textbook definition of conflation, chemically distilled. At this point I have to assume you're simply lying.

Fox retracted their claim about Seth Rich. Are they being impartial here or are they being Fake News?
Of COURSE Fox is Fake News. They always have been. What sort of moron are you, to think this means anything? Oh, right, a lying moron.
Fox reporting or retracting the story has no bearing whatsoever on it truth.

Seth Rich was the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks.
Seth Rich was murdered, on a street corner. After a couple of hours investigation, the murder was classed as a robbery even though nothing was taken.
I'm sure a partisan lying SJW moron like yourself can state with certainty that there's nothing there. That's because;
1) you're a liar,
2) you're a partisan,
3) you're a moron.
And real investigation into his death has been shut down every time anyone starts to try to get to the bottom of it.

It is ironic though that you claim the Deep State had nothing to do with his death and then try to threaten me with the Deep State.

You should stop lying. It's bad for your soul.

Anonymous Pennywise August 08, 2017 8:37 AM  

"That's because; 1) you're a liar, 2) you're a partisan, 3) you're a moron."

Projection and disqualification on your part.

"It is ironic though that you claim the Deep State had nothing to do with his death and then try to threaten me with the Deep State."

The Deep State will get all of us in due time. Some people sooner than later.

"Seth Rich was the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks."

Fake News Story.

"Fox reporting or retracting the story has no bearing whatsoever on it truth."

Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Wow, just wow.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts