[TheOllam]

(04-18-2016 10:52 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

The 'dramas' at Mashable. Or just cold hard reality coming to fruition :

Quote:

@nadjao · Apr 7
I just got a call on a field shoot that I'm fired along with half the @mashable editorial staff.

@nadjao · Apr 7
This is what happens when venture capital funds journalism.

@nadjao · Apr 7
Interesting that all the people they fired were intelligent, skilled journalists and producers. This is what happens when bros run media.

@nadjao · Apr 7
Lol stranded in Ohio and can't even access my email to get my flight information to get back and clean out my desk. Thanks!

@nadjao · Apr 7
I keep thinking about all the people on my team who left jobs only 6 months ago to join Mashable. Only to be treated like disposable humans

@nadjao · Apr 7
Also let's take a moment and see that majority of the editors and producers who are now gone are women.

@nadjao · Apr 7
thank you @nycjim and @mohawkstreet for leading a great editorial team. it was great while it lasted + work we were able to do was worth it

@nadjao · Apr 7
it's sad that the editorial video team was one of the strongest and most talented groups of people I've ever worked with. RIP.

It was all the fault of the 'bros'.
Provide value & you're less likely to be fired.
Which is odd if the work was so 'worth it'.
Who gets rid of 'worthwhile, talented' staff? Unless...

Fucking HILARIOUS.

If you were lucky enough to get a steady paycheck and experience with Mashable over the past 7 years, you got what was coming to you.

No hate, only love

But if you were part of that team, how long did you think your career could really last there?

The good news is that winners win, even after getting laid off. Really talented people pick themselves up, dust themselves off and get back to creating worthwhile content.

Some of the folks getting laid off will look back years from now and realize getting fired from Mashable was the best thing that ever happened to their career.

[debeguiled]

(04-18-2016 06:20 AM)Mr Saxon Wrote:  

(04-16-2016 12:40 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

What felt to me like a watershed moment was the recent bullshit outrage over the white kid with dreadlocks who got a bunch of static from a girl at San Francisco State. ( http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Wh...215259.php)

What's really crazy about these people that will grab someone then yell "Don't touch me", is that they genuinely sound like they believe they are the one being assaulted when someone tries to get away from them. It's like they never grew out of the Stop Hitting Yourself game.

Yeah, nice reference to arrested development. A lot of these SJW tactics remind me of the dumb stuff kids do which they think parents don't see through.

Like this video breaks down how a group of people are basically assaulting a guy, but because they have their hands up, they aren't guilty of anything:

It really is like an abdication of adulthood. A return to all the safe, delusional certainties of childhood, like when your dad is lecturing you and you roll your eyes, he gets mad, and you say:

"What? I didn't SAY anything."

In a way, this is the essence of the safe space mentality, never having to learn, never having to connect the dots, returning again and again to pulling the covers over your head to stay safe from monsters.

[AnonymousBosch]

^ Children are experts at passive-aggression. Men used to grow out of it when they realised they start getting punched in the face for it. Women, being protected from consequences of their actions, most often don't.

[debeguiled]

Yeah. The flip side of this equation is why does it work on us?

I am toying with the idea that passive aggression is Shock and Awe on a really lame scale.

Quote:

Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

I find that when I am talking to someone, and they toss in some statement or action that is way out of right field, it freezes me for a second and allows the weirdos to press their advantage. This doesn't work always, obviously, and usually the same gambit doesn't work twice.

I don't know if they do this consciously, or if it is just a trial and error deal, but sometimes throwing in something random, like accusing someone you just hit of hitting you, or changing the subject suddenly, but acting as if it is still the same subject, is a useful tactic for these people.

The Dean of American Psychiatric hypnotists, Milton Erickson, consciously used confusion as a technique, and while he stumbled on it by accident, he later used and refined what he had learned by chance:

Quote:

Particularly did I recall the occasion on which my physics laboratory mate had told his friends that he intended to do the second(and interesting) part of a coming experiment. I learned of this, and when we collected our experimental material and apparatus and were dividing it up into two separate piles, I told him at the crucial moment quietly but with great intensity, "THAT SPARROW REALLY FLEW TO THE RIGHT, THEN SUDDENLY FLEW LEFT, AND THEN UP, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT."

While he stared blankly at me, I took the equipment for the second part of the experiment and set busily to work with the equipment for the first part of the experiment. Not until the experiment was nearly completed did he break the customary silence that characterized our working together. He asked, "How come I'm doing this part? I wanted to do that part." To this I replied simply, "It just seemed to work out naturally this way." "

The above clip from history can be found in Milton Erickson's Collected Papers-Volume I.

http://ehypnotictrance.net/The%20Confusi...ue%202.php

Maybe I am overthinking this, and maybe I just am a hopeless beta:



Maybe not though, too. There is some dynamic here that cannot be quite defined. Maybe someone who is more socially aware can clue me in.

It doesn't seem so far removed from the women who flashed their boobs at a guy to distract him so they could take money with his ATM card:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ictim.html

Quote:

The women in their 20s exposed themselves to the victim as he punched his pin code into an ATM machine in Paris.

As he stared at one, the other then withdrew 300 euros from his account before the pair fled with the money.

French police respond as expected:

Quote:

“We would advise anyone withdrawing cash from a machine to focus on what they are doing and not allow themselves to be distracted, however attractive the view,”

You even see this stuff in nature:

I am just not sure what to call it. Is it hypnosis? Manipulation? Or just a good old fashioned mind fuck?

[AnonymousBosch]

(04-18-2016 06:02 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Yeah. The flip side of this equation is why does it work on us?

I am toying with the idea that passive aggression is Shock and Awe on a really lame scale.

Interesting idea. I think some people are more susceptible to the tactic than others. Maybe it has to do with mental horsepower, or the ability to juggle independent thoughts without confusion. Maybe it's partly-upbringing and recognising patterns that lead to exploitation or manipulation - I'm very aware of diversionary tactics because my childhood neighbourhood was full of grifters. Experienced mothers don't even let it begin in their children.

I lost my patience with Passive-Aggression long ago, and find it best to simply call out the behaviour when someone is trying it on me, particularly as it is the favourite manipulation tactic of women.

As such, if a girl does it, I'll mock her by amplifying the tactic. "Oh, you're trying to be passive-aggressive with me. How could you do this to me?"

or

"My nephew tries this on me, and it only makes me more determined to not give him what he wants. He's got the excuse of being a toddler, what's yours?"

Even the folk putdown "Get off the cross, we need the wood" is doing the same thing.

Unfortunately, what was rare in men when I was a kid seems to have infected them like a virus with the upswing of single mother households in the 80's and 90's.

A mate of mine had this bad habit where he'd need something and he'd go through this whole song and dance of trying to manipulate me into doing it. I can see why he did it - son of a single mother, she was always up on the cross about every minor slight she experienced. One day, I simply lost patience with his dance. "Seriously mate. If you want help, just ask. You don't have to 'trick' me into doing anything. I'm an easy-going guy. I'll either do it or I won't."

After that, he'd ring and say "Hey, I've been caught out and need some help," instead of five wasted minutes of buttering me up. I much prefer this.

A collaborator I'm working with is from a wealthy, Leftist family. His family never once had a meal at home - he told me the kitchen was where food was prepared for their dog. I honestly think he's never been exposed to genuine, direct communication in his life. I'm a patient guy, so when I'll offer to sacrifice something for expediency, he'll accuse me of passive-aggression. He doesn't seem to understand I don't waste time saying anything I don't mean.

It's been one of the most careful dances of my life. Americans have an entirely-different level of upper class privilege than you'd see in Australia, so, of course, he's voting for Bernie.

As for the weirdos in that video, I'd suggest not escalating due to the cameras. What you do is trigger them so they going into narcissistic fury, and are unable to control their behaviour and attack you, so your physical retaliation is justified. Know the laws in your state. In Australia, you used to legally get one punch if they hit first, so you simply make that punch count.

We know what trigger the Left: moral sanctimony and any kind of objective negative judgement of their behaviour. They're a type of Atheist Religious Zealot, which means they are humourless and full of righteous fury, so you simply smile beatifically and say things like "It's ok. Jesus loves and forgives you for your sins." I suggest doing this even if you're NOT a believer.

They will go nuclear. "You don't get to judge me!"

We have three master provocateurs in the manosphere: Forney triggers pure Leftist rage by speaking the language of snark and sarcasm - which is their valued currency; Cernovich's attack dog focus and 'man of the people' presentation triggers a Delete Tweet / Shame Spiral; and Vox Day is cold, methodical, and is ten steps ahead of his enemy, which triggers outright fear of being noticed. All three have the power to sway moderate observers.

[debeguiled]

AB, that was awesome. I think the line about the cross is going in my repertoire. Not to be passive aggressive here, but I was really trying to get information about what to do about stoats.

[AnonymousBosch]

Whilst I prefer bluntness, there is always the agree and amplify tactic where you raise the passive-aggression right to the tipping point into outright-aggression:

"Oh, are you having a little sook because you didn't get your way? Does baby want their bottle? I think I'll sit here and sulk and sigh overdramatically too."

It's all in the tone: dripping-contempt. It doesn't suit my physicality, but guys with a naturally-sarcastic edge and strong frame could could pull it off.

"Oh it's hard caring so much about the world, isn't it, because you're such a good person and everyone else is a selfish, despicable shit?"

Mock their self-righteousness.

[Rigsby]

Well, things really are hotting up in journo land. Things are imploding at a massive rate. It's a joy to watch the actual destruction of an entity that will be all but gone within the next 12 months, if that.

I'm talking about the Guardian again. Don't worry, I haven't got sucked back in and started 'reading' it again. I'm observing from a distance, so my blood pressure doesn't boil my piss.

They really have gone full retard lately. Today's Barbara Ellen article was one of the most vicious man-hating click bait bits of typing to ever grace the history of the universe. They are going gung ho all out now. This is war. It got about 1500 comments in a few hours. Everyone saying the same thing: shut the fuck up - we know what you are doing and it is not working and you are digging the hole deeper for yourselves - just stop! And this was from other women! Am I allowed a single 'LOL' please if I promise not to do it again?

They are basically laying the groundwork and buttering people up for when they pull the comments section in a bit. Also they have gone all out with the faux 'Web we want' bs. They have been called out on that. I actually actively participated in a 4000 post article about the redesign of the newspaper, and they not only ignored every single person, they insulted them too. Game over. It really doesn't work anymore.

They seem to be still experimenting with the form though. Recently they did an article about how 600 curry shops have closed in the UK, because of the ultra-tight draconian immigration laws we have here. The problem is you see, that they just can not get the staff. No one except those from Bangladesh can cook a curry apparently. It was hilarious. People were just saying: Fuck off. Stop being silly. You are embarrassing yourself here. It was both pathetic yet humorous to 'watch'.

I might have mentioned that what is happening right now at the Guardian is a bellwether. Ignore the ringing of the bell at your peril. This is a new age. It's different to how things changed even ten years ago. It's a new world since even last year. Things are moving that fast. The Guardian is bleeding out. It is only being propped up by the state. He who pays the piper, calls the tune...

Who are the Guardian moderators? Good question. No one really knows. From what I have been able to glean, they fall into 3 camps. First there are the journalist students at uni, working for free - you know how it goes (internship). Then you have the spooks and intelligence services. The students seem to handle the clickbait rad-fem stuff, and the spooks handle any sensitive information or 'wrong thought' that they want to keep hidden. The third camp seems to be moonlighting journalists themselves (though I doubt they moderate their own articles, even though they do look in and have power of deletion).

There is an excellent website I came across that puts all this much more succinctly than I ever could (when could I ever be succinct ;-)). It gives an excellent analysis and break down of what is happening at the Guardian, and elsewhere, and why it is happening. Even how it is happening. It is called Off-Guardian.

https://off-guardian.org/

It is not allowed to link to the website from the Guardian proper. To do so results in an immediate perma ban. They have actually written scripts for automatic deletion of comments that include this URL. And you will be marked for 'pre-moderation' if they see you suggesting to google it. I can see why.

It is an absolute treasure trove. It is concise and erudite. It seems to be mainly made up of ex-Guardian readers, who, disgruntled at having their comments deleted, and having the temerity to question those decisions, have been perma banned. There is even a section showing screenshots of the so called 'abusive' comments, showing that they are nothing of the sort. They Guardian journalists are liars. They have been proven to be lying, in black and white terms. No argument. That is what they are - liars.

Here is a link to the section where they show the 'abusive' comments:
https://off-guardian.org/category/censored-on-cif/

If it interests you, have a look through and see how they have been caught out on their blatant lies. Some of it is pretty funny.

This is a link to the more recent political stuff and contains the hardest hitting information imo:
https://off-guardian.org/category/the-web-they-want/

The comments, ironically are what make this great site. Be warned. You will face a lot of opposing viewpoints to what I know some of you hold here. But I think you're big and ugly enough to cope with the psychological trauma of it all and take what you need from it without having the feels crushed. In fact, it really points out the absurdity of the whole left/right paradigm. This is all about globalism now. The many 'little' people, and the few 'mighty overlords'. The lines are drawn.

I could have picked many excellent comments, but this one sums it up for me nicely:
https://off-guardian.org/2016/04/23/guar...ee-speech/

------------------------------------------------
The Guardian has stacked the deck on this one. Up until about two years ago the outlet’s comments sections were filled with further information on the subjects discussed, and lots of intelligent debate. Often the comments were more informative and better researched than the articles. As can be surmised from the kneejerk reaction, lazy, arrogant and highly-paid journalists don’t like being exposed for the frauds they often are. They responded by demanding an end to intelligent debate.

The reaction was slow in coming, but once started, swift in its execution.
The corporate media seems to have steered the word ‘moderate’ far away from its original meaning, as it now is used to describe murderous, gangs of foreign extemists determined to overthrow legitimate leaders. The same applies to Guardian ‘moderators’, who can seem about as moderate as government censors in vicious dictatorships. Comments that obviously involved a great degree of thought and knowledge started being ‘moderated’ on the most spurious grounds. If they didn’t conform to what was obviously a hidden agenda, they were out. As thoughtful comments take some time to write, it was only a matter of time before many regular posters began to get discouraged enough to stop commenting completely.

Meanwhile, herds of bitter trolls started to make up the difference with irrelevant inanities, which were not only tolerated, but appeared to be welcomed. Endless columns of snide remarks and spiteful bickering became an acceptable norm. That little move was swiftly followed by limiting the number of articles allowing comments. Where they did allow them, the comments became impossible to wade through, as they often numbered well over a thousand. Little wonder that is now being used as an excuse for limiting comments even further, as it was obviously the point.

So, the final solution is now being imposed. Viner is intent on destroying the whole idea of CiFon the grounds that Guardian’s journalists have feelings. Pity her sympathy doesn’t extend to the readers that keep her modern Titanic afloat.

Little wonder the Off-Guardian website and comments section is swiftly becoming far more relevant, informative and interesting than its unwitting progenitor. So there is a silver lining, as the corporate media begins to eat itself slowly into oblivion.
-----------------------------------------------------

That last sentence. I believe I used a similar phrase in a previous post on this subject: The left are eating themselves. It's a joy to watch. The Barbara Ellen article today (that closed comments a few hours after opening them, after getting what they wanted) was of such a ferocity, so blindly flailing, it was like witnessing a brick being thrown into a spinning washing machine at 3000RPM. Yup, you can guess what resulted from that. I won't bother linking it. It's pretty easy to find. I advise you to do a Barbara Bush and not 'waste your beautiful little mind' over it though. You have been warned. Trigger level 10. Meds at the ready and no blaming me if you conk out in the middle of it.

But please, if this is a subject close to your heart, then have a look at Off-Guardian. You won't be disappointed. It was worth trawling the comments to get this one jewel. It's time to stop now. It's either people reverse trolling and winding her up by saying: All men are rapists, you are right, hang them all, now! Or people calling her bullshit out for what it is. Some mugs are even trying to have a reasoned rational debate relying on logic and scientific data. Idiots!

Fair play to them, but the idiots only fuel the fire further. In fact, femicunts like Barbara Ellen, are just useful idiots themselves, soon to be thrown on the scrap heap. We know it, the puppet masters know it, it's only the useful idiots that do not see this - how they are being used and abused. But cunts like Ellen really do have hate in their little vicious hearts. A man would not get away with a tenth of what she just got away with today, sanctioned by the state. He would either be arrested or hounded on social media. I didn't read the article - I skimmed it. It's the same article we've all read a thousand times but with a bit of accelerant thrown on for good measure, just to really make sure they got what they wanted.

Their game is exposed. There is a road map for it. It is now a known quantity. And still they double, triple down. It is magnificent. Between the horns of a true dilemma: Do we keep going and allow the lies to be exposed along with our true agenda? Or do we do away with it and cease to exist as an entity.

It's lose/lose for them, and win/win for us. At least that is how I interpret it. I just don't see what other options there are. I give it to the end of the year.

Btw, I noticed that they just got rid of the comments section of the Telegraph as well. It's happening. We are being silenced in the name of 'abuse', after they poke us with a stick and we strike back. We've all been had. They've been toying with us all along.

The Guardian - long game recognized. Imminent demise, most welcome!

Check out the Off-Guardian for some thoughtful and in-depth analysis if you want to know more.

[Foolsgo1d]

The Guardian sells its newspapers to babyboomers and hardly anyone else. You could see them in coffee shops where hipsters and young millennials reside but the economic reality is this, nobody buys their papers and they know it. Conservative men do not buy it and liberals make use of free newspapers and their internet in Starbucks.

I want all newspapers to die really. Just today I saw an opinion piece in The Sunday Express and it was about how coalition airstrikes have made Islamic State redundant in Syria and Iraq. No mention of Russian forces obliterating those bastards anywhere except for hit pieces done to persuade public opinion to hate Russia.

One such propaganda piece takes aim at Russian aggression towards civilians in Aleppo.

It goes far beyond what happened to Roosh. Newspapers and news channels have been used by the rich and powerful to inact change for decades now and the public is still gullible.

[Rigsby]

(04-24-2016 05:42 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

The Guardian sells its newspapers to babyboomers and hardly anyone else. You could see them in coffee shops where hipsters and young millennials reside but the economic reality is this, nobody buys their papers and they know it. Conservative men do not buy it and liberals make use of free newspapers and their internet in Starbucks.

I want all newspapers to die really. Just today I saw an opinion piece in The Sunday Express and it was about how coalition airstrikes have made Islamic State redundant in Syria and Iraq. No mention of Russian forces obliterating those bastards anywhere except for hit pieces done to persuade public opinion to hate Russia.

...

I think that's about the size of it. The thing is, while those Conservative men might not be buying the newspaper, a lot of them are logging on and commenting on the articles. Hence the Left's apoplexy about 'Ultra-Right-Wing-Fascist-Trolls', coz someone didn't agree with them.

(One of the common complaints from the long-time readers of the Guardian was that they were censored and called 'Putin-bots' for daring to offer an alternative theory to what is going on in the Ukraine)

So that is where they are getting a lot of the hits and clicks from. A minority probably, but still a significant proportion they will lose when the comments section goes.

I got blocked by RooshV forum today after posting in the 'RooshV in the media' thread and quoting some posts from the Guardian, this very day, calling all those at the good ship Roosh, nasty names. I guess it is just the web filter. No matter. So I don't want to repeat that again.

First they ignored us, now they are calling us names kind of thing.

The print media is dead. It is only being propped up by propaganda organs of the state.

The Guardian will not exist in five years time. That's a fact.

If Roosh can weather the storm (not an easy task), he may actually become a major outlet or at least aggregator of pertinent news. It's unlikely, but a distinct possibility. And I guess it is that fact that has made him such a target: An extremely knowledgeable and diverse set of individuals who know what they are about and know where they are going, sharing information, freely accessible to the public, as well as to each other.

And overcoming the usual divide and conquer boundaries put on us, such as race/religion/age/class etc.

Ok, maybe some of us struggle sometimes, but we don't do a bad job of rising above the bullshit and putting petty squabbles aside, and subscribing to a higher purpose. To wit: Having at least a modicum of self-determination in not just our own lives, but the lives of our families. A pretty simple concept, but one that scares the shit out of those that would make us all slaves.

[username]

Not really a media outlet that attacked Roosh but a staunch Trump hating outlet, Glenn Beck's The Blaze...

Quote:

The axe fell once again on Glenn Beck’s crumbling media empire Thursday as employees in the New York and Washington offices of The Blaze, Beck’s multi-media online operation, along with business staffers in Los Angeles and the documentary unit in Columbus, Ohio, were told their jobs are on the chopping block, according to multiple sources who spoke The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity.

Quote:

On the Friday broadcast of his radio show, Glenn Beck revealed that he has lost $500,000 campaigning with Ted Cruz, but said that has nothing to do with the recent firing of 40 of his employees.

Quote:

According to sources, Beck’s frequent travel in support of the presidential candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz, among other distractions, has prevented him from appearing daily on his syndicated radio program and live-streaming television show, resulting in declining advertising revenue for Mercury Radio Arts, Beck’s privately held parent company.
...
Similarly, said these sources, declining traffic for Glennbeck.com and TheBlaze.com have also resulted in dropping ad revenue

[EDantes]

Good, maybe the Gawker court ruling is causing these tabloids to rethink their practices; this could be the beginning of the end of bullshit, left wing clickbait journalism which centers solely on generating faux "social justice" outrage to appease ignorant masses

[Donkey George]

I posted this here because it seemed like the best fit, but maybe there is a need for an omnibus "Mainstream Media Lies & Omissions" thread. The Federalist had a great article breaking down the NYTimes' latest article on the US Supreme Court decision vacating fines levied against the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity, for refusing to provide birth control for its employees. This is a great example of how the mainstream media omits key information and tries to place a positive spin on what is a clear rebuke from the USSC.

What follows is a terrific take-down of the NYTimes and the media's coverage of the case (http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/17/medi...he-poor/):

Quote:

Holocaust survivor and human rights activist Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Laureate, bestowed the Becket Fund’s Canterbury medal on Armando Valladares, a dissident who spent 22 years imprisoned and tortured by the Cuban regime because he refused to publicly state his support of Fidel Castro. At many points during his imprisonment, he could have signed a piece of paper to be freed, but he refused to do so because, he said, for him it would be a form of spiritual suicide. His beautiful speech — a must-read for anyone concerned about totalitarian bureaucracies — specifically praised the Little Sisters of the Poor for, as he put it, “their seemingly small act of defiance”:


"The Little Sisters of the Poor know [that religious conscience is priceless]. They may be called the Little Sisters of the Poor, and yet they are rich in that they live out their conscience, which no government bureaucrat can invade. They know what my body knows after 22 years of cruel torture: that if they sign the form, the government demands they will be violating their conscience and would commit spiritual suicide. If they did this they would forfeit the true and only wealth they have in abandoning the castle of their consciences."

...

They won a major religious battle yesterday. The Obama administration wanted to fine them $70 million per year for their religious objection to taking part in a government scheme to distribute birth control. Nine times the government rewrote regulations that would force the nuns to take part in the plan or be fined out of existence, each time claiming that the present version of regulations was as far as they could go to accommodate religious belief. Each time the sisters remained steadfast. Their story never changed. They didn’t weigh in on the government’s birth control plan except to say they wanted no part in it, due to their long-standing, sincerely held religious beliefs.

Yesterday the court ruled against the fines and vacated lower court rulings against the sisters. Since the Obama administration had already admitted to the court that it could find another way to accomplish its goals, the court simply asked lower courts to give them time to do just that.

...

Mona Charen noticed something curious about media coverage of the Little Sisters. Over at National Review she wrote:

What’s in a name? The top story in the print version of today’s Washington Post carries this headline: “Justices Return Contraceptive Case to Lower Courts.” In the six and a half paragraphs explaining the decision on the front page, the plaintiff’s name goes unmentioned. When you flip to the jump, you’ve got to read down another five paragraphs to learn this is the case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor. We shouldn’t fetishize language, but the name of this order of nuns (however it was arrived at — I have no idea how long it has been around or how it chose its name) is perfectly pitched to make liberals/progressives squirm. Just as the Left used every possible locution to avoid using the term “partial-birth abortion” — the editors of the Post and others go to some considerable trouble to bury the name “Little Sisters of the Poor.”

Isn’t that interesting? That our media that seek out and histrionically elevate every sympathetic plaintiff when it comes to cases advancing sexualityism suddenly have trouble even naming the Little Sisters of the Poor?

A case of “Little Sisters of the Poor” vs. “Powerful Men in Government” is a gift from the editorial gods. But our media are too busy scare-quoting “religious liberty” and pushing an authoritarian agenda. Actually identifying the Little Sisters, much less neutrally profiling them, much less giving their story the weight it deserves, that just won’t do. We have stories to cover poorly and narrative agendas to push.

It’s not just the Washington Post that is hiding the name and story of the Little Sisters of the Poor. A reader noticed that David G. Savage of the Tribune News Service also hid their name. His piece, very sympathetic to the bureaucracy that seeks to limit religious freedom, waited until deep in the story to even mention the Little Sisters. Seriously, the piece reads like a press release from HHS if HHS had its press releases written by the savvy public relations teams funded by Planned Parenthood. He finally mentions the sisters in the 13th paragraph because he’s forced to put in a quote from their attorney and their attorney had the decency to name them. Here’s how it ran in the Los Angeles Times.

A review of headlines shows that so-called mainstream publications were far less likely to mention the sisters than publications that are not hostile to religious liberty.

But a very special prize goes out to Adam Liptak of the New York Times. We can call it the Linda Greenhouse Award for Supreme Court Advocacy Presented As Reporting.

Liptak’s 22-paragraph, 1283-word story manages to mention the Little Sisters of the Poor not once. Not in the headline. Not in the lede. Not in any paragraph or sentence. Not in the captions, even though the captions had to work really hard to avoid mentioning them.

I have worked in the policy and journalism fields in the past, and this is an egregious (obviously intentional) oversight. My editor would have tore me a new one had I submitted something so obviously biased and devoid of facts. This means that this story was written and published with the explicit approval and support of the editorial staff at the New York Times, the country's"paper of record," despite purposefully omitting the name of the organization in question and by ignoring the vacating of fines by the USSC.

It's remains hard to watch how far the Fourth Branch has fallen. But The Narrative most be obeyed at all costs.

{Edited to bold key passage}

[8ball]

Vice joins the digital death march.

Vice News Hit With Layoffs in U.S., U.K.

Quote:

In the U.S., Vice News is letting go producers, writers and editors in New York and L.A. The layoffs come after the company has made a number of new hires, including Madeleine Haeringer as executive producer of the HBO nightly show, Ryan McCarthy as editor-in-chief of Vice News and former New York Times reporter Ravi Somaiya as tech correspondent.

Its funny how all this clickbait media outlets are desperately trying to go TV as the digital bubble bursts. It won't work.

[DrCotard]

^^


Karma is a bitch.

[Sandstorm]

I know I'm a bit late to the post on this one but this video I recently watched does a great expose on the Huffington post femtards - most enjoyable!

[spokepoker]

Gosh I hope Vice bites the dust, then maybe I can get my old H2 channel back.

[username]

(05-24-2016 07:45 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  

Gosh I hope Vice bites the dust, then maybe I can get my old H2 channel back.

I hope so too. H2 was the only channel I really cared about.

[Paracelsus]

Long, but worth it.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcr...481060.htm

This is from Australia's Media Watch, the leftie ABC's small show that likes to shiv commercial networks when they're caught out lying. Its main credibility comes from the fact it's willing to shiv ABC programs for bullshit as well, something that's gotten it into trouble over the years. They did a special report on the rapid fall of digital news outlets. This is the transcript from the show.

Quote:

Perfect storm facing digital news

From ad blockers, to Facebook and consumers who refuse to pay. It's the challenge facing digital news and no one's sure what the solution is.

Quote:

ERIC BEECHER: They are heading towards the cliff and it's not their fault but they are heading towards the cliff really fast ... I think that cliff is, for everybody, is within a year or two or less.

— Eric Beecher, Chairman, Private Media

Hello, I’m Paul Barry, welcome to Media Watch. And who exactly is heading for that cliff?

Well it’s not just newspapers this time it’s the whole shebang.

According to former Sydney Morning Herald editor Eric Beecher, who’s now a digital publisher, digital news sites are also struggling to survive and public interest journalism is at risk.

So tonight we’re bringing you a special edition of Media Watch because the future of news has never looked bleaker.

In the past 7 months even the stars of the internet have suffered with Vice, Salon, Mashable and Gawker all laying off staff.

Buzzfeed has been forced to cut its 2016 revenue forecast by half or US$250m.

And the famous digital tech site GigaOm was last year forced to shut down operations completely.

So what on earth is going on? Well, it’s getting harder and harder for news sites to sell ads for decent money because as Eric Beecher knows from personal experience—and I should disclose I have a small stake in his media business —everyone on the internet has an electronic billboard to fill.

Quote:

ERIC BEECHER: What that means is for the first time in history, advertisers are, aren't dealing with scarcity, they're dealing with ubiquity. And so therefore the price they pay for advertising, the ability to target audiences in a way they never could before at low prices, is just creating chaos to the revenue model.

— Eric Beecher, Chairman, Private Media

It’s long been clear that digital news is not as profitable as newspapers and cannot save them from going off that cliff.

The Guardian, for example, lost 59 million pounds last year and is now laying off 250 staff, even though it attracts 42 million visitors a month to its UK, US and Australian digital news sites, and is in the world’s top 10.

The Daily Mail, which gets 53 million digital readers a month, is also struggling.

But even pure digital sites that once made money are in trouble because the revenue they get from advertisers for every thousand clicks on their website, or CPMs, has crashed.

Alan Kohler, who started Business Spectator 9 years ago and eventually sold it for $30 million, says that his site could not survive today.

Quote:

ALAN KOHLER: We were getting $50 CPMs, which is per thousand, and when we started the business in 2007 the view was that that was pretty good we could just about make a living at that sort of price ...

... And in fact it’s collapsed, the price has collapsed, and now the going rate for CPMs is two to five dollars, so it’s really fallen to a tenth. It’s one of the greatest price collapses in history really.

— Alan Kohler, Editor in Chief, Business Spectator

The problem for digital publishers is that when it comes to ads, they’re no longer the only fish in the pond. As Nine’s Alex Parsons explains:

Quote:

Five to 10 years ago if you wanted to buy digital advertising in Australia you went to one of five places ... Nine, Fairfax, News Ltd, Yahoo 7 or Telstra ... took up 80 per cent of the display ad market. What we’ve seen over the past five years is the emergence of Facebook ... and other global players.

— Alex Parsons, Chief Digital and Marketing Officer, Nine Entertainment Co, Statement to Media Watch, 1 June, 2016

In the US, Facebook and Google now suck up 75 cents of every new dollar going to digital.

And in Australia the figures are even starker.

Last year, according to Morgan Stanley, Google’s and Facebook’s digital ad revenues in Australia grew by $1b.

But everybody else saw digital revenue shrink by $700m.

And Eric Beecher can only see things getting worse.

Quote:

ERIC BEECHER: Facebook as an advertising platform is extremely recent and so they're on this extraordinary upwards trajectory and they're grabbing revenue at a prodigious rate from traditional media and they have the biggest media audience in the history of the world to support that.

— Eric Beecher, Chairman, Private Media

The key reason that Facebook is so successful in selling to advertisers is that it can target potential buyers of their products because it knows who they are.

Quote:

ALAN KOHLER: Facebook are the, just the champions of data because they have got everybody not only using Facebook, but they reveal everything about themselves. We all kind of put our entire lives on Facebook, so Facebook knows everything about everybody. I mean, you can, you can target your advertising through Facebook to the individual. I mean nobody's been able to do that before. It's incredible.

— Alan Kohler, Editor in Chief, Business Spectator

Not only is Facebook sucking up more and more advertising revenue, it’s also how more and more people access their news. In the US, almost nine out of 10 millenials, people born after 1980, already get their news this way.

So it’s no surprise that GigaOm’s founder Om Malik says, if he were starting out today he’d probably make his website a Facebook page.

And this shift to Facebook is likely to accelerate, now that ‘Instant Articles’ is feeding stories from The Sydney Morning Herald, or National Geographic, for example, direct to your Facebook app. Says Matt Rowley:

Quote:

Facebook might look like a monster now but I think it’s just going to get bigger the more Instant Articles takes off.

— Matt Rowley, Head of Content Marketing, Cirrus Media, Statement to Media Watch, 27 May, 2016

With Instant Articles, those news stories look better and load faster, and users never have to leave their Facebook app.

But while that’s good for consumers, it sets publishers a problem.

If they don’t let Facebook have their stories, they miss out on traffic, but if they do, they risk making Facebook even stronger.

So far, sites like Buzzfeed, the Washington Post The Guardian and Huffington Post have all taken the plunge, as has Fairfax Media in Australia.

But News Corp has stayed out of Instant Articles, saying it doesn’t want to give its valuable journalism away.

And media analyst Megan Brownlow says it’s hard to know which is the right decision.

Quote:

MEGAN BROWNLOW: We've got more than 12 million Australians on Facebook every day and they're tuning in six times a day. And then, if they find an article that's from your publication or from your show, off they go to see it. So on that, on that hand, it's very attractive, you need that. But on the other hand, you're fighting for the same money.

— Megan Brownlow, Executive Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers

And news sites’ problems sites don’t stop there.

In Europe the mobile phone carrier Three begins trialling technology this week to block ADS from being transmitted over its network.

And if no one can see those ads—news sites will obviously not be able to sell them.

The technology, which blocks up to 95% of browser ads, could soon come here, and as Nic Newman of the Reuters Institute tells Media Watch, it could have a dramatic effect.

Quote:

NIC NEWMAN: I think if mobile phone companies block ads at a network level, then that’s a real game changer.

— Nic Newman, Research Associate, Reuters Institute, 10 June, 2016

Crucially, ads on Facebook won’t and be blocked.

But it doesn’t need to be done at network level. In the US, one in three adults are already using ad-blocking software that’s achieving a similar result.

Quote:

NIC NEWMAN: One of the problems with, with ad blocking is that once people download the ad blockers, our data suggests they never actually go back. So, most of the people who downloaded them are actually using them regularly and young people, who advertisers desperately need to reach, are also ad blocking at very, very high rates.

— Nic Newman, Research Associate, Reuters Institute, 10 June, 2016

Already some US websites are reportedly losing up to 40% of their ad revenue.

And it’s estimated that in 2015 the US ad market took a US$22 billion hit.

Australia is yet to feel the full force.

But SBS has moved to stop people with Ad blockers accessing its videos.

While The Guardian and Nine MSN have trialled pop-ups to persuade viewers they cannot block ads if content is to remain free.

But media consultant Steve Allen reckons news sites need to do more.

Quote:

If they don’t act on it quickly it could become a serious problem down the track. The magazine and newspaper sites are the ones under the most pressure and they can’t afford to have this interference in what are already shrinking profits.

— Steve Allen, Chief Executive, Fusion Strategy, Statement to Media Watch, 19 April, 2016

So, with all these problems, can news sites find a way to stay solvent?

Well, one obvious way is to make readers pay for what they read, as News Corp does with its paywalls.

Writing in The Australian recently, the paper’s former Editor in Chief Chris Mitchell was optimistic that their strategy is working.

Quote:

When the paywall was launched at The Oz three years ago subscriptions were $3 a week. That is now $8. Growth is not slowing and actual total subs are now more than 80,000 ... And that tells this old newspaper editor there is a reason to think paywalls can help save the news media model ...

— The Australian, 23 May, 2016

But the crucial word here is help.

Because independent analysts like Megan Brownlow from Price Waterhouse Coopers don’t see subscriptions alone being the saviour.

Quote:

MEGAN BROWNLOW: You need a number of different revenue streams. On its own it's not going to offset the loss of revenue from print circulation. But alongside a number of other activities, I think it's quite critical. Subscriptions are hard because Australians, particularly for digital content, are very reluctant to pay.

— Megan Brownlow, Executive Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers

Yes Australians are happy to spend $80 a month on a mobile data plan.

But An Essential poll late last year showed that seven out of 10 won’t pay for news under any circumstances.

Yet The Australian’s publisher Nicholas Gray sees hope even in that:

Quote:

"I reckon 27 per cent of people over 18 saying they might pay for -digital news (provided there is something unique about it), which by my maths is 4.4 million people, is pretty good. And that number will grow ..."

— The Australian, 23 May, 2016

But is Gray being too optimistic? Nic Newman of the Reuters Institute is afraid he may be.

Quote:

NIC NEWMAN: I think for general news providers who don’t have anything truly distinctive, it’s going to be really hard to get people to pay for news when there is so much free news available from The BBC, from The Huffington Post, from a range of other providers. So, it’s really important to have something that’s different and distinctive if you’re going to try and charge for news.

— Nic Newman, Research Associate, Reuters Institute, 10 June, 2016

Britain’s Financial Times does have something unique to sell. And it currently boasts more than half-a-million digital subscribers paying up to $15 a week.

But the FT has just been forced to lower its paywall and cut costs and staff numbers after a leaked memo warned of ‘daunting trading conditions’ for 2016.

And life is even tougher for sites that sell 'commoditised' news – which is the sort you can get almost anywhere, including from the ABC.

Quote:

ALAN KOHLER: The trouble with subscriptions is, you know, that, that there's just so much free stuff still available, that getting people to pay for, for content that's basically the same as what you can get for free is never going to work. I mean, it's got to be very special to get people to pay. And even then you know you're going to be struggling to get the same number of people paying the same amount they used to pay for a paper, a newspaper. You know that’s the, that's really the problem.

— Alan Kohler, Editor in Chief, Business Spectator

Britain’s most popular tabloid The Sun – owned by News Corp – put up a paywall in 2013, but was forced to take it down two years later.

Australia’s tabloids—which are also largely owned by News Corp—don’t reveal their subscriber numbers—apart from the Herald Sun. But paywalls are unlikely to work well for them either.

And while Fairfax papers are doing better, they’re not raising enough money to stop repeated job cuts.

The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have much higher digital subscriptions than The Australian ... But numbers are now falling.

And both still rely on print advertising and print sales, which are declining fast, for for than half of their revenue.

So how can they or anyone fund their news operations in future? The answer is nobody really knows.

Quote:

NIC NEWMAN: I think there’s no single answer. Essentially most media companies are thinking about a range of business models. They can no longer afford to rely purely on digital advertising, that’s clear. I think traditional media is definitely in the midst of this ‘perfect storm’ because of the combination of ad blocking, falling print sales and just the difficulties of funding news in a more atomised world … and in the short term the prospects look pretty serious, but I suppose the positive side is that people are still really interested in news, they’re interested in all kinds of news, so it’s not the demand, it’s the business models that’s the problem.

— Nic Newman, Research Associate, Reuters Institute, 10 June, 2016

Philanthropy, crowd funding, micropayments, and native advertising are just some of the business models the media are trying.

But the key problem is general news costs a fortune to produce and attracts very little digital advertising, because general news doesn’t directly target people who are looking for that new car, home loan or holiday that advertisers want to sell.

But Nine’s Alex Parsons insists that general news is still something mainstream sites have to produce.

Quote:

It’s not as profitable as lifestyle or automotive category, but what it does do is create habit for consumers to visit your site who can then move into other categories ... which are more lucrative for advertisers.

— Alex Parsons, Chief Digital and Marketing Officer, Nine Entertainment Co, Statement to Media Watch, 1 June, 2016

But many in the advertising world, are not convinced.

And Lachlan Brahe from analytics company Comscore, believes general news has no future, telling Media Watch that for media companies the answer is simple:

Quote:

They should stop making general news. They need to change and adapt. It’s inevitable.

— Lachlan Brahe, Vice President, comScore, Statement to Media Watch, 26 May, 2016

So, what does all this mean for mastheads like the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the Herald Sun or other commercially-funded news sites?

Eric Beecher who has edited two of those three papers in his long career is not optimistic.

Quote:

ERIC BEECHER: They are heading towards the cliff and it's not their fault but they are heading towards the cliff really fast.

— Eric Beecher, Chairman, Private Media

And if they go over the edge, what exactly goes with them?

Reporters’ jobs by the score for a start.

But Eric Beecher also believes it will bring the quote ‘collapse of civic journalism’.

Quote:

ERIC BEECHER: And when I say the collapse of civic journalism, it’s happening all the time. You read all the time about journalism companies like Fairfax and News and so on, carving back the resources, making journalists redundant and particularly in the areas that matter to the democracy. So covering politics, covering the courts, covering science, covering technology, covering education, covering the arts, all of those things, covering business, these are so fundamental to the way our democracy works. And the resources to do that are being stripped away every day.

— Eric Beecher, Chairman, Private Media

That’s a gloomy view, and it’s certainly not shared by News Corp or Fairfax Media, both of whom declined to take part in this program, and who declare themselves to be optimistic and excited about the future.

But it is shared by Nic Newman of the Reuters Institute and many others we’ve talked to.

So what about Alan Kohler? Gazing into his crystal ball, how optimistic is he?

Quote:

ALAN KOHLER: Not optimistic at all. I think that, you know, I think what you might call public interest journalism is going to be funded by public interest bodies, such as the government or philanthropists or other people sort of like that. But I think that there's no commercial, there’s no commercial future for that at all.

— Alan Kohler, Editor in Chief, Business Spectator

Eric Beecher is equally convinced that taxpayers may ultimately have to fork out to more than just the ABC and SBS keep public interest journalism alive.

Quote:

ERIC BEECHER: I'm talking about something like government funding in a way that the courts are funded, so they are 100 per cent independent of government, but they are funded by government. I see that unless that happens in Australia, we're going to wake up in a year or two years time and find that half to two-thirds of the important journalism that kept power accountable won't exist. And half of that half doesn't exist now.

— Eric Beecher, Chairman, Private Media

It seems like an extraordinary idea and a shocking one. And we really can’t see it getting much traction.

But the revenue crisis now hitting traditional and online news media is very real.

So what is the answer? Well, this program has said it before, and we’ll say it again.

If people refuse to pay for the news they want and for the scrutiny that society needs – then sooner or later they’ll find that it’s gone.

There’s probably close to 1 million people watching this program. So, if you care about it, you can help. Put your hand in your pocket and stop it from happening before the media get to that cliff.

Buy a subscription, think before using ad blockers. Don’t kill the media that you need.

And you can read more about tonight’s special on our Facebook page ... or our website, where you can get a transcript and download the program.

You can also read Statements from Fairfax and News Corp.

And you can catch up with us on iview and contact me or Media Watch on Twitter.

But for now until next week that’s it from us. Goodbye.

So, a couple of thoughts:

I'm as pleased as anyone about the destruction of shitty news outlets. Indeed the first comment in reply on this transcript at the ABC's website was to the effect of "The market knows all, sucks to be you, maybe you should think about producing some quality content instead of the trash we get for free from everywhere else."

That said, I am not terribly enthused about the ultimate future here. When you have a power vacuum -- and that's what we are seeing in news production now -- it is a prime opportunity for oligarchic or monopoly conditions to arise. That's why I highlighted Facebook -- basically, it is now the prime advertising platform on the planet, and its power comes from its drones self-selecting into that platform. Remember on the Ghostbusters thread where I quoted Carey Martell, and how he said if you're not using Facebook Audience Insights, you are not conducting marketing in the 21st century? That view is basically vindicated by this article. In essence, digital news services are being destroyed by Facebook.

I previously had thought that Facebook's popularity would pass as with most generational fads - nobody still has a Myspace page. But Zuckerberg seems to have been a bit cleverer than I thought, or has a staff that understand human psychology better than I thought. Facebook is basically the Amazon of advertising; you go to it for pretty much one-stop shopping to market to your audience, mainly because your audience freely discloses what it wants. Facebook is likely to go down in history as the greatest innovation in marketing ever invented. Certainly advertisers believe in it, and those guys are relentlessly results-oriented.

However, this worries me, especially around the drip-feed of articles tailored to you, because it is entirely possible for Facebook therefore to influence the articles you see, and because Facebook audiences are lazy, they won't go to alternative sites to find other accounts.

Or consider this possibility: Facebook News, removing the third party supplier of news entirely.

Also worrying: the idea that news organisations are looking to "philanthropists". This is a gimme for a Soros-type to basically co-opt news organisations into their own private mouthpiece. It is simple to see how this power can be abused: "I'll give you enough money to cover your journalists' paychecks for a year, but I'll be expecting a year's worth of articles questioning and focusing on the stability of the US dollar, which I have just coincidentally shorted." You don't even need ultimate conspiracy theories to see how this would be a bad development ... let alone the blithe assertion of government-owned newspapers, which will, two months after that happens, all be Pravda in essence.

What's the solution? I don't know that there is one. The collapse of most digital news organisations within the next 2 years is almost unthinkable to me. But it sounds like it's on its way, and someone is going to profit handsomely out of it.

[spokepoker]

Time for custom made creative viruses. Modify adblock code to strip out facebook newsfeed section.
I disable adblock for the sites I use and like to see content from.

[seniol]

I predict that this year, two more media outlets that hated on the meetups will close

[Rigsby]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ma...t-250-jobs

Guardian Media Group is planning to cut 250 jobs – including 100 in editorial – and to restructure the less profitable parts of the company in a bid to break even within three years.


That was a few months ago. The chickens are coming home to roost:

The Guardian will make more than 250 staff redundant as part of an attempt to slash costs by 20pc, but has not hit a target of 100 job cuts in its newsroom.

The newspaper’s management said they had accepted 257 applications for voluntary redundancy in a process begun in March.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016...undancies/


Oh, and as a little aside, here is the big G gloating over fellow journos demise:

Independent staff forced to sign gagging clauses to get redundancy pay
Terms prevent journalists making any statements about the papers’ parent company or staff – apparently with no time limit

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ma...ndancy-pay


Those that are left now will really need to behave themselves, and jump a bit higher when their masters shout their commands. They are the worst kind of whore.

These people do this in the name of 'ideology', but the whore I see pulling tricks on the corner in my local town, does it to feed her kids (and maintain her crack habit). I know which one is worse in my book. One I'd throw a sandwich to, the other would get the sharp end of my tongue.

May their demise be swift, but still painful.

So it begins, long may it continue, until they are all smoked out of their little ideological rat's nests. Feeding at the trough, spreading their poison. Lies are their trade. They will be destroyed, and never will they be able to mention their name, lest they be known, for the rats they truly are.

Today was a good day.

[username]

I noticed recently that the nightly broadcast network newscast in the United States are practically ignored by most people under 55 years old. I never watch them unless by accident and when I do all I see is typical left wing propaganda.

I added up the ratings and found around 75% of the evening news viewers are over 55 years old. In TV, any audience over 55 is considered worthless to advertisers. Watching broadcast network newscast is old fashion and a relic of when TV and the media was just 3 or 4 channels. These former powerful propaganda tools have lost their luster.

Then I saw this:

Quote:

NBC averaged 5.2 million viewers last week in prime time. CBS had 4.4 million, ABC had 4.2 million, Fox had 2 million, Univision had 1.6 million, Telemundo had 1.31 million, ION Television had 1.29 million and the CW had 1 million.

The big national TV channels reach less than 2% of the population each. The era of them telling people what to think is quickly evaporating. Unfortunately they are being replace by other vile left wing outlets like Google and Facebook but other independent and alternative media outlets are/will rise.