[Irenicus]

(04-09-2016 05:42 PM)Matsufubu Wrote:  

The only thing that makes SJWs a threat is their government backing. Without Big Daddy Government endorsing their twisted world view they would return to the shadows they belong in. Twisted, weak, degenerate scum who only attack in packs. I suppose the more rope they are fed the quicker they'll hang themselves. Removing any boundaries regarding gender, sexuality, trans-whatever will inevitably result in collapse as they seek to gain status within increasingly smaller groups specialising in whatever freakish bullshit they think up next. They are the immediate future but their proliferation relies on infecting normal people. Men who understand the world and exist within the framework that nature has laid out for us are the cure.

The world has a fever, and the only prescription...is more RVF.

I agree, the main reason why SJW are powerful at the moment is because the government is backing them. Also important - the financial elite is backing them as well (for example, BLM...we all know the guy who is behind this).

But, as I have said, their reign of terror is coming to an end. The Government, their key ally, is gradually, but surely, turning its back on them.

Again, I will mention Trump...maybe I am too idealistic now (I am tipsy!), but he does not look like a guy who is going to form a Government that will support all these degenerates you have mentioned.

And the financial elite, by itself, is gradually losing it's grip on the Government. They do not control Trump. Or LePen. Without their control of the Government, they can not do much.

And that leads us back to the beginning of this thread. Even if they (financial elite) own all the MSM (and SJW) outlets, the ideals these outlets preach are losing sway over the people.

And the results are all of these layoffs. Fewer and fewer people believe them, that is, all those SJW lies the MSM outlets preach.

Instead of questioning themselves, all of these SJW freaks double down.

I do not mind. It will make things...easier for us, and many others, in the long run. And more interesting.

[DamienCasanova]

BuzzFeed Slashes Revenue Forecast: Is This the Beginning of the End of the Millennial Media Bubble?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/b...dia-bubble

BuzzFeed missed its revenue target by 32 percent in 2015, and has slashed its revenue projections for 2016 from $500 million to $250 million, the Financial Times reports. Initially known for its listicles and relatable GIFs, the youth-oriented media start-up has made a name for itself by dramatically scaling its audience (BuzzFeed had 181 million global unique visitors in the past month), investing in in-depth reporting, and expanding into video production. Just last week, BuzzFeed captivated 800,000 people simultaneously on a Friday afternoon as two of its employees, dressed in goggles and protective gear, wrapped a watermelon with rubber bands until it exploded, in a live-streamed Facebook video.

But sources say that BuzzFeed’s business model—which includes BuzzFeed making customized content campaigns for brands—is hard to do at scale. “It takes too long to do each campaign, and you can only do so many,” one source told the Financial Times. In 2015, Buzzfeed had projected $250 million in revenues overall, but made less than $170 million. (BuzzFeed disputed the numbers and told the Financial Times: “We are very pleased with where BuzzFeed is today and where it will be tomorrow. We are very comfortable with where the digital content world is going and think we are well-positioned.”) More promising is television, where advertisers pay much more than they do for online content. Comcast’s NBCUniversal invested $200 million in BuzzFeed last summer at a $1.5 billion valuation, and at the time the two groups said they’d consider strategic partnerships.

If BuzzFeed’s internal-revenue projections are as gloomy as they appear to be, we could be looking at the beginning of the end of what has been a boom in millennial media. Venture capitalists have been all too willing to pour money into media start-ups, the three most notable examples being BuzzFeed, Vox, and Vice, which all tout $1 billion valuations. Other digital native start-ups—companies like Bustle, Mic, and the Dodo—have all raised cash from big-name institutional investors and angels alike. But already in 2016 there’s been an industry correction , particularly at start-ups. International Business Times, Mashable, and even BuzzFeed have laid off employees this year. Al Jazeera America and HuffPost Live both shuttered. The New Republic sold after Chris Hughes failed to transform it into the digital destination he thought it could be. If anything, the news about BuzzFeed may have a chilling effect on media, causing investors to think twice before writing a check to a fledgling media company.

[Tex Pro]

(04-13-2016 09:33 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

BuzzFeed Slashes Revenue Forecast: Is This the Beginning of the End of the Millennial Media Bubble?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/b...dia-bubble

BuzzFeed missed its revenue target by 32 percent in 2015, and has slashed its revenue projections for 2016 from $500 million to $250 million, the Financial Times reports. Initially known for its listicles and relatable GIFs, the youth-oriented media start-up has made a name for itself by dramatically scaling its audience (BuzzFeed had 181 million global unique visitors in the past month), investing in in-depth reporting, and expanding into video production. Just last week, BuzzFeed captivated 800,000 people simultaneously on a Friday afternoon as two of its employees, dressed in goggles and protective gear, wrapped a watermelon with rubber bands until it exploded, in a live-streamed Facebook video.

But sources say that BuzzFeed’s business model—which includes BuzzFeed making customized content campaigns for brands—is hard to do at scale. “It takes too long to do each campaign, and you can only do so many,” one source told the Financial Times. In 2015, Buzzfeed had projected $250 million in revenues overall, but made less than $170 million. (BuzzFeed disputed the numbers and told the Financial Times: “We are very pleased with where BuzzFeed is today and where it will be tomorrow. We are very comfortable with where the digital content world is going and think we are well-positioned.”) More promising is television, where advertisers pay much more than they do for online content. Comcast’s NBCUniversal invested $200 million in BuzzFeed last summer at a $1.5 billion valuation, and at the time the two groups said they’d consider strategic partnerships.

If BuzzFeed’s internal-revenue projections are as gloomy as they appear to be, we could be looking at the beginning of the end of what has been a boom in millennial media. Venture capitalists have been all too willing to pour money into media start-ups, the three most notable examples being BuzzFeed, Vox, and Vice, which all tout $1 billion valuations. Other digital native start-ups—companies like Bustle, Mic, and the Dodo—have all raised cash from big-name institutional investors and angels alike. But already in 2016 there’s been an industry correction , particularly at start-ups. International Business Times, Mashable, and even BuzzFeed have laid off employees this year. Al Jazeera America and HuffPost Live both shuttered. The New Republic sold after Chris Hughes failed to transform it into the digital destination he thought it could be. If anything, the news about BuzzFeed may have a chilling effect on media, causing investors to think twice before writing a check to a fledgling media company.

Yes, this good news. BuzzFeed is the worst offender among the SJW websites.

Looks like the day of reckoning is here for these SJW propaganda sites.

[Easy E]

(04-13-2016 09:33 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

BuzzFeed Slashes Revenue Forecast: Is This the Beginning of the End of the Millennial Media Bubble?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/b...dia-bubble

[AnonymousBosch]

(04-13-2016 01:05 PM)Tex Pro Wrote:  

Looks like the day of reckoning is here for these SJW propaganda sites.

Recently:

- Gawker gets successfully-sued for more than it's worth.
- The Australian papers start laying off staff en masse.
- Vice loses 17% of its web traffic.

Then yesterday alone:

- Buzzfeed fails to meet projections.
- Salon lays off writers.
- Demand Media's stock has gradually crashed from $50 to $5.18, and they sell off Cracked as a result.

With regards to Salon: "Salon Media Group took steps that we believe will put the company on a stronger path forward," Jeffers said. "We made the difficult decision to reduce our staff, in addition to other budgetary cuts. We hope these steps will move us in the direction of profitability and align us more closely with our strategy."

Of the later, Cracked's purchasers believe they'll make money by transitioning their video comedy to an 'on demand' platform.

"The money is not there yet, he admitted, but it's going to be."

[Aquiles_Baesta_Parada]

[AnonymousBosch]

No-one has mentioned this from last week:

Quote:

Mashable executive editor Jim Roberts will leave the company and at least two dozen members of the site's editorial staff will be laid off as part of a "strategic shift" toward video, CNNMoney has learned.

The layoffs, which will effectively deplete the site of its news editors and reporters, come one week after Mashable received a $15 million round in funding to build video content in partnership with Turner Broadcasting. (Turner is CNN's parent company.)

"We are now equally adept at telling stories in text and video, and those stories now live on social networks, over-the-top services and TV. Our ads live there too, with branded content now at the center of our ad offering," Mashable founder Pete Cashmore wrote in a memo to staff. "To reflect these changes, we must organize our teams in a different way. Unfortunately this has led us to a very tough decision. Today we must part ways with some of our colleagues in order to focus our efforts."

In a staff meeting, Mashable chief operating officer Mike Kriak said the site was "moving away from harder news" and toward an "entertaining digital culture," two sources familiar with his remarks said.

It's idiotic to see how these sites are only just discovering that hiring Anti-Capitalists doesn't generate Capital.

[Rigsby]

I've had a bit of a day out today. In as much as, I've read a boat load of Guardian comments.

You probably know the Guardian. That bastion of all right thinking people who are leftists. There is a big debate going on. Some journo (owen jones I think) did a big hit piece about how 'trolls' targeted him and posted his address on the net, complete with photos and a big red arrow about where he lived and the door he 'walks out of in the morning'. Bit like they did to you and your family, funnily enough Roosh. Well, not funny if you are on the receiving end of it.

But he conflated his argument about the outright stalking abuse (that is covered by current laws in the UK) with that of people disagreeing with others on the internet. I think he even chucked in a bit of 'under age children are watching pornography and that needs to stop' as well. A total word salad, that prompted over a thousand replies before the comments got shut for the day.

Basically, if you read all the thousand comments (as I did) you will get a sense of the consensus. It goes something like this: Everyone is super pissed off at having all their comments deleted for arbitrary reasons. The greatest offences are for posts that involve radical feminism. Well, just feminism in general really, it's all radical now. Oh and also for those that do not join the narrative with regard to the 'immigration crisis'.

A lot of very very upset people.

The Guardian is in deep do do. Massive debts. They have already started winding down comments sections on most articles, and the readers have noticed. Most of them say they come only to speak and share, and if this is taken away, they will not visit any more.

The anger and the bile is palpable. This will not end well. It seems to be that most people think that the comments section will be totally removed. That is right. They are going to totally eradicate any form of feedback on their articles, by taking away the comments section. It's just slow slow drip drip for now, getting the people used to the idea, subconsciously, before they roll it out proper.

Ah well, it will be their death.

And that death can not come soon enough.

I read the Guardian a few years ago, but I had to stop when every single post of mine was deleted for saying 'Gender war clickbait' - hardly offensive in the extreme, yet without fail, these posts were removed. And it warms my cockles to see other decent, responsible posters saying the same. Ok, so they are lefties. Proves the point even more. The left are eating themselves!

So, when the Guardian get rid of comments (like it looks like they are about to do), there will be a massive exodus of readers. This will impact 'sales' and 'page impressions' and all that internet 'hit' kind of stuff.

The end can not come soon enough for these bastards, for me.

But the comments were of a multitude and all of the same theme: Why do you delete my comments when I am not abusive, just disagreeing with you in an intelligent manner.

The Guardian, and the press in general (be they so called left or right wing), have been called out in a big way by those posting comments. You can be sure that this will not be allowed to continue. They already skew opinion with bogus upvotes/downvotes, by censorship, but they honestly can not afford the meat and bones moderators (humans) to police the mess this has become.

These are the end days. I welcome it wholeheartedly in one way, but a part of me raises the question: Just what will this be replaced by? Full on propaganda with no recourse to debate or dissent? Looks that way.

There is a cull taking place of journalists. But the front page will continue, and it will be fed by state led professional propagandists. That is worrying in itself. So yes, let us celebrate their demise, but don't party too hard, until we know what will be put in its place.

I was genuinely heartened to see so many people calling out the bullshit of feminism, of unbridled immigration, of corruption at the highest levels. These people may be 'leftists', they may even be our enemy in some ways, but they hold many of the same common sense viewpoints as we do. In fact, a lot of the people taking the time to post rational logical arguments, made a point of not 'identifying' as left or right.

I really don't know, trying to make sense of it. But something is moving, something is changing. The world we inhabit next year may be very different to the one we inhabit today.

But this article by Owen Jones sickened me. The way he used the abuse of children to further his and the state's agenda. Words are not enough for scum like that. Yes it was wrong for him to have his house photo'd and put up on the web. But tell me, why does he have a voice? Why is that so bad for him, with so many saying how terrible it was, when the exact same thing was done to Roosh and his family for god's sake?

Roosh didn't try to bring in new censorship laws after the event, did he? Using the abuse that he and his family faced as an excuse.

So why is Owen Jones allowed to be 'special'? Because he is a shill for the establishment, for LGBT rights etc. - they are winding people up - and they don't like it when they get the vox populi back.

They can't have it both ways. And they will not have it both ways. But which way it goes, remains to be seen. Life just keeps getting more 'interesting' with each passing year, doesn't it?

[Clockwerk]

I hate Vice; that is some twisted shit and I'm glad to see it failing. The videos they make are technically really well produced but I just can't stand their skewed perspective on things. They're globalists(though I use that term loosely because I think the world might not be a ball).

[Paracelsus]

Related: while browsing through back issues of Australia's Media Watch, I came across this interesting one from July last year:

(If you want to review the article on the site, go ahead - ABC is a publicly-funded broadcaster, it doesn't generate revenue from pageclicks as such.)

Quote:

As robots look to take over more jobs in the future, what will happen to journalism? Over in the US, computers are already writing some stories. But are they any good?

But now let’s turn to news of the future ... or perhaps the future of news.

Quote:

MARK FERGUSON: One of the world’s top experts says that robots are coming to every industrialised nation and no longer confined to the car industry.

JACKIE QUIST: Humans beware.

ROBOT: What’s up Australia!

JACKIE QUIST: Innovation is about to catapult us into a whole new era.

— Channel Seven, News, 16th June, 2015

Yes, five million Australian jobs could go in the next 10-15 years according to this recent report. Or 40% of the country’s workforce.

And don’t think journalists won’t be among them

AAP—that’s Australian Associated Press—is developing software that will allow its computers to write simple racing and sports reports. And editor-in-chief Tony Gillies is pumped at the prospect.

Quote:

Done well, the impact could be amazing, particularly for mobile publishers driven by speed of delivery as much as they are by accuracy.

— Tony Gillies, Editor-in-Chief, Australian Associated Press, 19th June, 2015

But over in the US, robots are already busy scribbling.

The world’s largest news organisation, Associated Press, gets its computers to write finance stories, using software called Wordsmith.

And the same software also writes sports reports for Yahoo, and real estate copy for Homesnap.

And we’re not just talking one or two stories, according to Robbie Allen of Automated Insights who developed the software:

Quote:

ROBBIE ALLEN: Last year we generated over 300 million stories with the Wordsmith platform. There’s a very good chance that you read content that you had no idea was generated by our software. This year we’re going to do over a billion stories so this kind of content is only going to become more pervasive every single year.

— Huffington Post, 8th July, 2015

One billion stories would take an awful lot of journalists

And Allen tells Media Watch that Wordsmith may soon be writing the news for websites in Australia:

Quote:

We’re talking to a variety of news organisations. I can’t share their names but the interest has been very strong from Australia. So, I would imagine that in the not too distant future we will have something there.

— Robbie Allen, Automated Insights, 17th June, 2015

Nor is Wordsmith the only contender.

The business website Forbes uses Quill software from Narrative Science to write up company and earnings forecasts.

And American sports network BTN uses Quill to write match reports.

What’s more, in Los Angeles last year, an LA Times reporter actually scooped his rivals by using a Quakebot:

Quote:

The First News Report on the L.A. Earthquake Was Written by a Robot

Ken Schwencke ... was jolted awake at 6:25 a.m. on Monday by an earthquake. He rolled out of bed and went straight to his computer, where he found a brief story about the quake already written and waiting in the system. He glanced over the text and hit “publish.”

— Slate, 17th March, 2015

And it’s not just in earthquakes that computers come first.

America’s National Public Radio, or NPR staged a race between its White House reporter Scott Horsley and a Wordsmith bot to turn an earnings report from restaurant chain Denny’s into news.

As you can see, the bot was much faster.

But ... we’re glad to say when NPR asked readers which story they preferred, the reporter won hands down.

Quote:

Story #1 – 1301
Story #2 – 12704

Story #1 is, of course, the one written by the machine. It clearly doesn't have the style of Scott's story.

— NPR, 20th May, 2015

So, can reporters now relax? Well, no.

At Sweden’s Karlstad University, Christer Clerwall got his journalism students to read two reports of football games.

Four out of ten who read the robot text thought it was written by a journalist.

And five out of ten who read the journalist’s story reckoned it was written by a robot.

Sack that journalist.

But seriously it can be hard to tell. As you’ll see from this New York Times test using two reports of baseball games:

Quote:

“Things looked bleak for the Angels when they trailed by two runs in the ninth inning, but Los Angeles recovered thanks to a key single from Vladimir Guerrero to pull out a 7-6 victor...”

— New York Times, 7th March, 2015

What dya reckon? Robot or human?

And what about the second one?

Quote:

“The University of Michigan baseball team used a four-run fifth inning to salvage the final game in its three-game weekend series with Iowa, winning 7-5 on Saturday afternoon (April 24)”

— New York Times, 7th March, 2015

So which one’s written by the robot?

Tick, tick, tick.

Well, it’s the first!

I got that wrong. And so did almost everyone at Media Watch—and that’s a couple of hundred people as you know.

So let’s take another New York Times test and try it with poetry.

Quote:

“When I in dreams behold thy fairest shade
Whose shade in dreams doth wake the sleeping morn
The daytime shadow of my love betray’d
Lends hideous night to dreaming’s faded form.”

— New York Times, 7th March, 2015

Surely that has to be Shakespeare?

And this piece of prose also sounds familiar.

Quote:

“Kitty couldn’t fall asleep for a long time. Her nerves were strained as two tight strings, and even a glass of hot wine, that Vronsky made her drink, did not help her. Lying in bed she kept going over and over that monstrous scene at the meadow.”

— New York Times, 7th March, 2015

So. Robot or human?

Well, if you guessed Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy ... then you’d be ... Wrong ...

And it wasn’t a Shakespeare sonnet either.

Both were written by computers who’ve been taught to emulate the style.

And it’s not just poetry or prose they can copy.

Developers claim the software can be programmed to produce general news, movie reviews and, heaven forbid, even opinion:

Just think of it, an Andrew Bolt bot.

Quote:

The software can be as opinionated as the programmers want to make it. For Yahoo, we started doing fantasy football recaps and we’re making those very snarky and humorous.

— Robbie Allen, Automated Insights, 17th June, 2015

Yes, bots are accurate, fast and funny. And, of course, they don’t get tired and don’t complain. So, should journalists and readers be worried that they’ll take over? Some say yes.

Quote:

Robots have mastered news writing. Goodbye journalism

— Wired UK, 6th March, 2015

But AAP’s Tony Gillies insists that computers writing the news will be good for readers and need not be bad for journalists:

Quote:

It shouldn’t necessarily be about replacing staff with “robots” ... Technology used in this way can help publishers deliver content they would not otherwise be able to deliver.

— Tony Gillies, Editor-in-Chief, Australian Associated Press, 19th June, 2015

Software developer Robbie Allen also claims it’s a win-win because it will free reporters to concentrate on more important stories

Like chasing the Kardashians perhaps.

But we’re more inclined to listen to Silicon Valley entrepreneur Martin Ford, author of Rise of the Robots, who says:

Quote:

“I don’t think we’re going to see huge numbers of journalists lose their jobs because of this, but I think that what we’re more likely to see is fewer journalists may be hired in the future”

— World News Publishing Focus, 10th March, 2015

So what are the jobs that robots cannot do?

Complex investigations, analysis of issues and reporting live from the scene as a story is breaking, are all areas where humans still rule.

The comparison between the two news stories didn't particularly shake me, but the bot-generated prose and poetry did. And given the steady degrading of literacy levels in the West, there will be less and less need for journalists at all, less and less need for any independent voice to actually tell you what to believe. It'll all be generated by a small group of people with particular agendae.

[HD668B]

Just like a headless chicken, it seems that instead of taking a pause and reflect on itself, The Guardian is doubling down = https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...sphere-men

It also seems they disabled the comments on this specific article only, I wonder why...

[Paracelsus]

The author is one Stephen Marche, who seems to hit all the expected tropes for a leftie typist with a dick:

(1) Canadian
(2) Wrote one novel that nobody bought
(3) Wrote a short story anthology that nobody bought
(4) Criticises Stephen Harper, links him with Rob Ford
(5) PhD in "Early Modern English Drama", a.k.a. read Shakespeare but lacked the academic talent of Syephen Greenblatt or sufficient talent to get tenure.

[Benoit]

(04-14-2016 06:49 AM)HD668B Wrote:  

Just like a headless chicken, it seems that instead of taking a pause and reflect on itself, The Guardian is doubling down = https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...sphere-men

It also seems they disabled the comments on this specific article only, I wonder why...

The cognitive dissonance is incredible...

Quote:

But very quickly – mid-30s, really – a new locker-room talk emerges. The new locker-room talk goes like this: you ask your friend what summer programming do you have your daughters in, and your friend says I’m trying to find something with science in it, and you say, yeah, you gotta fight those cultural assumptions about girls and STEM, and he says totally, and you say I’m just trying to do little things like nature walks and trips to the science center, and he says we should go together some time, and you say totally.

And then you’re taking your daughters to the science center and a gorgeous woman walks by, and you look at your friend, and your friend looks at you, and you don’t have to say a thing.

I’m not saying this is the way it should be. Frankly, it’s humiliating for everybody involved. But there is a truth there: if you have a working dick and a working soul, you’d better get used to living with contradictions.

To him, growing up is cutting your dick off and accepting mediocrity.

[spokepoker]

I absolutely hate Vice, my tv company replace H2 (History channel #2) with Vice.
I don't care to watch skinny effeminate hippy men take toad poison to get high.
I don't care about brazillian rappers, or african bicycle gangs.

I always accidentally switch to the vice channel now, I used to watch H2 when they had actual interesting stuff on, like roman viaducts or temple construction.
Now it's just that Ellen chick's documentaries about gay shit, literally.

edit; looks like I'm not alone:
H2 Viewers Aren't Happy About Viceland Taking Over Their Channel

Quote:

H2 viewers encountered quite a rude awakening over the past week.

Fans expecting to see shows like Ancient Aliens and Modern Marvels instead stumbled across a new crop of series with titles such as Balls Deep, F*ck That’s Delicious and Weediquette.

Nope, it’s not your father’s secondary History Channel anymore. Viceland, the new youth-skewing 24-hour cable channel from Vice Media and A+E Networks, replaced H2 on February 29. And although both media coverage and A+E trumpeted the news for weeks leading up to the switch, it still caught several audience members off guard.

“The only reason I didn’t get rid of cable was because of the H2 network,” one reader posted on Channel Guide’s website, which has now clocked more than 1,000 comments about the flip (many of them vulgar). “The new change is horrible. I now can leave cable and go back to streaming what I want.”

Another reader added: “The sad truth is that we are no longer the demographic to which the TV stations are marketing. They believe the under-30 crowd will produce the marketing dollars. Prepare for more of the same.”

An A+E Networks insider said the company was receiving the same volume of phone calls it gets from any show cancellation. “It’s pretty minimal,” he said. “We were pretty proactive about telling fans what was happening and where the programming would be available.”

And on the flip side, some reaction on Viceland's Facebook page has been positive to the new channel: "I just stumbled upon this TV channel recently and i had never even heard of it, but now i am addicted to it," wrote one poster. "I love all the variety it has and the different cultures. It truly is different and i like it a lot so far. Balls Deep is my favorite one so far. Viceland is one of my new favorite channels." Added another, about Ellen Page's new show Gaycation: "Incredible! So refreshing to watch something hard hitting & real. The interviewing, subject matter is just so touching & heartfelt."

Although channel flips have become common these days, most makeovers are subtler than the steep turn from H2 to Viceland. When TV Guide Network turned into Pop, for example, it maintained programming such as soap opera repeats. ABC Family changed its name to Freeform this January, but kept the shows. Discovery swapped Military Channel into American Heroes Channel, but the network’s patriotic vibe remained.

In those cases, networks hope to hold on to part of the existing viewership base while also attracting a new crowd. But Viceland targets a much different (and extremely younger) audience than H2. Nielsen won’t release Viceland ratings yet, but the network has low expectations: According to Advertising Age, it is promising advertisers that it will initially deliver a paltry 0.1 rating among adults 18-49.

H2 was never a major ratings performer—it usually sat in the shadow of its much larger big sister, History, which remains one of cable’s most-watched networks. H2 launched in 1996 as History International, a sister to History Channel but focused more on world history. In 2011, the network was rebranded H2. As History Channel moved to more reality and scripted programming, much of its traditional documentary fare wound up on H2. But H2 also became known for its pseudo documentaries, particularly ones with a sci-fi bent.

In 2015, H2 averaged 392,000 viewers in primetime, placing it below Disney XD but above HLN in the rankers. The channel had dropped 11% vs. 2014.

For its final month of programming, H2 averaged 331,000 viewers. Its most-watched show for the week ending February 28—its final week on the air—was Hangar 1: The UFO Files, which averaged 516,000 viewers on Feb. 26.

H2 performed less in the adults 18-49 demographic–the one coveted by advertisers–which gave A+E further reason to make the switch, even though it might upset core viewers. It's only been a week, so it's too soon to tell whether H2 fans will have an impact, be it through social media or their cable providers.

It's a gamble, of course, whether Viceland can go any better. Much of its target Millennial audience has been fleeing traditional TV for digital platforms. Viceland creative director Spike Jonze told reporters in January that Vice nonetheless wanted to launch a linear cable network because "for us, as a company to get this kind of production budget can still only be done in TV."

As for what happens next to the H2 fare, viewers have so far said they haven't been able to find any of it on the History channel. Nevertheless, A+E Networks says in a statement that "programming that appeared on H2 is now available on History and the History mobile app. Please check History.com for details."

[username]

(04-14-2016 03:55 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  

I absolutely hate Vice, my tv company replace H2 (History channel #2) with Vice.
...
I always accidentally switch to the vice channel now, I used to watch H2 when they had actual interesting stuff on, like roman viaducts or temple construction.
Now it's just that Ellen chick's documentaries about gay shit, literally.

Yeah I really liked H2 as well. It was the first channel I would go to when I wanted to to watch TV but didn't know what was on. I haven't watch more than 2 minutes of Vice TV since it launched. Vice TV was suppose to bring millennials back to cable television but in reality it has driven more away then it's brought.

[Matsufubu]

Fuck Owen Jones. I knew he was full of shit when he wrote 'Chavs': http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/ju...nes-review

The guy completely missed the point that chavs are an underclass, NOT working class. Like the typical Guardianista (white, middle class liberal, thinks that they're cleverer than everyone else) he is so removed from reality he can't even get his premise right and so everything he writes is bullshit through and through.

The Guardian is an insidious left-wing rag that would argue for giving the Isle of Wight to Argentina if it were to claim it. Disabling comments means zero audience participation...good luck with that. As disingenuous and silly as it is, at least the Daily Mail (right wing paper) is smart enough to drive people to it's website and comment in their thousands on every little thing.

[Rigsby]

The more I read the Guardian - CiF (comment is free - they actually have a name for the forum software), the more I appreciate draconian (or going that way) forum moderation.

I stopped reading that rag a long while ago, and it's been interesting taking a day or two to re-evaluate it lately.

They put up another one of their respond-bait articles about Marijuana. About it being legalised, the pros and cons. The same article they have printed a thousand times. The same one they will print a thousand times more. It got the same responses: Stoners talking about all the different strains and how 'Skunk' is actually... you know... like...

They had people whose family and friends had had their psychosis triggered by weed. They had people who smoked it for a 100 years and still feel perfectly fine. The usual bores. The amount of misinformation and people who spoke with authority was frightening. I refrained from logging on and arguing with the idiots.

Basically, the whole CiF thing is too expensive to keep going (so they say). A lot of people are crying conspiracy theory, and who knows they may be right. I have always held that all the articles in the newspapers are just testing beds to put people's names on a list. When they have all the names and info they will close it down. I mean, it's not like they have anyone's interests at heart, is it? They really could not care less.

When I saw Roosh's family home besieged, I wanted to post some comments, but the whole event overtook me. There I was, in my family home - Roosh, and his Mum's house on the TV, and them spouting blatant lies and bullshit. I was mute. I wanted to reach out and tell someone. But the only people there were in this world seemed to be those that already knew (on this forum) and those that did not want to hear it (pretty much everyone else really).

I think the fact that the Guardian is in such deep financial straits (and it is bad, look it up if you don't believe me), and the fact that all the papers have had a major re-design lately to appeal to LCD readers via clickbait and outright subterfuge, means that the days of the old printing press are all about to disappear in this age of digital penetration.

I watched the masters wind them up and watch them go. And go they did, like Pavlov's dogs. With regard to today's article on weed - they were chomping at the bit to tell everyone how much they knew about this and that. And to no avail. No one is listening. Only names for lists and databases. I can see no benefit this verbal diarrhea has for society, among us natives. I can only see its benefits for our overlords and gauging public opinion. There won't be CiF in another year or two. There may not even be a Guardian. Hopefully.

So many people openly mourning it before it has even gone, as if it makes an iota of difference to their lives, as if they made a difference with their words. People on this site make a difference with their words, the few, not the many that spout their daily diary and just add to the maelstrom of media storm.

I was genuinely scared when I saw the number they pulled on Roosh and his family. I was actually too stunned to speak. Call me 'ye of little faith', but I wasn't sure how Roosh could bounce back from that. I guess it was just a warning, a shot against the bows. But come back he did. With aplomb. Kudos.

We all know the game now. We've known it for a while. But now we have incontrovertible proof. The media, the government that feeds them and allows them to exist, are all enemies of the people. It is good to see the disease that is ripping through them at the moment. Taking them down, one by one, making them turn on each other and show themselves for what they are - bought and paid for whores, like Owen Jones.

Boo fucking hoo. Some random doxed Owen Jones on twitter. Probably only about a hundred or so people saw that (if that). He did not have the full force of nation governments and international media organisations, lying about him and spreading blatant bs on national tv, 24/7, for what? Nearly a whole week?

Owen Jones is everything the Guardian and the left and the current governments stand for. Agents for change, when we didn't need change, we just needed diligence and decency. We will not have diligence or decency. That much is clear now. And what lies in its place, is also apparent.

I don't worry that the current media is dying. I am glad. But what I am most worried about is what will take its place. State sanctioned propaganda mechanisms, thinly cloaked in 'Ten best', 'You won't believe', 'Worried about your health?' and all the rest of the clickbait bullshit they propagate.

It's deeper than that, of course, but enough for now.

We should not rejoice too hard at the downfall of these whores and presstitutes - a lot of jobs being lost for sure - but know your enemy! A Goebells or an Alistair Campbell in an air conditioned office can do much more damage than a thousand weak and lily livered journalists in fear of their jobs. And they have the perfect distribution and dissemination method to bring it all about - it's called the internet.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

A few posts back, Anonymous Bosch mentioned that Salon.com is laying off writers.

I just came across an article at the Daily Banter that goes into detail about the magnitude and significance of this. It pegs (heh) the decline to the past few years: "Salon was more than happy to stomp on its legacy from around 2012 to 2015, the period in which the internet magazine switched from being an intellectual heavyweight to being the web's premier destination for all your ridiculous outrage porn needs."

They canned six staffers, including the managing editor. This is a big deal. Salon.com was pretty much the first online-only news media site. It was founded in 1995.

It seems the general public is getting as fed up with SJW "outrage porn" as we are. It just took them a bit longer to realize it. More from the article (highlights mine):

"Remember, there were a few years there where Salon published articles with headlines like "The Legend of Zelda' Is Classist, Sexist and Racist," "'The Conjuring: Right-Wing, Woman-Hating and Really Scary" and "The Onion Thinks Incest, Statutory Rape Is Hilarious." It was just four months ago that you could regularly read Brittney Cooper's "everything is racist" ravings at Salon and it was Salon that gave a platform to both serial plagiarist and anti-Islamophobia punchline C.J. Werleman and #CancelColbert lunatic Suey Park. Hell, even after a year of being criticized for subsisting on the Tumblr-crowd's bottomless reservoir of melodramatic umbrage, it kicked off 2015 with a first-person story from one of its most irritating millennial staffers about a "rape joke" she heard at a party that caused her to go into an all-out existential tailspin."

Hahahahaha! l don't know much about The Daily Banter (seems to be left-leaning, though). But this article is so critical of everything SJW-related, I think it's fine to read at their site. I'd love to see more of this kind of writing. It's about time the mainstream started calling these kinds of writers out.

[AnonymousBosch]

(04-16-2016 12:02 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

It seems the general public is getting as fed up with SJW "outrage porn" as we are. It just took them a bit longer to realize it.

From what I'm socially-observing, the frustration the general public has goes beyond just Journalism. All media reads increasingly 'off' to them - books, novels, songs, movies, television shows and celebrity culture - and the relief you see on their faces when they realise that someone else has noticed is encouraging.

I recently read a Leftist I know saying Springsteen should 'just play and stop virtue-signalling already'.

Some kind of shake up is coming.

[debeguiled]

It is easy to forget that even just a few years ago, maybe three or four, any common sense comment on a mainstream or even just internet-popular blog would either be deleted or drowned out by pro SJW boilerplate rantings.

A couple of years ago I looked on in amazement when the tide started to turn, and you would see more and more anti SJW real talk in comment sections everywhere. Pretty soon even some left leaning sites would either have to shut down comments or just live with their readers disagreeing with their opinions.

In the last couple years, the floodgates seem to be opening, and uninterested parties who might even have gone along with SJW talking points just to get along and figuring it didn't really matter are finally losing their patience too.

The holdouts are the far left are now places like Salon.com and the San Francisco newspapers, although even the Salon readers have been recently saying, "Enough."

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)

Just out of curiosity, I went to the San Francisco Chronicle website to see the highest rated comments and I couldn't believe it. Even the ever rationalizing left wing readers of the Chronicle are tired of this shit.

The top rated comment made me give a little whoop and give the whole manosphere a mental high five:

Quote:


She did more than accuse him. She harrassed him, blocked his way, put hands on him repeatedly, dragged him and then had the gall to warn him not to touch her! If she is in fact an employee, she should be fired for assaulting the kid. SFSU needs to make a statement that such obnoxious behavior will not be tolerated.

Even a year ago, I could not even have conceived of a comment like this on this issue in this paper. There is no question. Things are changing.

Here are some more of the top rated comments, music to the ears:

Quote:

WOW. I would like to draw your attention to the friend of the woman in the video in the white trench coat. I guarantee you 1. this video is REAL and 2. this guy had a hand in this incident. A few weeks ago he accosted me at Dolores Park for being a white female with bags from Central America, and lectured me about cultural appropriation. He stood over me and my friend for nearly 20 minutes verbally abusing us and refusing to leave after we asked several times. He then found me on social media and continued his assaults there. I won't post his name here for his sake, although he probably deserves it. He appears to be on somewhat of a "cultural appropriation" rampage. I was not surprised to see him in this video.

Quote:

Shameful. This is the kind of behavior that sends racism back 50 years. She is a simpleton. She should be charged for assault. He can wear dreadlocks. She can't accost him. Shameful - and for the record, I'm about as leftwing as you like. I'm so sick of people like her undoing decades of slow progress on race relations.

Quote:

The sister is way out of line. We, as Black people, did not originate dreadlocks: it's much older than we are - and not even originally from our culture. The young White guy shouldn't have to defend his hair to anyone. It's HIS hair. I remember when we starting having Afros in the 60s and it was threatening to Whites. Now someone wears dreads and it's offensive to some Blacks. Not to this one. Her parents did NOT raise her well (well, maybe they did, but she sure ain't shown' it here).

[R_Niko]

(04-13-2016 09:33 AM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

Just last week, BuzzFeed captivated 800,000 people simultaneously on a Friday afternoon as two of its employees, dressed in goggles and protective gear, wrapped a watermelon with rubber bands until it exploded, in a live-streamed Facebook video.

reminds me of something The Onion published years ago:

" "We already have a show called Really Big Things, which is just ridiculous if you think about it, and one called Heavy Metal Taskforce, which I guess deals with science on some distant level, though I don't know what it is. Plus, there's Punkin Chunkin."

"Punkin Chunkin, for Christ's sake," added Bunting, referring to the popular program in which contestants launch oversized pumpkins into the air using catapults. "What more do you people want?" "

http://www.theonion.com/article/science-...any-f-2897

[Foolsgo1d]

I think the past two years has had a significant impact on public opinion and we have ISIS to thank for it.

I remember when they started and rolled into town, murdering, raping and seizing land from an army we thought was capable of defending its country. How wrong an opinion that was is yet to be decided in history.

The media fawned over ISIS, playing their game to the tune of globalists in an effort to somehow go into Syria and do away with Assad. This coming on the heels of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why did they need to show the Jihad porn to people who didn't want to know? Cutting away when he is about to saw a guys head off isn't journalism, its pushing the envelope too far.

The media never went into depth on why we should kill Assad and why were there consistent stories about some rebel alliance operating in Syria to fight for freedom when they were blood thirsty murderers? Why was Al Nusra not described as its real terrorist name; Al Qaeda?

They were never referred to as Islamists and neither were they described as such in Libya. "Rebels" was the go-to term for Sunni terrorists and yet they claimed Shia terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah were the bad guys for fighting alongside Assad and protecting Christian and Shia Muslims.

Then the Russian intervention came and we all saw the propaganda machine go into over time. When Russia warned of unintended consequences at the time of Washington wanting to go in the media never forgot. So they did their best to poison public opinion of the Russian intervention by running hit pieces, declaring how human rights were being abused, war crimes being committed and civilians being helpless.

But now? ISIS and Al'Qaeda face imminent crushing defeat in Syria and Iraq. Not a peep out of the media except for small snippets here and there.

The media thinks it can sway public opinion and it is right. It has swayed a good number of people away from its truth telling and made people question their lies and deciet.

[Rigsby]

(04-16-2016 12:45 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

I recently read a Leftist I know saying Springsteen should 'just play and stop virtue-signalling already'.

That might have been me!

Doubtful, but I read quite a few comments saying the same: I'm a fan, but put a sock in it Brucey boy!

The whole Springsteen thing is bizarre to say the least. His outright love for Obama, his campaigning. Someone made Brucey boy an offer he couldn't refuse, I would wager (at the risk of being a conspiracy theorist). Probably a head from the favourite horse that his daughter likes to ride.

Another argument for another day.


But yes, the tide is indeed turning. Comments are being closed down. They can't get enough 'on board' moderators to do their dirty work for them, so they are doing what the police and the councils are doing: Give me your sick, your disabled, your disenfranchised, your bitter, your twisted, your unemployed...

And so it goes. Comment is not free. Oh the irony. When you employ the bitter and twisted, it only takes a 'word' to 'trigger' them. And triggered they are. My god (to quote the real Rigsby for a moment here), I've had comments deleted merely for pointing out factual inconsistencies. There is no recourse. There are thousands more like me, and even more pissed off, coz they are invested, and I am not.

I take notes however.

Yes, it's changing. The Guardian has radically cut down on any article that can be commented on. They are doing away with it. And in that, they will lose readers and market share, and in those seeds, shall lie their demise. Hurrah. They do not want to do it. But they have to do it. It's driving them fucking crazy, and you can see them already losing their heads over this false dichotomy.

Jesus, it's not difficult. Let people say what they want. If they make death threats then delete and censor and report if you have to, but let the rest of us adults have a 'conversation in a safe space', why don't you?

Anyway, it's game over. And that is that. 2 years tops. Never mind Reddit. They (Guardian) already have made massive redundancies and have culled a significant proportion of their contributors (or at least they have made notice of that - it is a large percentage of its staff). And it's not going to get better.

....


One of the things I took heart from (and to back up your theory that things are hotting up, AB), was the fact that many of those commenting said: I've been a lefty liberal my whole life, but this is just too much, I'm going right-wing now! Words to that effect.

What's that old saying? A conservative is just a liberal mugged by reality. Lots of lefties there, feeling very mugged off, because their 'thoughts' and 'feels' don't exactly subscribe to the overall agenda.

As I said, gentlemen, it is good to see the left, eating itself, as it always does, in times of crisis.

This is all we are witnessing here.

[Mr Saxon]

(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.

[CynicalContrarian]

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...