dagblog - Comments for "Name & Shame: the media that helped Russia in 2016"

You mean something like this?

barefooted — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:59:42 +0000

In reply to Well, interesting because the

You mean something like this? It's marketing yourself to draw advertisers to pay you to market them to your followers. It's on-line commercials during your favorite shows, it's the ad you have to watch before the free YouTube video that dozens of "friends" have "shared" and it's the dizzying array of stuff you don't give a crap about but suddenly must pay attention to - because why? Who knows, but everybody else is doing it. I'm afraid to say, but must, that Twitter's original design is no different than Facebook's or any other; after awhile, original only means antiquated, outdated and no longer relevant.

I am not currently anti-Raw

artappraiser — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:37:09 +0000

In reply to rmrd0000 used the rawstory

I am not currently anti-Raw Story, they are a different site now. I was talking about the past, how we got where we are. Your link just reminded me that their very name still points to the beginnings of this problem, nothing more.

rmrd0000 used the rawstory

rmrd0000 — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:34:43 +0000

In reply to Rmrd using a Raw Story link

rmrd0000 used the rawstory link because it included video of John Roberts making his belated comments. The video is from FauxNews but still is an accurate record of what Roberts said. Joe and Jill Iraqi Jihadi are not involved in the video.

Perhaps you prefer the same story if it appears on Vox

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/13/17568276/trump-cnn-fox-news-theresa-may-press-conference

Well, interesting because the

artappraiser — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:34:11 +0000

In reply to It's a "twitter aggregator",

Well, interesting because the whole design of Twitter is designed for you to aggregate for yourself who's tweets you want on the feed. "Clever" in that it's clearly a method of helping tweets "go more viral" un-naturally, a way to pump numbers. I haven't really read up on the current ongoing cleaning by Twitter of fake followers, but this kind of thing might be an enabler? There are soooo many aps and sites and tools to enable people to get more followers on Twitter and Instagram, it's definitely the current modus operandi of getting 15 minutes of fames, job offers, money, etc. Not just with news, with porn, with modeling, with criticism, with writing. Not to mention supporting and boosting your little tribe...So being able to viralize is a very marketable thing.

For Fox, anyway, pretty damn

barefooted — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:33:42 +0000

In reply to Rmrd using a Raw Story link

For Fox, anyway, pretty damn well.

Rmrd using a Raw Story link

artappraiser — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:24:36 +0000

In reply to Name & Shame: the media that helped Russia in 2016

Rmrd using a Raw Story link reminded me of how Raw Story and Buzz Feed, while having gotten some professional journalist religion in the last few years were progenitors of the problem. Their original raison d'etre was to furnish unvetted "raw" unfiltered data, or as in the latter "buzz", and let the readers decide. But to do it unashamedly with a general political motive.in it. I.E., let's all listen to Joe and Jill Iraqi Jihadi working for Motaqa, he's telling the truth that our government is lying about.

My point: how is that model working out now?

It's a "twitter aggregator",

barefooted — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:40:03 +0000

In reply to Hmmm, twitchy.com. Is that

It's a "twitter aggregator", if you will, founded by Michelle Malkin in 2012 and sold shortly thereafter. It's becoming a real thing, though, among many, according to Wiki:

The website has been noted for bringing periods of Twitter attention to journalists who have been featured on the website, with some reporters regarding being "Twitchied" as a rite of passage. It has been described as "the rare site that has both broad-based and cult appeal", which has "quickly carved out its own odd niche in the D.C. media world."[1]

The quote is attributed to Slate.

Some talking head on CNN was

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:12:32 +0000

In reply to I guess what I really want to

Some talking head on CNN was interviewing Giuliani, and it was abysmal, inarticulate, slow and restrained rebuttal. Ghouliani just kept spouting out uncontested lies. I'm sorry it's become such a trope, but the press is often doing a really crappy job of researching and articulating the news. I don't go to Mensch for anything these days, but often it's independent commentators who are providing the best analysis or at least questions. Today it was announced Trump pulled in $17m in Q2 of which $11m was small donations <$200, which no one contested. Of course Mueller's already indicted a guy for creating fake bank accts and rigging PayPal so that those 100,000 unitemized $100 "contributions" could all be laundered Russian money. Waiting for Mueller to figure it out is not the MSM's main job. The Guardian, Vox, Mother Jones, Bloomberg have done some good stuff, but there's way too few of them.

I guess what I really want to

artappraiser — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:19:08 +0000

In reply to Name & Shame: the media that helped Russia in 2016

I guess what I really want to say, PP, is that after hanging around blogosphere news junkies since 2003, bashing "the MSM" has now grown super tiresome, and what's more there's this guy amping that way way up, he uses that, he's always used that, since his days feeding P.R. about himself to NYPost's Page Six:

JUST IN: Trump again calls press the "enemy of the people" as he heads to meeting with Putin https://t.co/maSPUop1gt pic.twitter.com/Eiy1VRoGZb
— The Hill (@thehill) July 15, 2018

I think it's time we let go of Iraq and Vietnam, where there's this new answer to "which side are you on, brother, which side are you on?"

All good and fine to pick on sloppiness, but let's stop making MSM media bashing a left "thing". The heroic people's reporting movement has gone bad, real bad, on Facebook and Twitter. Somebody's got to vet stuff and the vetters are not always going to be perfect. But getting news from the ground up, that's not worked out, not at all. Let's push journalism as a profession, yes, criticize those that do it unprofessionally, but not expect miracles. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Yeah, if you're working as a reporter for USA Today, your creds are probably not sterling, we all know that, even a lot of non-news-junkies know that USA Today is mostly a big nothingburger. So thank god they use the A.P. and Reuters more than their own probably poorly paid reporters. I think everyone should sign up for a least one subscription like NYTimes and WaPo, or donate to The Guardian. Subscriptions are the only way they are able to pay the better reporters, clicks don't cover the cost. Best thing one can do to fight Trump.

The reality of our current situation: what does someone like Rachel Maddow mostly do? She talks nearly every night about this or that breaking story from NYT, WaPo, or The Guardian.

I linked to Twitchy because

rmrd0000 — Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:52:25 +0000

In reply to Hmmm, twitchy.com. Is that

I linked to Twitchy because they came up in a Google search about the story. If you object to Twitchy, here is a link to rawstory that addresses John Roberts’ belated response to attacks on CNN and NBC.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/watch-fox-news-john-roberts-belatedly-calls-trump-unfair-attacks-cnn-nbc/

Other reporters criticized John Roberts lack of response

https://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-john-roberts-takes-heat-for-not-defending-cnn-colleague-from-trump-attack/

Edit to add:

In 2010, news organizations refused to participate in a press conference if Fox was not included. The organizations felt that there was a planned boycott of Fox. Will Fox refuse to participate in future pressers if other networks are not allowed to ask questions?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html