Welcome to Thunderdome

TPRJones wrote:

Leisher wrote:One way to make news becoming more legit is to simply force some sort of source/proof. End the mad rush to get clicks/ratings. Otherwise, you will NEVER be able to get rid of bullshit news...unless you control all media outlets...

There's no way to do any of this. Nor should you want to, not if you have any love for the first amendment.

Long term this is a problem that will be fixed by competition in the marketplace. Individuals with a desire to be journalists are already striking out on their own instead of becoming tools of the corporate machines, and as crowd-funding (like Patreon) continues to grow it's only a matter of time before the biggest names in news are no longer things like CNN, The Times, and Newsweek but rather individuals that are well-known for their skill and integrity. It's all part of the economic turmoil in transitioning to the digital economy; the period where advertising pays for everything is going to start to come to an end.

I agree with you that we shouldn't want that if we believe in a free press. Not sure on the long term fix being the marketplace. What you describe will work once we are motivated to get the truth rather than just what we want to hear. That will require a personal responsibility that may come in time, but I'm not seeing yet.

I'm pretty sure the leading cause of reduction in Fox viewership is death from old age, not anything the liberals are doing.

I laughed.

But seriously, you qualified your statement with "leading cause" and that's not fair. All you're doing is saying one factor causes more viewership decline than another. It doesn't make my point any less valid. Although I should explain that I was actually making a point about public perception not ratings. Cite Fox News as the source of whatever you might be discussing and it carries a certain stigma that doesn't come with saying your source is CNN.

Really? By who? All the old people are just into Fox and all the young people get their news online. CNN is only watched now by people in waiting rooms and airports with no way to change the channel.

I laughed again.

Am I imagining there's a public perception that Fox is way right, CNN is left but more middle left, and MSNBC is bat shit crazy left? I'm pretty sure I'm not. Haven't we posted studies and whatnot here in the past supporting my statement? This perception is also why I think a right wing MSNBC is needed by Fox to offset some of their criticism, so they can be the "CNN of the right".

But on a different note, I think you have an incorrect perception about where young people get their news and how many old people are online. Jon Stewart only left The Daily Show a year or two years ago and I know we've posted surveys showing that a lot (majority?) of college aged people considered it a primary source of news. TV is not as dead as you imagine.

Nor should you want to, not if you have any love for the first amendment.

I was implying doom and gloom at the end of my statement with the "unless you control all media outlets". It apparently did not come through. I absolutely believe in the first amendment, but I also agree with it being illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I disagreed with Congress in the 80s (90s?) when they repealed the law that forced advertisers to tell the truth. I was just suggesting something to hold people accountable before they destroy lives or influence elections AND suggesting that the MSM should NOT be under the government's control.

Long term this is a problem that will be fixed by competition in the marketplace. Individuals with a desire to be journalists are already striking out on their own instead of becoming tools of the corporate machines, and as crowd-funding (like Patreon) continues to grow it's only a matter of time before the biggest names in news are no longer things like CNN, The Times, and Newsweek but rather individuals that are well-known for their skill and integrity.

It's a good thought, but I don't know how accurate this is and I see LOTS of potential for abuse.

It's all part of the economic turmoil in transitioning to the digital economy; the period where advertising pays for everything is going to start to come to an end.

You lost me here. Take away advertising and then what? Subscriptions? Ok, then the mad rush for clicks will be replacing with a mad rush to always be first, truth be damned, so you get subscribers.

That will require a personal responsibility that may come in time, but I'm not seeing yet.

Personal responsibility will always be trumped by responsibility to one's family. "I shouldn't post this yet because I can't prove it's true and it might hurt this person and their family, but fuck it, my kids gotta eat too!"

Yeah, I think you are right about the perception of the leanings of the three channels in question. Some on the left would probably argue that CNN is slightly right rather than left, but they're wrong. But I think Fox is already nearly the equivalent of MSNBC by being the batshit crazy right. To get any more right you'd have to move to talk radio. I say nearly because Fox is marginally less crazy, but not by much at all; no way could it be classified as slightly right in the way that CNN is slightly left.

Jon Stewart only left The Daily Show a year or two years ago and I know we've posted surveys showing that a lot (majority?) of college aged people considered it a primary source of news.

If you are assuming most of them are watching the show on TV I would disagree. Most of them watch the show on the comedy central website.

I absolutely believe in the first amendment, but I also agree with it being illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

From a legal standpoint that oft-quoted phrase is meaningless. The precedent set by the case that it comes from was later reversed by the court. Here's some context and details. And it's all about context, really; most of the time yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is something you can absolutely do.

You lost me here. Take away advertising and then what? Subscriptions? Ok, then the mad rush for clicks will be replacing with a mad rush to always be first, truth be damned, so you get subscribers.

Subscriptions is one way, but I doubt will be the most commonly used. I expect the most likely model currently in use would be a voluntary support system like Patreon. Or it will be something else no one has thought of yet; this stuff is hard to predict for us in exactly the same way that farmers in the 1700s wouldn't have been able to explain what life would be like as a worker in a steel mill. But the trend towards decentralization of all forms of media is already underway and unlikely to reverse. As to your assertion I disagree; I think most people would be more interested in the most correct news rather than the fastest news. And it takes a lot less money for an individual or small group to do the work than the barrels of cash currently needed by corporate media, so they're less likely to need to sell out their integrity for money once a system has arisen that can give them reasonable earnings for their work.

If you are assuming most of them are watching the show on TV I would disagree. Most of them watch the show on the comedy central website.

I'm talking what, you're talking how.

If someone is watching a TV Show online, is it no longer a TV show? Serious question.

From a legal standpoint that oft-quoted phrase is meaningless. The precedent set by the case that it comes from was later reversed by the court. Here's some context and details. And it's all about context, really; most of the time yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is something you can absolutely do.

I was using the famous phrase because I had always assumed it's an attempt to incite "violence or bodily harm", and thus, illegal. When you have media outlets destroying lives because they rushed to get a story out for ratings or clicks...that's a problem. Is it a repeal the first amendment problem? Hell no. However, it's not a sit on our hands and do nothing problem, imho.

I think most people would be more interested in the most correct news rather than the fastest news.

Please show me anything in our society that proves this statement has a shred of truth. Go google ANY media outlet and you'll find evidence of being biased, skewing facts, destroying lives, and straight up lying. I worked in the media. I've seen the "reporting" first hand as people simply rewrite faxes they receive and call it "their story".

I say all that while agreeing with you that people want correct news. However, they don't want to wait for it, and that's where the problem is and growing.

And it takes a lot less money for an individual or small group to do the work than the barrels of cash currently needed by corporate media, so they're less likely to need to sell out their integrity for money once a system has arisen that can give them reasonable earnings for their work.

A glass is half full outlook, and I hope you're right. However, my experience tells me that even if someone is really well off, they can still set aside their morals to afford one more vacation, car, house, etc. Especially if they can justify it, and in the case of the media it's as easy as saying, "Got to be first with the stories!"

Leisher wrote:If someone is watching a TV Show online, is it no longer a TV show? Serious question.

I thought about that as I was writing my reply but realized it is beside the point here. The discussion is ultimately about traditional news sources versus new news sources. Regardless of it being a TV show, I wouldn't classify The Daily Show as a "traditional" news source, would you?

When you have media outlets destroying lives because they rushed to get a story out for ratings or clicks...that's a problem.

Sure, it's a problem. But unless the story rises to the level of "seriously, everyone reading this story needs to go and beat or murder this particular person" then it's not outside first amendment protection and there's no basis for criminal prosecution. Maybe what you really want to consider is changing how we handle civil suits around libel and slander, that's more in line with this sort of thing. I'd probably still disagree with you, but at least then we're taking it out of the hands of government prosecutors.

I say all that while agreeing with you that people want correct news. However, they don't want to wait for it, and that's where the problem is and growing.

I agree completely with everything you said about traditional news media. I do disagree that the reason for it is because the consumers don't want to wait. I think it has more to do with the production methodology and the revenue systems involved. I am specifically predicting that online news outlets will arise that compete by providing more accurate news because they aren't tied to advertising revenue and thus don't have to fight for people to watch longer and see more ads. They don't need you to watch them first or for longer, they just need you to keep coming back to them in the future and they can get that best by being ... well, by being the best. I can't point to them because they don't exist yet. They probably will in the next year or two, though.

EDIT: I was wrong, they already do exist. Here's one - it's focused on tech news, but it still demonstrates the concept. There are others, like this one.

EDIT2: Just to clarify a fine detail, yes they need views but a very different sort of views. Ad-based revenue means you need as many people as possible to see each thing you produce through at least the next ad break, but you don't care at all if the same people ever come back again. Voluntary subscription models flip that around; you don't care how many people see each thing you produce or how long they watch, you care entirely about if they will keep coming back to you. Ad-based news viewership is a disposable resource and can be pissed away with poor quality as long as the quantity can drive enough turnover and the spectacle of it can keep them watching for just long enough to see the ads. The voluntary subscription model requires attention to detail and quality to make the viewers want to keep coming back to you again until they eventually decide to give you some money.

Regardless of it being a TV show, I wouldn't classify The Daily Show as a "traditional" news source, would you?

I wouldn't classify it as a news source at all. Do they talk about current events? Yes, but they don't report, they comment and give opinion. It's more The View than Nightly News.

Back to the point, it's produced for TV, so however it's consumed, I would consider it a TV show. So do TV shows stop being TV shows just because they're watched on non-TVs? I don't think so...? This could get as confusing as the recent reboot, remake, re-imagining discussion.

Is GoT a TV show since it's produced for a pay channel and watched by many folks online only?
Is Daredevil a TV show even though it's only on Netflix? I mean, people still watch it on TV and can buy the DVD set.
How about The Guild? Produced for online viewing, but available on DVD and Netflix.

I think right now I would stand by an opinion of: The product is still produced the same way, and thus IS the same. After all, it doesn't matter how you eat a Reese's, it's still a peanut butter cup.

Now I'm pondering movies/shows about the future and wondering where they fall. Examples: Ruby Rod from the 5th Element and his radio/podcast show and/or whatever the hell they watched in Episode 2 of Black Mirror Season 1.

But unless the story rises to the level of "seriously, everyone reading this story needs to go and beat or murder this particular person" then it's not outside first amendment protection and there's no basis for criminal prosecution.

Listen, I'm admitting there's a huge grey area here because I don't want the first amendment repealed, but I can also acknowledge that a media that considers itself above fact checking can result in some bad shit. Ask the Japanese. Ask Richard Jewel. Ask anyone simply accused of a sexual crime.

I am specifically predicting that online news outlets will arise that compete by providing more accurate news because they aren't tied to advertising revenue and thus don't have to fight for people to watch longer and see more ads. They don't need you to watch them first or for longer, they just need you to keep coming back to them in the future and they can get that best by being ... well, by being the best. I can't point to them because they don't exist yet. They probably will in the next year or two, though.

It's an interesting concept, but I'm a realist. I think there will be some innovators as you point out, but they will either be ignored, eaten by the MSM, or declared "fake news" and die a slow death. Sadly, I believe we're closer to government control than we are a truly free and honest press.

Leisher wrote:Back to the point, it's produced for TV, so however it's consumed, I would consider it a TV show. So do TV shows stop being TV shows just because they're watched on non-TVs? I don't think so...? This could get as confusing as the recent reboot, remake, re-imagining discussion.

Although it's the way things have been talked about for awhile I don't think that's a useful distinction these days. You can watch any online video on your television now and you can watch television online, after all. The delivery system is not the heart of the matter and is unpredictable now since it's increasingly up to the viewers as to what that will be.

How about this: there's long-form video (movies), episodic video (shows), and short-form video (shorts). There's video produced by large corporations, video produced by small companies, and video produced by independent individuals. I would classify "TV" as a particular subset of episodic video produced by large corporations that is specifically supported by ad revenue. So in that sense The Daily Show is still TV, but I wouldn't consider GoT to be TV.

It's an interesting concept, but I'm a realist.

What a coincidence, so am I! I'm just pointing out something that is already a very strong trend in entertainment media and saying that I think this trend will also extend to news media. And there are a small handful of examples of it starting to happen. I think my prediction is quite realistic.

Sadly, I believe we're closer to government control than we are a truly free and honest press.

I think that at this point that is completely impossible without a full outlawing and permanent shutdown of all internet traffic. And even then I could see peer-to-peer wireless networking being developed as a work-around that gets a bootleg regional form of internet working again. And nothing would drive the rise of independent news media faster than such an embargo on information, because people are damn ornery when you take away their distractions.

Somehow I missed that response TPR. I'll check it out tomorrow.

Has Trump been compromised by the Russians?

Did his aides help hack the Dems?

Every bit of this screams "political opponents being dicks". The MSM even seems to agree, as they point out there are no sources and there's no evidence.

After 8 years of birthers and whatnot, now we're going to get 4-8 years of conspiracy theorists from the other side. Wheeee.

Dipshit elect Drumpf now kind of says the Russians did shit.

Reddit claimed it trolled BuzzFeed with that "golden showers" infodump. I don't have the link on my phone.

But still expect it to be quoted as fact until the end of time.

That's the MSM today: "Well, this probably isn't true, but here's what we heard."

Remember when the National Enquirer was a joke? How are the rest of the MSM any different now?

They're going to bring back "Fake but accurate," not seen since the W administration.

"Birthers are complete morons. How can you run around even remotely buying into a rumor about where Obama was born? By the way, Trump totally loves prostitutes to pee on him."

I don't believe it for a second. No way does Trump like to get peed on by prostitutes. Completely ridiculous.

Now if you told me Trump liked to pee on prostitutes, I'd believe that in a heartbeat.

TPRJones wrote:I don't believe it for a second. No way does Trump like to get peed on by prostitutes. Completely ridiculous.

Now if you told me Trump liked to pee on prostitutes, I'd believe that in a heartbeat.

Right?

This is a guy who grabs women by their pussies. Who sleeps with married women because they're married. Who likes to point out his superiority at every opportunity whether it be about money, dick size, ratings, etc.

Trump is all about proving he's in charge and has power. That doesn't match the personality of someone who likes to get pissed on.

Leisher wrote:Trump is all about proving he's in charge and has power. That doesn't match the personality of someone who likes to get pissed on.

Not entirely so. Some guys that are large and in charge in their public lives secretly like to be dominated in their private lives. But I don't Trump has that sort of depth to him; what you see is what you get. Unfortunately.

TPRJones wrote:

Leisher wrote:Trump is all about proving he's in charge and has power. That doesn't match the personality of someone who likes to get pissed on.

Not entirely so. Some guys that are large and in charge in their public lives secretly like to be dominated in their private lives. But I don't Trump has that sort of depth to him; what you see is what you get. Unfortunately.

I was going to bring this up.... I've read stores of S&M mistresses and it's often the story that their most submissive people are the CEOs, etc.

No I get the "in power in public & submissive in the bedroom" thing, but that's not Trump. His Twitter feed is all the proof you need. The arrogant psycho spouting out the hate and defiance on that feed isn't getting pissed on.

In different, but related to Trump, news...

Saw this and thought it was funny:
Cavuto from Fox asks CNN how they like being treated like shit.

Got to give them a little slack on this one. The last 8 years has been pretty bad for Fox, aside from the ratings, as they've been bashed publicly at every turn by anyone left and the president himself.

True or false, I think reporting it is the most tasteless thing I can think of the MSM ever calling news. Holy fuck, do I have to block cnn.com from my kid's computer, now? Can we charge them all with exposing kids to this shit?

I'm sure this is not the most tasteless thing they've reported. At least there aren't pictures.

Did your kids get a good look at Anthony Wiener's cock, for instance?