• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Go woke, go broke

HansMustermann said:
Really, there's a reason why we had a "don't feed the trolls" internet wisdom since at least the early 2000's.
Click to expand...

I was happy to mostly abide by that policy, but then they started getting elected to public office.
 
Andy_Ross said:
When was the press every impartial?
Click to expand...
It's one of the big lies people have swallowed since the press started. Nearly all the major, national press has been controlled by singular powerful men, biased as they wanted it to be, coverage slanted in their favour, edited as they wanted it to be. The idea there was ever a time when "press freedom" meant the press printed without editorial and publisher control and pressure exerted by the powerful and well connected is a romantic nonsense.
 
"All the News That's Fit to Print”

Who decides?

Obviously the paper that publishes the stories I like and agree with is the impartial one.
 
bruto said:
I don't much get what the preceding post has to do with Washington Post's decision not to take a stand, unless one is still delusional enough to believe that one must be some kind of radical to oppose Trump. I suppose that's a consequence of his and others' shifting of the center toward the right, but I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
I don't get what it has to do with anything.
 
Andy_Ross said:
When was the press every impartial?
Click to expand...
If you're looking for 100% impartial, no, never. But that's the Nirvana fallacy, where either something is perfect or it doesn't count. It at least tried to appear like it's presenting both points of view on an issue, even when one was dumb, rather than telling the readers what to think. As late as the early 2000's in fact.

But then came the brain-damaged barking puppies on Twitter and the like, taking their reality check just off how many other brain-damaged barking puppies in their pathetic little echo-chamber give them thumbs up and retweets. And suddenly even not being extreme enough compared to their circle-jerk became a mortal offence. Like, suddenly, oh, you're for Linux, but still use Word for compatibility at work, that means you're a Microsoft shill. Or oh, yeah, you're FOR trans-women in the women's bathroom, but think it shouldn't be front-and-centre for the 2016 election, lest it causes people to vote Republican? Then you're literally the worst human ever. (Actual online "advocacy" examples.)

Every little loser troll in their mom's basement suddenly started getting drunk on the new "online advocacy" or "slacktivism" power they imagined they had, and imagining that their life suddenly has meaning because they gave thumbs up and retweets for the right guys, and barked brainlessly at anyone who isn't that extreme.

And the press started taking a hint and devolving into catering for one group or the other of brainless barking puppies. Duly note, starting with Fox, but ultimately the first or last guy to become a brainless bleating bozo is still a brainless bleating bozo.
 
HansMustermann said:
If you're looking for 100% impartial, no, never. But that's the Nirvana fallacy, where either something is perfect or it doesn't count. It at least tried to appear like it's presenting both points of view on an issue, even when one was dumb, rather than telling the readers what to think. As late as the early 2000's in fact.

...snip...
Click to expand...
And that's a strawman as no one made that claim - the comments were about you talking about a mythical time that never happened. The mainstream press at least in the UK and the USA was always controlled by powerful men, indeed it could be argued that we have truer freedom of press today than at any other time - if the "free market" wants it. Perhaps it was different in Germany after WW2?
 
I do not think the above observation by Hans is correct, at least for US newspapers. Newspapers have endorsed candidates for many years. I might argue that, in fact, in bygone years the attempt to appear impartial in reporting has often had the opposite effect, a situation that still occurs - where the major faults of one candidate are minimized compared to the minor faults of another, in order to fabricate an equality that does not exist. One might, for example, wonder that the press in its choice of what it reports represents the current candidates as mere political rivals, considering that one of them is (or so I truly believe) not only politically undesirable but actually incompetent, demented and insane, and could be considered if not outright treasonous, an enemy of our nation's founding principles, and actual reportable events and statements can be put forward in evidence. But apart from that, and often counter to that, many media have long found it appropriate to endorse points of view and candidates, because it has never been in doubt that editors and editorial boards have points of view independent of their reportage.
 
bruto said:
I do not think the above observation by Hans is correct, at least for US newspapers. Newspapers have endorsed candidates for many years. I might argue that, in fact, in bygone years the attempt to appear impartial in reporting has often had the opposite effect, a situation that still occurs - where the major faults of one candidate are minimized compared to the minor faults of another, in order to fabricate an equality that does not exist. One might, for example, wonder that the press in its choice of what it reports represents the current candidates as mere political rivals, considering that one of them is (or so I truly believe) not only politically undesirable but actually incompetent, demented and insane. But apart from that, and often counter to that, many media have long found it appropriate to endorse points of view and candidates, because it has never been in doubt that editors and editorial boards have points of view independent of their reportage.
Click to expand...
I think the biggest change is that many newspapers (as an example of mainstream press) have to work as a business now when in the past they were vanity projects for the rich and whether they made money or not was a secondary thought.
 
Darat said:
I think the biggest change is that many newspapers (as an example of mainstream press) have to work as a business now when in the past they were vanity projects for the rich and whether they made money or not was a secondary thought.
Click to expand...
I doubt that take, personally. Newspapers have long worked as businesses. Their influence and the industry norms in play have changed over time, though. In particular, the spread of TV impacted their influence and style notably, then the internet and social media struck another sizable blow. Serious journalism became far less profitable than it had been, especially for the investment, and there's less money to spend on such in the first place with declines in readership and loss of advertising. There's a fair bit more that can be poked at along those lines, too, especially the marked decline in locally focused news, which has had quite problematic effects overall.

Trying to dismiss newspapers as always having been vanity projects for the rich before is honestly just weird, in my opinion. With the ongoing decline in newspaper revenues and continued consolidation of media in general into fewer and fewer hands, I'd think that the case is far stronger for much the opposite - that the media is in more danger of increasingly becoming vanity projects of the rich now than before. That's not to say that certain very rich people haven't had such vanity projects, but that that's not even close to the whole story.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I think the biggest change is that many newspapers (as an example of mainstream press) have to work as a business now when in the past they were vanity projects for the rich and whether they made money or not was a secondary thought.
Click to expand...
I somehow forgot to hit the button on this post, so I agree with Aridas retroactively, sort of....

That may depend on region and other issues, but I don't think it's entirely true, and in some cases I suspect the opposite. Newspapers used to be profitable, and essential enough to a community that they did not need at the editorial level to represent the political viewpoint of all their readers as long as they didn't go overboard. A radical departure might alienate advertisers enough to abandon a paper, but once upon a time, a paper like the Hartford Courant or even the little old Rutland Herald, could stand as a business, with a reasonable revenue stream from advertising, including classifieds, which have almost entirely gone out of fashion.
 
Must have made my point badly if a couple of people have misunderstood me. I didn't mean that newspapers didn't used to have to make money or weren't businesses when I said they were vanity projects for the rich, powerful men who owned them. What I was meaning was that these men liked the power owning a national newspaper gave them (and this would trickle down to the small local papers owned by the rich and powerful men in the local community), they liked that people would butter them up, that their favour was sought, that they would be considered "king makers", that they were considered the formers of popular opinion in the country (or local town) and so on.

ETA: Murdoch's business life is a good example of this - yes he is a ruthless businessman constantly looking at the bottom line, but he has still held on to some of his "kingmaker" newspapers through thick and thin, still uses them to open doors for him, to influence the public and so on.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I think the biggest change is that many newspapers (as an example of mainstream press) have to work as a business now when in the past they were vanity projects for the rich and whether they made money or not was a secondary thought.
Click to expand...
Most newspapers are even more of a vanity project now than they ever were. Hence the numerous instances of reporters and editors having to kowtow to the owners personal idiocies or whims.
 
Darat said:
Must have made my point badly if a couple of people have misunderstood me. I didn't mean that newspapers didn't used to have to make money or weren't businesses when I said they were vanity projects for the rich, powerful men who owned them. What I was meaning was that these men liked the power owning a national newspaper gave them (and this would trickle down to the small local papers owned by the rich and powerful men in the local community), they liked that people would butter them up, that their favour was sought, that they would be considered "king makers", that they were considered the formers of popular opinion in the country (or local town) and so on.

ETA: Murdoch's business life is a good example of this - yes he is a ruthless businessman constantly looking at the bottom line, but he has still held on to some of his "kingmaker" newspapers through thick and thin, still uses them to open doors for him, to influence the public and so on.
Click to expand...
i got your point
 
According to the Daily Mail Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

How younger Brits are ditching English classics like ham and mustard in favour of fancy woke fillings

www.dailymail.co.uk

Now Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

Popular bread manufacturer Allinson's launched its Great British Sandwich Study to lift the lids on the nation's lunchboxes and reveal their changing tastes for the beloved snack.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
I know it's mostly just mush-brained rhetoric and persiflage and all, but I find this sort of thing infuriating. So maybe there's some demographic overlap, but what the ◊◊◊◊ does the choice of what to put in your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sandwich either because you like it or think it's better for you have to do with being WOKE? Soon enough the sumptuary police will be monitoring our socks for wokeness, if they're not already. Will we next have to think about the wokeness quotient of our pipe wrenches and toenail clippers?
 
Andy_Ross said:
According to the Daily Mail Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

How younger Brits are ditching English classics like ham and mustard in favour of fancy woke fillings

www.dailymail.co.uk

Now Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

Popular bread manufacturer Allinson's launched its Great British Sandwich Study to lift the lids on the nation's lunchboxes and reveal their changing tastes for the beloved snack.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
This may be an example where labeling something "woke" is exaggerating / unnecessary. People just like what they grew up with.
 
bruto said:
I know it's mostly just mush-brained rhetoric and persiflage and all, but I find this sort of thing infuriating. So maybe there's some demographic overlap, but what the ◊◊◊◊ does the choice of what to put in your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sandwich either because you like it or think it's better for you have to do with being WOKE? Soon enough the sumptuary police will be monitoring our socks for wokeness, if they're not already. Will we next have to think about the wokeness quotient of our pipe wrenches and toenail clippers?
Click to expand...
Although the Daily Fail won't define "woke", it's patently clear that it means "anything we can get a rise out of our readership with".
 
Andy_Ross said:
According to the Daily Mail Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

How younger Brits are ditching English classics like ham and mustard in favour of fancy woke fillings

www.dailymail.co.uk

Now Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

Popular bread manufacturer Allinson's launched its Great British Sandwich Study to lift the lids on the nation's lunchboxes and reveal their changing tastes for the beloved snack.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Amazing the kind of rubbish fillings the Daily Heil can make out of advertising bumpf!
 
Andy_Ross said:
According to the Daily Mail Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

How younger Brits are ditching English classics like ham and mustard in favour of fancy woke fillings

www.dailymail.co.uk

Now Gen Z are waging war on our sandwiches!

Popular bread manufacturer Allinson's launched its Great British Sandwich Study to lift the lids on the nation's lunchboxes and reveal their changing tastes for the beloved snack.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Goodness, the Fourth Paragraph Reveal has been moved up to the second paragraph!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom