Seriously.

Personally, I deleted ALL "news" websites from my browser. I stopped watching most "news" programs. Except the weather forecast. There is nothing "new" about the "news" anyway.
Besides, if the "news" is about Trump you already know what the papers will write: Left leaning papers will be outraged, right wing papers will cheer. So I ask again: what's "new"?
Once in a while I check the BBC or Der Spiegel to see if they have any interesting to report, something NOT to do with politics.

For the rest, I am enjoying Airliners.net or any other travel website

Hear Hear. Things are so click-baity these days. The news cycle is less than 24 hours now it seems. Constantly over reacting to things that would have been so trivial back in the day.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Andrew Jackson had a reporter constantly in his face every day. Or if he had had the ability to message billions of people at a moment's notice.

It is not triggering. It is news discussions. There are discussions on a multitude of events. Politics is important to discuss because their are serious ramifications to letting politicians and conspiracy theories running unchecked. We have a President in the US that is so misinformed by his circle that he ignores the wider view. So ignoring it and putting your head in the sand does not change the fact that news is happening and affects everything.

casinterest wrote:

It is not triggering. It is news discussions. There are discussions on a multitude of events.

There are no "discussions" on (US) TV. Considering the decibel levels, you might call it "scream fests", but definitely not "discussions".

Edit to add: I enjoy watching "Buitenhof" occasionally. They sometimes interview interesting people. And the nice thing is they let the person finish their sentence in a relaxed manner. No screaming whatsoever.
So yeah, US TV = garbage.

What I don't like is ridiculous statements like the MSNBC contributor (Jill Wine-Banks) saying things like Trump's Helsinki press conference "will live in infamy as much as the pearl harbor attack or Kristallnacht."

The lady should never get another ounce of airtime for trying to make that kind of comparison. It's ridiculous.

Dieuwer wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is not triggering. It is news discussions. There are discussions on a multitude of events.

There are no "discussions" on (US) TV. Considering the decibel levels, you might call it "scream fests", but definitely not "discussions".

Edit to add: I enjoy watching "Buitenhof" occasionally. They sometimes interview interesting people. And the nice thing is they let the person finish their sentence in a relaxed manner. No screaming whatsoever.
So yeah, US TV = garbage.

So you automatically label hundreds of channels as garbage?

Seems like you are making stuff up to just have a triggering thread

Television is the worst place to get your information. It’s six minute segments with multiple people trying to get the best sound bite.

If you really want to be informed, seek out long form conversations. The internet has given us greater access to this format than ever.

trpmb6 wrote:

What I don't like is ridiculous statements like the MSNBC contributor (Jill Wine-Banks) saying things like Trump's Helsinki press conference "will live in infamy as much as the pearl harbor attack or Kristallnacht."

The lady should never get another ounce of airtime for trying to make that kind of comparison. It's ridiculous.

This is precisely why journalism sucks now. Tantamount to the boy who cried wolf, when the media continues to claim things about Trump that weren't true, fabricating and spinning, lying, shucking and jiving, on the legitimate occasion when the media could objectively question him, they have no credibility. Their failures mean no public trust, no adherence to journalistic standards, and nothing but ever increasing hysterics in a race to the bottom.

From time to time, I watch the PBS Newshour as far less into sensationalizing news stories, have pieces that most of the MSN ignores and are important to know and understand our world. I am getting tired of the overhyping on CNN, MSNBC (I don't watch FoxNews) of anything Trump or other stories like with the immigration crises.

To be honest, I don't even remember what it was like to have straightforward, no fluff - honest reporting with no commentary interjected. Getting tired of "lets bring in Jane Doe a Random News Contributor and former Green Party Strategist" commentary.

I don't get triggered much at all. I do get peeved when someone is deliberately disrespectful to someone else for no reason. My current character flaw is to treat people well and with respect. Then Trump walks in front of the Queen when he knows damned well that's not proper. Nevermind that she's the Queen... she's also a 92 year old elder and deserves respect for contributing to life for so long.

It makes me a little annoyed when CNN and MSNBC commentators try to make a big deal out of the deliberate triggering of liberals... like many conservatives do. I'd love to crawl right in that screen and into their studios, grab them by the neck and yell, "You're playing into their laps, you spineless twits! They get power from you being shocked and bothered by their behavior! Pay no attention to the shiny objects!"

The polarization of the media is in large part why conservatives and liberals are equally prejudiced against each other.

EstherLouise wrote:

I don't get triggered much at all. I do get peeved when someone is deliberately disrespectful to someone else for no reason. My current character flaw is to treat people well and with respect. Then Trump walks in front of the Queen when he knows damned well that's not proper. Nevermind that she's the Queen... she's also a 92 year old elder and deserves respect for contributing to life for so long.

Ah it's kind of poetic that you posted this in a thread about getting triggered...

From snopes:

Trump, who appeared to have been urged by the Queen to walk ahead of her, spent a total of six seconds in front of the monarch before the two began walking side-by-side again, as can be seen in the footage below: https://youtu.be/rFsD5P0FSOg

Just as the inspection was about to begin, the Queen appeared to urge President Trump to go ahead of her.
President Trump walked ahead for a few paces, momentarily blocking the Queen from the view of some news cameras, giving rise to cherry-picked snapshots widely shared on social media and as evidence supporting criticism of Trump’s actions

It is considered rude to turn one’s back to the Queen, but this “rule” does not appear on the Royal Family’s list of “traditional forms” when greeting a royal.

While I can understand a certain level of deference to royal protocol - especially given our state of affairs as allies - I find it somewhat preposterous that a head of state of a former colony which started a revolution against the monarchy should be expected to adhere to the same norms as the brits themselves. Lets not forget that the monarchy is nothing more than a figure head anyways.

But I've gone off on a tangent. You were triggered by a 6 second faux-pas that in traditional times wouldn't even have been noted if not for the constant lens of scrutiny that is placed on Trump. Even Snopes says this is a nothingburger.

trpmb6 wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Andrew Jackson had a reporter constantly in his face every day. Or if he had had the ability to message billions of people at a moment's notice.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Donald didn't have a reporter constantly in his face every day.

slider wrote:

This is precisely why journalism sucks now. Tantamount to the boy who cried wolf...

Seriously... how long did we have to hear about that stupid Benghazi non-story?

Stop supporting tRump and racists only because they have an (R) behind their name and maybe it will not be pointed out how bad they are.

seb146 wrote:

Stop supporting tRump and racists only because they have an (R) behind their name and maybe it will not be pointed out how bad they are.

When the new face of the Democratic Party is an anti-capitalist who can’t find Israel on a map, that’s a tough sell. And she’s replaced the one who stole benefits intended for Native Americans.

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Stop supporting tRump and racists only because they have an (R) behind their name and maybe it will not be pointed out how bad they are.

When the new face of the Democratic Party is an anti-capitalist who can’t find Israel on a map, that’s a tough sell. And she’s replaced the one who stole benefits intended for Native Americans.

It would really help you look like an American if you could name these people. And links, too. I want to read this stuff for myself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/n ... a-virginia

See how easy that was? Your turn!

Cloistering yourself in a news-less 'safe space' sounds pretty triggered to me, pal.

There are many powerful people who are counting on people like you switching off and disengaging from current events. Don't give them the satisfaction.

Meh, my two cents.

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Stop supporting tRump and racists only because they have an (R) behind their name and maybe it will not be pointed out how bad they are.

When the new face of the Democratic Party is an anti-capitalist who can’t find Israel on a map, that’s a tough sell. And she’s replaced the one who stole benefits intended for Native Americans.

It would really help you look like an American if you could name these people. And links, too. I want to read this stuff for myself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/n ... a-virginia

See how easy that was? Your turn!

My bad. She has a degree in international relations, by the way.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33090/wa ... n-saavedra

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

When the new face of the Democratic Party is an anti-capitalist who can’t find Israel on a map, that’s a tough sell. And she’s replaced the one who stole benefits intended for Native Americans.

It would really help you look like an American if you could name these people. And links, too. I want to read this stuff for myself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/n ... a-virginia

See how easy that was? Your turn!

My bad. She has a degree in international relations, by the way.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33090/wa ... n-saavedra

She admits to not being an expert on this issue. She even said it. Most Democrats, if they have heard of her, are meh about her anyway, so I don't know why you are holding her up as the face of the Democratic party. Because she won a primary? White nationalists won primaries running as Republicans. Using your logic, white nationalists (neo-Nazis, KKK, white supremacists) are the face of the Republican party.

Getting your news is a necessary component of your daily or weekly life IF you are a socially engaging individual. If you are a hermit... then it’s useless. The #1 thing the most powerful people on the planet resent is the dissemination of information..particularly to the masses. The masses are best loved by being silent because in their eyes, MOST of you don’t know WTF is going on any way. THEY are the power brokers, the movers and shakers of all things in human affairs, and usually in ‘the end’ they get their way over yours 90% of the time.

That remaining 10% is where the informed masses weigh in. Don’t give it up as this thread is suggesting.

When you are informed, you establish a breaking point and pushback...hard!

Young people (the future) today for the most part think all these ‘rights’ just summarily just ‘appeared’ ... they’ve no idea of what took to get here. Blacks and whites, Jews Christians and Atheist died for basic human and civil rights. They were tortured, beaten, jailed and humiliated for just wanting to exist peace within society. A certain segment of society did not want that...and the law had to step in because the Constitution said so. It’s is the foundation of governing a free society. When you start down the path of being uninformed, you are helping to open the gates for your rights be slowly be taken away from you. The Media is what forced that segment of the Consitution to be enforced thereby forcing people in society to ‘accept’ a new standard, a new society. That fight is still going on Today. With the lightening speed ability to dispense information, this means the controllers of all things law or measures governing society..a rapid response must be at the ready for any given situation. And the easiest path to that is to curtail rights and/or erase peoples ability to collective catch on to something/anything that doesn’t past the smell test. We are too late most of the time anyway, take the rules governing the financial markets, just as most people are extremely ignorant of String Theory, Quantum Theory and the like, they are equally ignorant (or more so) of the ever changing rules and laws shaping and dictating the norms of the financial world. Even the pions employed in finance can barely keep up with what’s going in their ranks, if at all.

So the media/press is the ONLY thing keeping the masses from being marginalized in a way, and if the face of such overwhelming force than can render them ‘worthless’ to the point of them hating themselves. That’s all the powerful needs ... is the masses with no linking means of exchange of information.

I’ve always wondered how the FOX network/studios could be the shilling network for stupid news only to turn an produce great tv shows - 24 w Jack Bauer, In Living Color, etc. and movies. Then it dawned on me. It’s a business formula of playing to both sides. It’s necessary to do so to stay in the game and be profitable while it. Every major network with news does it! They have no choice. Now given what we have it kind of breaks down like this...

Fox News 98% Conservative/Rightwing coverage
CNN - 70% Lib news slant 30 Cons (little hard right)
MSNBC - 100% Lib leaning
ABC, CBS, NBC - just place a ‘slippery when wet’ sign in front when watching.

Fox wasn’t first to go that way but they certainly started off that way. But ABC under Walter Annenberg a close friend of Reagan’s was the Reagan Network as Fox/Hannity is Traitor Trumps.
That shit is dangerous when they lock on to one individual as FOX is doing.

‘Fox viewer’: But CNN and all loved Obama...”

Well he was popular BUT they also jumped down his throat when he screwed up...a lot! Fox did him in every chance they got.

There is a local weekly newspaper in my neighborhood, it use to publish a page called the ‘police blotter’ now it mostly consisted of petty BS, a bike was stolen, a dog went missing to a man was reported looking thru windows in this street, etc.. that was pretty much it. ...many places have that. But has since been done away with. But I asked myself, what if there were a neighborhood police blotter for every single neighborhood in America, and it could be accessed on the web by every person with web access.

Then result = No One would leave their F**king house! If we were informed daily of the shootings, stabbing baby killings, kids being snatched and on and on and on. You be scared shitless. Many communities would go into lock down or curfews. So maybe it’s best not know all the bad in certain aspects because people do NEED hope. The wealthy don’t need hope, they make hope happen for the most part (hoping the Dow Jones keeps steaming upwards) isn’t what I mean by hope.

But outside of fears for personal safety, it is indeed the smarter route to go when choosing to be informed. That’s now the tricky part.

Who do you trust?

Do you trust who ‘thinks like you, share your views’

Do you trust the medium that makes few mistakes than others?

Do you trust the ones laced with some moral influences (from none at all to just the right amount to religious extremes).

We have all embrace what works best for us all, but what ever you do don’t tune out. Sure take a break, we humans very poor processors of data/information...even worse than we are at driving cars (yep, add in every worst driver from every bad driving city) our ability to process information has bad success rate, we’d be a much smarter world if that was not true.

BN747

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

seb146 wrote:

It would really help you look like an American if you could name these people. And links, too. I want to read this stuff for myself.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/n ... a-virginia

See how easy that was? Your turn!

My bad. She has a degree in international relations, by the way.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33090/wa ... n-saavedra

She admits to not being an expert on this issue. She even said it. Most Democrats, if they have heard of her, are meh about her anyway, so I don't know why you are holding her up as the face of the Democratic party. Because she won a primary? White nationalists won primaries running as Republicans. Using your logic, white nationalists (neo-Nazis, KKK, white supremacists) are the face of the Republican party.

She beat the heir apparent to Nancy Pelosi. Her win was a huge deal.

I work in an airport so i see CNN on tv at every gate. It's always "breaking news" about Trump. At this point I'm convinced Trump could get a new set of pajamas and CNN would still trash him on it. Inversely Fox would think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Even neutral news like USA Today and The Economist are getting way too political.

casinterest wrote:

It is not triggering. It is news discussions. There are discussions on a multitude of events. Politics is important to discuss because their are serious ramifications to letting politicians and conspiracy theories running unchecked. We have a President in the US that is so misinformed by his circle that he ignores the wider view. So ignoring it and putting your head in the sand does not change the fact that news is happening and affects everything.

Discussing politics will change politics?
It's 2018.
Answer is no.

Dieuwer wrote:

Seriously.

Personally, I deleted ALL "news" websites from my browser. I stopped watching most "news" programs. Except the weather forecast. There is nothing "new" about the "news" anyway.
Besides, if the "news" is about Trump you already know what the papers will write: Left leaning papers will be outraged, right wing papers will cheer. So I ask again: what's "new"?
Once in a while I check the BBC or Der Spiegel to see if they have any interesting to report, something NOT to do with politics.

For the rest, I am enjoying Airliners.net or any other travel website

I don't watch TV at all. I do read the news websites a bit only to see what is being reported and if there is something that will make my day at work more 'interesting' than it normally should be.

VTKillarney wrote:

Television is the worst place to get your information. It’s six minute segments with multiple people trying to get the best sound bite.

If you really want to be informed, seek out long form conversations.

The internet has given us greater access to this format than ever.

Yes, it's possible to dive in to a pile of manure and find a diamond.

I get what you're saying, but I'm pretty cynical these days.

As someone who has worked on Internet-related tech for 30 years or more, we all thought we'd be creating this broad mechanism for ideas to be discussed and for people to reach consensus.

In reality, we've created this mechanism that is used far too often for silos to be created and for people to harden their prejudices in walled gardens.

We've also seen that the "greed is good" mentality prevails and it's easier to monetize strong polarizing emotions such as fear and hate.

In short, triggering people generates cash.

Back when ability to generate content was more constrained, there was a need to use a limited resource to reach as many people as possible, so messages were more middle-of-the-road.

Now the vertical silos can fill up without needing to appeal to those with different points of view.

Oh well, we tried.

And you're right, there are places to find long form discussions, but most people don't develop the skills or the aptitude to dive deep.

Most people want the media equivalent of junk food rather than a healthy meal.

In the long term they hurt themselves and others, but in the short term they just don't care.

They don't want to explore new and healthier foods, they just want a big fattening dose of comfort food.

The BBC is still pretty good but even they tell you what to think with commentary, instead of reporting the news: ie tell us what is happening and we can form our opinion.

What's worse is that BBC content is more and more moving to visual media; I don't want to watch a video about the news as I can read and prefer that.

Early in the Internet era (early 1990s) we techies thought the internet would be monetized differently.

We thought in terms of micro-payments where you could click on a box and send a few cents to the media provider to show you valued the work.

However the financial institutions hated that approach.

As was explained to me on a discussion on this site, the main business of a credit/debit card company is to create debt and profit from servicing that debt, and they want to keep the cost of creating that debt as low as possible. Micro-payment transactions had a fixed cost ( relatively large, especially in terms of early 90s tech ) and a small amount of debt creation per transaction, so they were a non-starter as far as the financial industry was concerned.

We also thought subscription based services would be more prevalent, but it took a long time for the payment infrastructure to evolve and by the time that happened advertising was king.

We didn't see the way advertising would be the dominant funding mechanism of the Internet, and in turn we didn't see how this would monetize information many of us consider to be private personal information. Thus web browsers and internet protocols had and still have shitty privacy protection mechanisms and given how the internet is funded there is no incentive to improve the situation in any meaningful way.

In short, we're screwed.

Revelation wrote:

Early in the Internet era (early 1990.

We also thought subscription based services would be more prevalent, but it took a long time for the payment infrastructure to evolve and by the time that happened advertising was king.

We didn't see the way advertising would be the dominant funding mechanism of the Internet.

Great read, all of that EXCEPT that last comment of not foretelling of the domination of advertising!

You’ve gotta be kidding me with that one! That was like my 1st thought after getting my shoebox Macintosh Plus in 1990!(I still have it) I immediately embraced the break from tv entertainment and saw the work around tv-ads on the future coming web. And ALWAYS asked myself, what the Ad people were going to do, they’re not gonna take this lying down! I was waiting alertly as to ‘when the other shoe was going to drop’...mid 1990s, it started to become very clear, they were not gonna be left out but growing rapidly and exponentially. It’s become worse that tv ad clutter.

Someone in some facet of your line of work MUST have intuitively sensed this coming from the professional perspective! I find that very hard to believe!

BN747

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Andrew Jackson had a reporter constantly in his face every day. Or if he had had the ability to message billions of people at a moment's notice.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Donald didn't have a reporter constantly in his face every day.

slider wrote:

This is precisely why journalism sucks now. Tantamount to the boy who cried wolf...

Seriously... how long did we have to hear about that stupid Benghazi non-story?

You mean Benghazi, where Americans were murdered?

slider wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Andrew Jackson had a reporter constantly in his face every day. Or if he had had the ability to message billions of people at a moment's notice.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Donald didn't have a reporter constantly in his face every day.

slider wrote:

This is precisely why journalism sucks now. Tantamount to the boy who cried wolf...

Seriously... how long did we have to hear about that stupid Benghazi non-story?

You mean Benghazi, where Americans were murdered?

Yeah, same place where a not-so-wise US Ambassador felt the need leave the secured US embassy located in the Capital of Tripoli in order to go out into a war torn raging ravaging nation ‘to get the feel of the people’ against the wisdom of veteran advice...and drag along a few others with him, as if it was gonna picnic in the park. Yeah, that Benghazi!

And similar locals people Of a different persuasion that attacked the consulate saved the Americans there who tried to protect those at the consulate, that Benghazi.

BN747

Please do not blame Ambassador Stevens for his death.

slider wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Andrew Jackson had a reporter constantly in his face every day. Or if he had had the ability to message billions of people at a moment's notice.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Donald didn't have a reporter constantly in his face every day.

slider wrote:

This is precisely why journalism sucks now. Tantamount to the boy who cried wolf...

Seriously... how long did we have to hear about that stupid Benghazi non-story?

You mean Benghazi, where Americans were murdered?

I think he means Benghazi, where the GOP spent years politicizing those murders to try and convince people they were somehow Hillary Clinton's fault.

trpmb6 wrote:

Please do not blame Ambassador Stevens for his death.

Dude, when you are not made of combat material the one thing you do NOT DO is use your rank and insist on having your way in a war torn combat rich environment against the advice of those who know danger better than you do. In such situations as that, common sense trumps ‘feelings’ every single time.

2122M wrote:

slider wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You mean Benghazi, where Americans were murdered?

I think he means Benghazi, where the GOP spent years politicizing those murders to try and convince people they were somehow Hillary Clinton's fault.

2122M, the person you’ve quoted knows full well what DarkSnowyNight was getting at, thus his cheap shot reply.


BN747

BN747 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Please do not blame Ambassador Stevens for his death.

Dude, when you are not made of combat material the one thing you do NOT DO is use your rank and insist on having your way in a war torn combat rich environment against the advice of those who know danger better than you do. In such situations as that, common sense trumps ‘feelings’ every single time.

logic is impeccable.... don´t blame the guy that actually got himself in the mess, but lets blame someone thousands of miles away and don´t stop blaming after 100 Million or so Taxpayer-funded investigations yielded nothing.....

best regards
Thomas

FatCat wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is not triggering. It is news discussions. There are discussions on a multitude of events. Politics is important to discuss because their are serious ramifications to letting politicians and conspiracy theories running unchecked. We have a President in the US that is so misinformed by his circle that he ignores the wider view. So ignoring it and putting your head in the sand does not change the fact that news is happening and affects everything.

Discussing politics will change politics?
It's 2018.
Answer is no.

Not about changing it. Just providing a sounding board for where ideas clash.

I was listening to a Radio commentator on a conservative show today call a VPN a Very private network. This is a commentator that a lot conservatives find "intelligent". Yet he rambles for over an hour on technology he doesn't understand.

You go ahead and sit down with Ambassador Stevens' family and tell them it was his own fault for getting killed. Make sure you record it, it'll make a great campaign video for republicans.

I can't even believe we're talking about this.

tommy1808 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Please do not blame Ambassador Stevens for his death.

Dude, when you are not made of combat material the one thing you do NOT DO is use your rank and insist on having your way in a war torn combat rich environment against the advice of those who know danger better than you do. In such situations as that, common sense trumps ‘feelings’ every single time.

logic is impeccable.... don´t blame the guy that actually got himself in the mess, but lets blame someone thousands of miles away and don´t stop blaming after 100 Million or so Taxpayer-funded investigations yielded nothing.....

best regards
Thomas

Exactly!

As member Revelation shared above, most people are not willing to delve deep into information to form a fair and reasonable conclusion of what is going on regarding ‘the news’.

Many people (of the microwave mentality generations) prefer Junk Food News, the quick version, details be damned...followed by instant judgment.

So to be as informed as much as one can stand, requires some effort in this ‘age of many sides’... and the flimsy ‘alternative facts’ tactic makes the effort that much more tasking.

BN747

trpmb6 wrote:

You go ahead and sit down with Ambassador Stevens' family and tell them it was his own fault for getting killed. Make sure you record it, it'll make a great campaign video for republicans.

I can't even believe we're talking about this.

If it were my job, I certainly would do precisely that without hesitation! Sure, with compassion but facts nonetheless.

Others lost their lives/families based on a decision he MADE! They followed him (some out of duty others out of friendship perhaps) and then those lost in the attempt to save him/them. It’s bigger than Ambassador Stevens. But it is what it is, a mess he could have avoided had he taken the advice of those who knew better and expressed suspect to begin with.

BN747

BN747 wrote:

Exactly!

As member Revelation shared above, most people are not willing to delve deep into information to form a fair and reasonable conclusion of what is going on regarding ‘the news’.

And that is while it has never been easier to dive into pretty much any topic with a few movement of fingertips. Before the internet we needed to go to libraries to go into an issue or buy books. Understandably not everything is worth the trip, but today?
Having heated decissions on the analysis of facts or the opinion formed based on those is totally fine, but I didn't expect the information age to be filled with discussions what the facts are.
And it gets really frustrating to have the same discussion about the same fact with the same people over and over again.

Basically having to agree on reality being real before each discussion is something usually only found when discussing religion. Now we have disagreements on easily verifiable things. "Hillary sold our Uranium to the Russians" is obviously not true or not obvious true on several levels, yet it still comes up. Again, and again, and again....

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Exactly!

As member Revelation shared above, most people are not willing to delve deep into information to form a fair and reasonable conclusion of what is going on regarding ‘the news’.

Best regards
Thomas

Agreed, no question it’s much easier today and web content grows by the second, the evil doers will continue to contribute their deceptive fake (Fox) news... it makes the sifting process a little more challenging. But it’s a permanent part of our lives now ... so one has to nail down the skills of interneting’ (I know no such verb exist, yet) but you know what I mean, some people are far better than others at it - remember, all those born or alive after the invention of the microwave are prone to the microwave mentality that has a grip on most of us. Me when driving, not a rager, but SoCal traffic can convert the most X’tian if believers into road demons in a heartbeat!

BN747

2122M wrote:

slider wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Donald didn't have a reporter constantly in his face every day.



Seriously... how long did we have to hear about that stupid Benghazi non-story?

You mean Benghazi, where Americans were murdered?

I think he means Benghazi, where the GOP spent years politicizing those murders to try and convince people they were somehow Hillary Clinton's fault.

She did, under oath, take responsibility and, at the same time STILL UNDER OATH, explain there was nothing anyone could have done to save them. And, again UNDER OATH, explained that Amb. Stevens refused extra security. But, let's skip over those parts....

chimborazo wrote:

The BBC is still pretty good but even they tell you what to think with commentary, instead of reporting the news: ie tell us what is happening and we can form our opinion.

What's worse is that BBC content is more and more moving to visual media; I don't want to watch a video about the news as I can read and prefer that.

Interesting. When BBC shares it's opinion and tells you it is opinion, you still complain? I don't get it. Fox shares it's opinion all the time but never says it is opinion. Just simply using the words "fair and balanced" and "news" every minute or so to give people the false impression they are reporting facts. This is what I don't like about print media, especially on the internet: there is no disclaimer to say if it is opinion or fact. People do not want to spend 20 or 30 minutes clicking on different sites to see if something is true or not. That ends up being a rabbit hole because those other sites are biased and it just becomes a big mess. Print media is worse because I could read a report but I would still have to go online to fact check it. Luckily, there are the op-ed pages that tell the reader what is opinion.

seb146 wrote:

chimborazo wrote:

The BBC is still pretty good but even they tell you what to think with commentary, instead of reporting the news: ie tell us what is happening and we can form our opinion.

What's worse is that BBC content is more and more moving to visual media; I don't want to watch a video about the news as I can read and prefer that.

Interesting. When BBC shares it's opinion and tells you it is opinion, you still complain? I don't get it. Fox shares it's opinion all the time but never says it is opinion. Just simply using the words "fair and balanced" and "news" every minute or so to give people the false impression they are reporting facts. This is what I don't like about print media, especially on the internet: there is no disclaimer to say if it is opinion or fact. People do not want to spend 20 or 30 minutes clicking on different sites to see if something is true or not. That ends up being a rabbit hole because those other sites are biased and it just becomes a big mess. Print media is worse because I could read a report but I would still have to go online to fact check it. Luckily, there are the op-ed pages that tell the reader what is opinion.

Currently the Fox News main page is headlining Bill and Hillary. Nothing like a bit of misdirection to fool your followers .

BN747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Early in the Internet era (early 1990.

We also thought subscription based services would be more prevalent, but it took a long time for the payment infrastructure to evolve and by the time that happened advertising was king.

We didn't see the way advertising would be the dominant funding mechanism of the Internet.

Great read, all of that EXCEPT that last comment of not foretelling of the domination of advertising!

You’ve gotta be kidding me with that one! That was like my 1st thought after getting my shoebox Macintosh Plus in 1990!(I still have it) I immediately embraced the break from tv entertainment and saw the work around tv-ads on the future coming web. And ALWAYS asked myself, what the Ad people were going to do, they’re not gonna take this lying down! I was waiting alertly as to ‘when the other shoe was going to drop’...mid 1990s, it started to become very clear, they were not gonna be left out but growing rapidly and exponentially. It’s become worse that tv ad clutter.

Someone in some facet of your line of work MUST have intuitively sensed this coming from the professional perspective! I find that very hard to believe!

BN747

Thanks for the compliment and the observations.

I think integrating ads into web site was obvious, but the real value comes from convincing the advertiser that targeted ads are being served to the right customers, and to have the infrastructure, algorithms and data to support that approach. All of that stuff really wasn't a part of the early 90s Internet I was describing. Yet that is what largely monetizes today's Internet.

Here's something interesting to consider, from Google's Wikipedia page:

Early in 1999, Brin and Page decided they wanted to sell Google to Excite. They went to Excite CEO George Bell and offered to sell it to him for $1 million. He rejected the offer. Vinod Khosla, one of Excite's venture capitalists, talked the duo down to $750,000, but Bell still rejected it.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

Why take the $1M for the Google now worth $billions?

My recollection is they too hadn't figured out how to monetize their products.

The article then says:

This model of selling keyword advertising was first pioneered by Goto.com, an Idealab spin-off created by Bill Gross.[57][58] When the company changed names to Overture Services, it sued Google over alleged infringements of the company's pay-per-click and bidding patents. Overture Services would later be bought by Yahoo! and renamed Yahoo! Search Marketing. The case was then settled out of court; Google agreed to issue shares of common stock to Yahoo! in exchange for a perpetual license.[59]

If you look at the time lines, this is happening late 90s / early 00s, and it's happening largely outside of Google, at least until Google realized how much money they were leaving on the table.

Another interesting page tor read is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick -- my recollection is Google partnered with DoubleClick early on, and then ended up buying them in 2007 for $3B according to the article. By then the model was locked down. In that time frame or a bit later Android came in to the fold and they had a gold mine. A steady stream of telemetry: geolocation, search keywords, media consumption patterns etc all individualized and in real time: pretty much the stuff that makes advertisers drool. Add to that Chrome on mobile platforms and most desktops too. It's no accident that Chrome remembers your Google account info and logs you in automatically. More "big data" to add to the "cloud".

Re: TV vs Internet: As above, the Internet can learn about you in ways TV cannot, although Big Cable is doing their best to catch up. Internet ad blocking has always been a thing, TV not so much. A standalone DVR is good at ad blocking, a Big Cable provided one or Hulu (largely owned by the TV industry), not so much.

Hulu advertises no commercials but that is pure BS. The big print giveth, the fine print taketh away.

BN747 wrote:

If it were my job, I certainly would do precisely that without hesitation! Sure, with compassion but facts nonetheless.


BN747

Absolutely. I can't imagine how that would ever come to pass, but I lack no confidence I could do it.

slider wrote:

You mean Benghazi, where Americans were murdered?

I mean the one where any trace of the GOP allowing actual, important things to get done was murdered.

Yes, we're clearly referring to the same (non)event.

trpmb6 wrote:

Please do not blame Ambassador Stevens for his death.

If you go out and have a few too many tonight, and mush your car into an embankment, yes, you're going to get blamed for your death. That's how we do things in America. This is the same thing.

2122M wrote:

I think he means Benghazi, where the GOP spent years politicizing those murders to try and convince people they were somehow Hillary Clinton's fault.

You would be correct, of course.

tommy1808 wrote:

logic is impeccable.... don´t blame the guy that actually got himself in the mess, but lets blame someone thousands of miles away and don´t stop blaming after 100 Million or so Taxpayer-funded investigations yielded nothing.....

best regards
Thomas

What's amazing is that for a bunch of guys that hate Hillary so much, they sure do think she must be some kind of magic or something. I think they seriously expect that she should have flown over there and personally whooped all the bad guys for them.

Revelation wrote:

Here's something interesting to consider, from Google's Wikipedia page:

Early in 1999, Brin and Page decided they wanted to sell Google to Excite. They went to Excite CEO George Bell and offered to sell it to him for $1 million. He rejected the offer. Vinod Khosla, one of Excite's venture capitalists, talked the duo down to $750,000, but Bell still rejected it.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

Why take the $1M for the Google now worth $billions?

But would Google have become Google had excite bought them? I always like stories like this, but it seems like there are too many variables to really account for.

I totally agree on Hulu though. Especially compared to what they were a decade ago. ..

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Here's something interesting to consider, from Google's Wikipedia page:

Early in 1999, Brin and Page decided they wanted to sell Google to Excite. They went to Excite CEO George Bell and offered to sell it to him for $1 million. He rejected the offer. Vinod Khosla, one of Excite's venture capitalists, talked the duo down to $750,000, but Bell still rejected it.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google

Why take the $1M for the Google now worth $billions?

But would Google have become Google had excite bought them? I always like stories like this, but it seems like there are too many variables to really account for.

I agree the future probably would have been very different, but the idea of them offering Google for sale suggests to me that they did not see the multi-billion dollar potential it had once they figured out the monetization strategy.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Andrew Jackson had a reporter constantly in his face every day.

This should give you some ideas!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180962526/

As Lawrence withdrew a second pistol, Jackson charged his would-be assassin. “Let me alone! Let me alone!” he shouted. “I know where this came from.” He then attempted to batter the attacker with his cane. Lawrence fired his second gun—but this one, too, misfired.

Some sources have Jackson taking him time clubbing his assassin in the head, with onlookers doing little to stop the president, perhaps even mildly cheering as the chief executive reduced Lawrence's face to a bloody pulp. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, as Jackson was not man to run from a fight, not ever. Whatever the truth really is, I tend to think that if CNN and MSNBC got into Jackson's face today, Rachel Maddow would be missing some teeth and Jim Acosta would be laid out on the pavement, twitching.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if someone like Andrew Jackson had a reporter constantly in his face every day.

This should give you some ideas!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180962526/

As Lawrence withdrew a second pistol, Jackson charged his would-be assassin. “Let me alone! Let me alone!” he shouted. “I know where this came from.” He then attempted to batter the attacker with his cane. Lawrence fired his second gun—but this one, too, misfired.

Some sources have Jackson taking him time clubbing his assassin in the head, with onlookers doing little to stop the president, perhaps even mildly cheering as the chief executive reduced Lawrence's face to a bloody pulp. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, as Jackson was not man to run from a fight, not ever. Whatever the truth really is, I tend to think that if CNN and MSNBC got into Jackson's face today, Rachel Maddow would be missing some teeth and Jim Acosta would be laid out on the pavement, twitching.

It sounds like you all want the press to be limited. Not free. Remember these same people were outraged (triggered) beyond belief when Obama said that Fox has an agenda? The same people who want "liberal" reporters beaten and silenced?

It sounds like you all want the press to be limited. Not free.

Did I say that? No, I did not, but nice try attempting to put words in my mouth. Better luck next time.