That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Yeah, though the example they highlight features Clinton, the broader phenomenon is how reporters tend to fit everything into whatever the pre-established narratives are for a given politician / candidate, often at the expense of accuracy and context.
The New York Times added a record number of digital subscribers last quarter, exciting investors who pushed the stock to an 11 percent gain in morning trading.
The Times added 308,000 digital subscribers in the first quarter — its best quarter since it began offering digital-only subscriptions in 2011. The additional subscribers helped boost the company to a net income of $13.2 million in the first quarter after reporting a loss of $8.3 million in the same period a year earlier.
I think this is mostly / entirely prior to the events of the past week or so, when purportedly a ton of people were cancelling their NYT subscriptions to protest NYT running conservative columnist Bret Stephenson's first column, which had climate change skepticism (at least as to the extent of likely climate change impacts).gilraen wrote:NY Times not so "failing" after all:The New York Times added a record number of digital subscribers last quarter, exciting investors who pushed the stock to an 11 percent gain in morning trading.
The Times added 308,000 digital subscribers in the first quarter — its best quarter since it began offering digital-only subscriptions in 2011. The additional subscribers helped boost the company to a net income of $13.2 million in the first quarter after reporting a loss of $8.3 million in the same period a year earlier.
The thing about science is that only works when opinion is completely removed. Mixing the two is a recipe for garbage.El Guapo wrote: Because it's important to support the press in a time of growing authoritarianism, at least until that press runs one op-ed column that you strongly disagree with.
And it's really, really important to discount all the good work that the Times does if they make a misstep here or there.Jeff V wrote:The thing about science is that only works when opinion is completely removed. Mixing the two is a recipe for garbage.El Guapo wrote: Because it's important to support the press in a time of growing authoritarianism, at least until that press runs one op-ed column that you strongly disagree with.
No, of course this has nothing to do with that op-ed, this just confirms the trend since after the election, where NYT, WaPo, etc. registered massive numbers of new subscribers.El Guapo wrote: I think this is mostly / entirely prior to the events of the past week or so, when purportedly a ton of people were cancelling their NYT subscriptions to protest NYT running conservative columnist Bret Stephenson's first column, which had climate change skepticism (at least as to the extent of likely climate change impacts).
Because it's important to support the press in a time of growing authoritarianism, at least until that press runs one op-ed column that you strongly disagree with.
Yes, it is safe to say the subscribers they gained last quarter were prior to the events of the past week or so.El Guapo wrote:I think this is mostly / entirely prior to the events of the past week or sogilraen wrote:NY Times not so "failing" after all:The New York Times added a record number of digital subscribers last quarter, exciting investors who pushed the stock to an 11 percent gain in morning trading.
The Times added 308,000 digital subscribers in the first quarter — its best quarter since it began offering digital-only subscriptions in 2011. The additional subscribers helped boost the company to a net income of $13.2 million in the first quarter after reporting a loss of $8.3 million in the same period a year earlier.
Right, my point is that "NYT has lots of new subscribers!" may be somewhat outdated, depending on the scale of the Stephenson defectors.gilraen wrote:No, of course this has nothing to do with that op-ed, this just confirms the trend since after the election, where NYT, WaPo, etc. registered massive numbers of new subscribers.El Guapo wrote: I think this is mostly / entirely prior to the events of the past week or so, when purportedly a ton of people were cancelling their NYT subscriptions to protest NYT running conservative columnist Bret Stephenson's first column, which had climate change skepticism (at least as to the extent of likely climate change impacts).
Because it's important to support the press in a time of growing authoritarianism, at least until that press runs one op-ed column that you strongly disagree with.
Please keep up the bitching. I couldn't agree more.El Guapo wrote:Right, my point is that "NYT has lots of new subscribers!" may be somewhat outdated, depending on the scale of the Stephenson defectors.gilraen wrote:No, of course this has nothing to do with that op-ed, this just confirms the trend since after the election, where NYT, WaPo, etc. registered massive numbers of new subscribers.El Guapo wrote: I think this is mostly / entirely prior to the events of the past week or so, when purportedly a ton of people were cancelling their NYT subscriptions to protest NYT running conservative columnist Bret Stephenson's first column, which had climate change skepticism (at least as to the extent of likely climate change impacts).
Because it's important to support the press in a time of growing authoritarianism, at least until that press runs one op-ed column that you strongly disagree with.
It's also an opportunity to bitch about how stupid and shortsighted the Stephenson defectors are.
I mean, it is about the one op ed ultimately, even if people try to make it something broader, because that's what's launched the unsubscriptions. Believe me, I have a lot of gripes with the NY Times general election coverage, particularly of the Comey letter. But that was all true in the first quarter of the year as well, when subscriptions boomed, so that's clearly not the issue.malchior wrote:If people read one op ed and cancelled because of it - yes that is mock worthy. This comment treads on being a repeat of the last one I did on this subject but I think this is a bit of an unfair characterization of the debate about the Times right now. There are folks who saw the Times do much to normalize Trump during the election - including a lot of horse race coverage. They apologized for it specifically. The Op Ed board announced the Stephens hire with a claim that they wanted to improve their opinion diversity. Instead they hired a neocon war hawk who was to boot a climate change skeptic. Nothing screams establishment elite as loudly as this hire. This is a voice that is well represented overall so it did nothing to increase opinion diversity especially since they already have a neocon war hawk. They could have hired a true libertarian or a Bernie Sanders progressive but they went with the figurative embodiment of what is wrong with everything in our discourse right now.
If those cancelling are able to send the message that it is unacceptable for the NY Times to take their money and use it to print the words for establishment liars like Stephens then I think that is pretty fair. I considered it myself when they announced the hire. And I'm still considering it because in the end I think the Times is really skating on thin ice here when it comes to how they have been covering the events of the last couple of years.
IMO this is about their credibility. For every important piece of news they break - they have a complete pile of crap like this attempt at showing that the Trump White House is normalizing. The methodology and results are preposterous. Yet it is on the front page right now. I'm sure they'd defend it to the end of time but in the end IMO it is a very shoddy stab at applying a bizarre statistical model to what is happening.El Guapo wrote:By all means, let the NY Times know that you are displeased about hiring Stephenson as an op-ed columnists. But mass unsubscriptions is doing much more damage to an important press institution that is covering Trump tough at a time when the press is under real threat, which is utter madness over one op-ed columnist.
Another example. Sure President's change long-standing policy but they normally do it for a reason. Not without any plan or thought behind it beyond that he is a fucking moron. This article isn't fit for use as 'digital' toilet paper.President Trump says he will not insist on a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, a retreat from decades of American policy.
On average, the panelists said this was normal, but likely to have lasting consequences. “Presidents are allowed to change even long-standing policies,” Mr. Ginsburg said. Frances Lee, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, said, “It is hard to say how important the president's current position is because, like his positions on other critical issues, it may well alter as he becomes more informed.”
I didn't think it was all that bad. It's obviously not scientific. It's, as you said, a stab at trying to put events in context. I don't agree with where they placed all of them, but I think it's a worthy endeavor to at least attempt to put Trump's decisions/comments/actions in perspective. I'm especially sympathetic to an attempt -- even a flawed one -- to place these events in Normal/Abnormal/Important/Unimportant space.malchior wrote:IMO this is about their credibility. For every important piece of news they break - they have a complete pile of crap like this attempt at showing that the Trump White House is normalizing. The methodology and results are preposterous. Yet it is on the front page right now. I'm sure they'd defend it to the end of time but in the end IMO it is a very shoddy stab at applying a bizarre statistical model to what is happening.El Guapo wrote:By all means, let the NY Times know that you are displeased about hiring Stephenson as an op-ed columnists. But mass unsubscriptions is doing much more damage to an important press institution that is covering Trump tough at a time when the press is under real threat, which is utter madness over one op-ed columnist.
For example, his tax plan is way more Normal and slightly more Important than Not. And I'm sure the rationale would be that Republicans call for tax cuts, etc. But it discounts that the tax plan was a single page and barely constituted a plan. It was a raw idea that barely developed from the campaign. It supposedly caught budget experts in the administration off-guard. It was dropped based on the President saying it'd happen off the cuff. That is hardly "normal". And it serves to normalize this crap storm.
Another example. Sure President's change long-standing policy but they normally do it for a reason. Not without any plan or thought behind it beyond that he is a fucking moron. This article isn't fit for use as 'digital' toilet paper.President Trump says he will not insist on a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, a retreat from decades of American policy.
On average, the panelists said this was normal, but likely to have lasting consequences. “Presidents are allowed to change even long-standing policies,” Mr. Ginsburg said. Frances Lee, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, said, “It is hard to say how important the president's current position is because, like his positions on other critical issues, it may well alter as he becomes more informed.”
El Guapo wrote:That's madness.
I like the idea quite a bit myself. IMO the problem is they are looking at these events and applying them to a non-existent entity. The panel seems to be evaluating these events against a 'normal' President - not what is happening in actual reality. That flawed model is skewing the whole thing IMO. Under almost all of these events is something completely wacky that should push it way to the right. Saying China isn't a currency manipulator is way more normal than abnormal? Sure except he shouldn't have said it in the first place. That it happened at all is 'abnormal' by itself. That is why I think the whole exercise is flawed. It almost rewards end justifies the means logic. Hey as long as he gets to a normal place eventually...then it is normal. NO!?! His job is to make decisions. His complete lack of a process for making good decisions is the issue and this construct IMO has a strong normal bias. It is just a testimony for how wacky the beginning of his Presidency was that this model showed less normal to begin with.Kurth wrote:I didn't think it was all that bad. It's obviously not scientific. It's, as you said, a stab at trying to put events in context. I don't agree with where they placed all of them, but I think it's a worthy endeavor to at least attempt to put Trump's decisions/comments/actions in perspective. I'm especially sympathetic to an attempt -- even a flawed one -- to place these events in Normal/Abnormal/Important/Unimportant space.
For nearly three years, our colleague and friend Ben Makuch has had the full weight of Canada's intelligence agencies, federal government, and court systems bearing down on him for the crime of committing journalism.
While the Canadian editor of Motherboard, Ben interviewed Farah Mohamed Shirdon, who joined ISIS and burnt his Canadian passport on YouTube in 2014. The interview provided an early look at the motivations of one of a still-growing number of Western-born people who left Canada, the United States, or the United Kingdom to join the Islamic State. It was, by any standard, an insightful piece of reporting that helped our audience understand a mysterious and frightening enemy.
Soon after the articles ran, agents for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showed up at VICE's Toronto office and demanded that Ben turn over all communications he had with Shirdon (which the Kik messaging service deletes as soon as they are delivered), as well as notes and emails exchanged between Ben, who now is a reporter with VICE News, and Motherboard editorial staff. The request was made under a top-secret gag order; for nine months, Ben couldn't tell his colleagues, family, or friends that the Canadian government intended to turn him into an investigative arm for its top federal police agency.
You haven't been following the news lately have you? BuzzFeed news has been doing some good work for a while now.
It turns out it is just for a day pass, they have not been given permanent press pass.Enough wrote:Yay, Trump gave Infowars press credentials.
https://twitter.com/jerome_corsi/status ... 5950907394
No doubt - but Buzzfeed being the font of "excellence"? Is that a consequence of Buzzfeed getting better (it did) or everyone else getting worse (the bigger culprit IMO).tjg_marantz wrote:You haven't been following the news lately have you? BuzzFeed news has been doing some good work for a while now.
It started with their K-File research group before CNN poached Andrew Kaczynski.malchior wrote:No doubt - but Buzzfeed being the font of "excellence"? Is that a consequence of Buzzfeed getting better (it did) or everyone else getting worse (the bigger culprit IMO).tjg_marantz wrote:You haven't been following the news lately have you? BuzzFeed news has been doing some good work for a while now.
Eric Garland wrote:Media still falling for Trump's incrementalism. He starts with something insane- breaking nepotism laws -and then get them arguing details. "You know, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It could be *sort of legit* to use Russian spy communications!" They keep missing it. This lunatic asked for his whole family (!) to get Yankee White clearance despite zero experience or skill in government. It's a Mafia move.Then, media writes up - with a straight face - that the president's competence free son-in-law is in charge of Israel/Palestine, NAFTA, etc. The media then continues down the garden path despite the fundamental truth - POTUS has no business with his idiot son-in-law in the WH. Then the guy hires his daughter for an unpaid (???) position in the administration, and the husband-wife couple both expand corruption. These two are breathtakingly corrupt - Ivanka's hawking tchotchkes and books, Kushner's sister is selling off f**king US Visas to Chinese. But media covers the "palace intrigue" angle. Maybe Bannon doesn't like him! There's tension! He's maybe possibly a "moderating influence."
Nope! Still mangling the story! President hires direct family members to use the White House for family profit. End. Of. Goddamn. Story. Now, these grifters who have no official position and no business in the people's buildings get CAUGHT SNEAKING AROUND WITH RUSSIAN SPIES. So they keep falling for it, with "let's discuss the details about whether this might be OK" instead of "GRIFTER SON-IN-LAW WITH RUSSIANS."
1. Son-in-law has fake position and business in government.
2. His family are profiting.
3. He's also committing treason.
No more to add.
"Well," says NY Times guy, "this could be sort of legitimate," because they want to argue minutia. NOPE. Nothing to discuss, actually. There aren't two sides to this story. These guys denied ANY Russian contact, and now criminal grifter families members hang with spies.That's not an incremental story - it's a five alarm fire of corrupt insanity. Yet, the media still treats Trump to the luxury of "balance." Every morning should start with "President Trump, who openly asked Russia to hack our election and then hired his kids to make a profit..."
But instead, we justify every blasphemy against our democracy by treating each detail like it's up for a chin-scratching debate. Enough. As we say in Vermont, "Don't take all day to know the sun's shining." Trump is a criminal on task for a hostile power - and it shows. The Trump Gang - which includes the Kushners, deVos/Princes, Flynns, Mercers, and others - are greatest traitors in US history. The media ought to wake up and act like this is an emergency. Not a "hey, let's cover 'both' sides - and also criticize Hillary, still. There's only one story: Criminals conspired with Russia to damage or destroy the United States, and the GOP went along with it.
Simple as. And if you're stuck writing stories about the trees, I suggest you back up and check out the raging forest fire.
</THREAD>
One man has been arrested and two others are missing after investigating working conditions at a Chinese company that produces Ivanka Trump-brand shoes, the Associated Press reported Tuesday.
I don't disagree with Eric Garland here exactly, but a lot of what he's complaining about is just the structure of the news (i.e. they need to report on 'new' developments) and the fact that the institutional actors who are empowered to do something about the crises (i.e. congressional Republicans) are unwilling to do anything about said crises (and the media has been reporting on their unwillingness to do so).malchior wrote:This tweet kicks off an amazing thread - I've unpacked it below because there are a lot of tweets.
Moliere wrote:Men investigating Ivanka Trump brand in China arrested, missing
One man has been arrested and two others are missing after investigating working conditions at a Chinese company that produces Ivanka Trump-brand shoes, the Associated Press reported Tuesday.
Well, one thing I know for sure, is that Ivanka Trump is all about inspiring and empowering. I am certain she has already addressed this and the fake media is just refusing to cover it.malchior wrote:Let's not go crazy here. They are just missing - the Chinese are known for being very even handed with journalists. [/sarcasm]
The NYT and other media outlets do periodically publish "big picture" type stories synthesizing various events in a "this is what is going on" kind of way, though. That tends to be more columnist / pundit territory, though, and it's necessarily overwhelmed in volume by the "news of the day" stories.malchior wrote:I agree up to the point that they never seem to manage to actually tell the bigger story in context. And maybe they feel that is editorial but at this point the pinhole picture show they provide isn't working. It is information overload without the correlation and story telling that is destroying our ability to deal with this threat.