181–190 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president creates a new post, the ad czar, who browses the internet, clicking on all the ads. Every time they click, a tax is assessed.
But what about the Russians? They will double click! How can we keep up with that?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this not a suggestion that we nationalize the media?
It is a suggestion that we nationalise the payment basis for media. Authorship and publishing could/would remain independent. It's strikingly similar to the extant instances of mechanical copyright licenses, which apply to "cover" performances of musical works, in that: 1. Grant of licence is automatic (hence "mechanical"). 2. Payments are automatic (handled through copyright clearance organisations, e.g., Harry Fox…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing illegal (or even unethical in my opinion) to give someone an article before publishing so they can comment on it. It's ridiculous to infer collusion when the result is such a negative article about Clinton. Which piece of information did not make it into the article because it was first send to Paustenbach? Please be specific.
I didn't say it was illegal. I do think it is unethical. It's what we call in legal world an ex parte communication. It's an off-the-record communication with the subject of the article. At the very least, it gives the subject advance warning to spin or do damage control in response--a courtesy I suspect is not granted to everyone.
It's worth pointing out that since we don't have a dump of the Bernie emails, we don't know what their press interaction was like. I'd be shocked if they did not participate in this article. They certainly pushed it pretty hard once it published.
Oh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past two weeks? That open access? Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account. Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read…
I find it funny that people complain about paying for their news, when large newspapers for the longest time weren't (and still are not) free...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this not a suggestion that we nationalize the media?
It is a suggestion that we nationalise the payment basis for media. Authorship and publishing could/would remain independent. It's strikingly similar to the extant instances of mechanical copyright licenses, which apply to "cover" performances of musical works, in that: 1. Grant of licence is automatic (hence "mechanical"). 2. Payments are automatic (handled through copyright clearance organisations, e.g., Harry Fox…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The level of Democratic party and media cooperation is staggering. Media has effectively become a part of the liberal part of the government. The reason Wikileaks scandal got so little attention is because they all, CNN, NYT, etc, are in bed with each other. It's effectively a government-media complex. Interview with Julian Assange: https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4
One thing I'm personally tiring of in this election cycle is the very strong "media is an xyz conspiracy" narrative; a lot of the reasoning seems nothing more than, gasp, people actually have opinions and bias, and marketing spin is a thing. I don't see spin as a "conspiracy", frankly. There is no such thing as unbiased media, I've never known it ever. Connections are not surprising here either. It's rather puzzling…
When journalists are bad at their job they make it very easy to arrive at a particular opinion without really having to understand the issue. This too is the point of PR and of moralistic calls to action... to circumvent rational thought and make someone do something (vote a certain way, buy a certain product, hate a group of people, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NPR ( http://www.npr.org/ ) seems to be doing ok - they have a good mix of online reporting, audio from radio reporting, special features for events such as the election, and a number of successful podcasts associated with their various shows.
NPR is a non-profit that offers all of it's reporting for free. (Their income mostly comes from donors.) Their a bit of a special case since they're happy to lose money on their online offerings.
This means that NPR cannot go around their stations directly to their audience. They simply don't have the infrastructure and resources to raise an equivalent amount of donations directly. And as a matter of preference they don't want to hurt the local stations. They like the local stations.
It puts major restrictions on their product strategy. Everything they do has to have a way to tie back to a local station, and drive donations to local stations. If they just send everyone to NPR.org, they will go out of business.
In this respect, the NYTimes is in a better position for digital. They directly own all their reader and customer relationships, so they have more freedom to innovate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be…
> I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. Imagine if judges gave litigants pre-publication copies of opinions.
Journalists would work very differently if they could use armed cops to force sources to come talk to them and tell the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual narrative is that coverage of Trump and Sanders couldn't be more different, with Sanders struggling for attention while Trump received vast amounts of free advertising. There is a lot of truth to it, but, according to a study: > Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, thei…
What's the media supposed to do about Trump? Keep quiet about the outrageous thing he did today because they already reported 4 outrageous things he did last week? Trump has received more media coverage because he has simply said and done more things that are newsworthy.
After August, if he sat himself in a closet and never did or said anything (and that recording never was released) he would of won very easily.
I feel that NYTimes is the only news organization that has been able to transition to the Digital Era. Does anyone else know of any other old-school news organization that nicely transitioned to the Digital Era?
The Economist is doing pretty well. I've been a subscriber for more than ten years. Now I still get my copy delivered on Friday, but for a little less money (no more print copy), to my iPhone and iPad, with audio for every article.