Search This Blog

Friday, January 4, 2019

File Today's Posting under 'Duhh!'

For today's post, we've been trying to figure how to properly categorize it

Perhaps its reporting of non-news or a restatement of the obvious

Perhaps we'll just file today's reading under 'Duhh!'
Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of The New York Times, has a new book on the newspaper business coming out in the next couple weeks and, according to an advance review by Fox News, it casts a harsh eye on her former paper's coverage of the Trump Administration.

She expresses among other things that news articles at the paper have become "unmistakably anti-Trump" with some headlines and stories containing "raw opinion."

Abramson also believed the Washington Post did the same

You think?
She said the Times may be motivated to slant its coverage further after the paper added more than 600,000 subscribers in the first six months after Trump took office.

Overall in 2017, subscription revenues at the Times exceeded $1 billion, due in part to strong growth in digital subscriptions.

“Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated," 
"The more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased," Abramson added. "[Former publisher Adolph] Ochs’s vow to cover the news without fear or favor sounded like an impossible promise in such a polarized environment.”

Ochs wrote in a Times business announcement in 1896 that the paper would "give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved." The mission around providing news "without fear or favor," is carried as a mantra by many journalism outlets to this day.

Just another reason we wish there was such a thing as a time machine
So let's try to understand for a moment why the NY Times, the Washington Post and others would see increased subscriptions when they blatantly present false information, inject opinion into what is supposed to be unbiased reporting and constantly created lies and non-news based on nothing but Trump hatred?

A lot of it is due to the marginalization of news were people really don't want to hear opposing opinions or points of view because it challenges them in ways that go beyond politics

For instance yours truly had a friend who was liberal and when it came to politics, she was as ignorant and pathetic a creature as they come. 
It wasn't just her personal beliefs which were 100% wrong and that she could not admit it, but anytime a different viewpoint was expressed, she would say something stupid like I was regurgitating Fox News talking points

Of course this worthless nobody nothing (can you guess we're not friends anymore) was always regurgitating the talking points of CNN, MSNBC and the Clinton campaign while smugly believing Trump had no chance then had a bit of a mental breakdown when thank God, Trump won

Just a repulsive, putrid person she became.. Absolutely unlikable

Know anyone like that in your life?    Sickening isn't it?
Most people do not want to be told their wrong.. can't handle it..  Too much of a personal affront so they gravitate toward not only people who will think and believe the same but seek out information from sources that reaffirm those beliefs rather than seek a broad spectrum of knowledge

Liberals do it..  Conservatives do it..

Prior to the 2016 election, we would get information from sources from ultra left to far right to everything in-between and feel a greater understanding of whatever the issues or concerns of the day were
We still do so today but goodness it is a brutal task

So many times we look at a liberal newspaper, magazine or watch liberal news on TV and feel we've been transported to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.. 

The propaganda, lies and purposeful withholding of facts are that bad

A second reason for the dramatic increase in readership for the Times and others is that there are a lot of genuinely stupid people who walk and work among us..  More than you really realize

And these people have bought fully into the Lie that Trump's victory in 2016 was essentially a coup d' etat, that he has illegally taken the Presidency without the will and consent of the people, and that liberal news organizations are 'patriots' fighting to take this nation back and make it free again

We swear..  Many people truly believe this crap
What is it the Washington Post put on the front of their newspaper very soon after Trump won?

'Democracy dies in darkness'

And who created the 'darkness' to these idiots?     Yep
So just like many deeply stupid women back in the 1920s started smoking because a marketing campaign cleverly connected putting cancer in one's lungs to women's suffrage and feminism (cigarettes were branded as 'freedom sticks'), you have just as many deeply Worthless people of both genders believing a subscription to the Times or watching CNN is akin to fighting 'evil' and taking back their country

Ughh..

This is what the public education system produces..   Generation upon generation of easily duped simpletons who can be easily manipulated into buying or believing anything sold to them based on emotion
Just like these media and entertaiment entities like to constantly pretend that blacks are the statistical majority and superior race in every movie, TV show & visual/print ad (they're only 14% and Far Far from superior), they also love conveying this lie that Conservatives do not exist except as villains

So when someone who used to work for the NY Times says its basically horribly biased, it may be a tiny bit newsworthy because a former high level employee expresses it openly but really to any free thinking person, its just one word..

Duhh!