Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,508
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

Met Summer Banter


HoarfrostHubb
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I think there is more to this than just trying to get clicks for revenue, but that is clearly a huge part of it. It sometimes seems as if the media can't decide whether they want to scare people into getting the highly-effective vaccines, or they want to convince people the vaccines will soon fail due to mutant variants. Very unhelpful either way.

IMO it’s solely revenue, ads and clicks.  That’s how business websites work. They’d dump it all tomorrow if their advertisers started seeing drastic drops in clicks on those stories. But I guess to your point it’s the same thing, they need to keep you engaged.  They won’t pick a path, they need you on the hook, swimming around.  Check back every day for updates!

With news print prior, you purchased the whole paper so it didn’t really matter once past the front page.  Advertisers would get seen because once you got the newspaper you’d flip through it.  Online they may only get one shot at you before you close the window or click back on AMWX.  So they have algorithms that will tell them exactly what story they need you to see and then what links they want to display (probably the next top 5 clicked on news stories in the past half hour) to get you to stay on their website.

Website retention is an absolute beast… it’s extremely hard to get you to stick around for a second click most of the time.  They aren’t fukking around with this stuff… it’s not news it’s pure business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lava Rock said:

wish my wife would get vacc'd, especially being a flight attendant. Tried having the discussion again this past wknd (during our 17th anniversary) and she seems more against it now than even a month ago. I let it go cause it was getting heated. I just don't want to be the person that said "I told ya so". Not that it's certain she will get, but I'd rather her stand a better chance of avoiding something severe if she does contract it.

Ya my wifes the same. Im curious if we have contracted it already thoe and not known it. Iv had close contact a few times so i wouldnt be suprised if we both caught it and not known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PhineasC said:

I think there is more to this than just trying to get clicks for revenue, but that is clearly a huge part of it. It sometimes seems as if the media can't decide whether they want to scare people into getting the highly-effective vaccines, or they want to convince people the vaccines will soon fail due to mutant variants. Very unhelpful either way.

Or the media is reporting both, it's highly effective, and there are dangerous mutant varients. Media also reports risk of death greatly decreased with vaccine. 

So if one adds all of that up 1. Vaccine = safe 2. Many people aren't getting vaccine, making varients newsworthy 

I mean.. Idk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

IMO it’s solely revenue, ads and clicks.  That’s how business websites work. They’d dump it all tomorrow if their advertisers started seeing drastic drops in clicks on those stories. But I guess to your point it’s the same thing, they need to keep you engaged.  They won’t pick a path, they need you on the hook, swimming around.

With news print prior, you purchased the whole paper so it didn’t really matter once past the front page.  Advertisers would get seen because once you got the newspaper you’d flip through it.  Online they may only get one shot at you before you close the window or click back on AMWX.  So they have algorithms that will tell them exactly what story they need you to see and then what links they want to display (probably the next top 5 clicked on news stories in the past half hour) to get you to stay on their website.

Website retention is an absolute beast… it’s extremely hard to get you to stick around for a second click most of the time.  They aren’t fukking around with this stuff… it’s not news it’s pure business.

You've probably heard me say this before, so apologies if it's gotten old but ..

The era, day and moment the IMC figured out how to use T.V. channel pings, mouse clicks on PC web, and/or thumb-swipes across those filthy COVID-spreading "smart" phones to move economics, society was doomed.

Doomed to only lies.   

Pure truism?   It actually causes pain... It has fallen too far below the drug potency of everyday, over-sold stimuli ... much of which is f'n invented polish. People can't put down their technology and take this statement seriously, because in order to read this statement ... they have to engage the goddamn shit.  LOL ... buuuut, look out the window. 

THAT is reality.

Everything else is human contrivance.   ALL OF IT.   Period.  

It's real easy.  Don't.

Ends it.

People can't get their minds around the notion that they are living inside an illusion of urgency that is perpetuated by allusions of grandeur - they think reality is what is in the technology.   It's mind blowing.   

Granted some of these statements ... yeah, a little hyperbolic but the gyst of it is real and is just as problematic. 

The carbon footprint of man will force a population correction, ... not anything else that is currently sold as important by the IMC.   Oh, "Industrial-Media Complex"   ...

But to that point I bold above ...I have seen CNN do this all the time actually.  They post some small, innocuous article title in the right rail of their main news-org web-site, and then three hours later, it's either a banner headline, or disappears.  It's obvious what is going on there behind the 'scene' - they're testing ping rates. 10,000 of 'em inside of 3 hours won't cut it.   But a couple million?   Next thing you know, it's BREAKING NEWS THAT WILL UTTERLY CUT YOUR BALLS OFF UNLESS YOU READ READ READ AND CLICK CLICK CLICK through our pages with nested ads.   hahaha. 

seriously... they are like bald -faced whores of sensationalism for profit, aimed a zombified e-tropic dystopian addicts.  

So yea...we're all douches on both sides of that vitriol.    Awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DotRat_Wx said:

Or the media is reporting both, it's highly effective, and there are dangerous mutant varients. Media also reports risk of death greatly decreased with vaccine. 

So if one adds all of that up 1. Vaccine = safe 2. Many people aren't getting vaccine, making varients newsworthy 

I mean.. Idk

Defending the media coverage of COVID at this point is a losing battle, son.

No one really trusts the media anymore. That ship has sailed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

But to that point I bold above ...I have seen CNN do this all the time actually.  They post some small article title in the right rail of their main New org web-site, and then three hours later, it's either a banner headline, or disappears.  It's obvious what is going on there behind the 'scene' - they're testing ping rates. 10,000 of 'em inside of 3 hours won't cut it.   But a couple million?   Next thing you know, it's BREAKING NEWS THAT WILL UTTERLY CUT YOUR BALLS OFF UNLESS YOU READ READ READ AND CLICK CLICK CLICK through our pages with nested ads.   hahaha. 

seriously... they are like bald -faced whores of sensationalism for profit, aimed a zombified e-tropic dystopian addicts.  

So yea...we're all douches on both sides of that vitriol.    Awesome!

I mean this is literally what they teach you in Website Marketing 101 in college.  I've done enough of it with even ski resort websites.  It is 110% all about clicks and click through rate.  It's about exploiting emotions of humans (well, really that's what marketing is in general).  What emotion am I going to pry on to get you to do an action that will make business xyz money?

How do I get you here?  How do I get you to stay here?  Those two questions are the only questions that matter when it comes to business websites.  It's nothing more, nothing less.  CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, LA Times, NY Times, Boston Globe, whatever.  If people do not click on it, it will not be there for long.

But as soon as you click on an article, you are giving that article a "vote" of yes this is what I want.  Humans vote with their mouse pads or their touch screens.  They don't care if you agree or disagree with the article, that's irrelevant.  It's all about the click.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DotRat_Wx said:

As a result of misinformation I think. 

A quick check of the CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News homepages reveals that the misinformation is coming from the media itself...

I'm sure there is still some unbiased news to be found in the "cat stuck up a tree" local stuff. Hard-hitting for sure. National news is just pure garbage now, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

I mean this is literally what they teach you in Website Marketing 101 in college.  I've done enough of it with even ski resort websites.  It is 110% all about clicks and click through rate.  It's about exploiting emotions of humans (well, really that's what marketing is in general).  What emotion am I going to pry on to get you to do an action that will make business xyz money?

How do I get you here?  How do I get you to stay here?  Those two questions are the only questions that matter when it comes to business websites.  It's nothing more, nothing less.  CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, LA Times, NY Times, Boston Globe, whatever.  If people do not click on it, it will not be there for long.

But as soon as you click on an article, you are giving that article a "vote" of yes this is what I want.  Humans vote with their mouse pads or their touch screens.  They don't care if you agree or disagree with the article, that's irrelevant.  It's all about the click.

I think to focus on this as 100% a capitalism issue misses the reality that many large media outlets have become extremely partisan and activist-centered at this point. They have political reasons to push certain message relentlessly. That these agendas dove-tail nicely with the profit motive doesn't mean we should ignore them. I don't disagree with what you are posting at all, just wanted to highlight it isn't all just fat-cats smoking cigars in the newsroom counting bucks anymore.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

A quick check of the CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News homepages reveals that the misinformation is coming from the media itself...

I'm sure there is still some unbiased news to be found in the "cat stuck up a tree" local stuff. Hard-hitting for sure. National news is just pure garbage now, though.

Lolllllllllzzzzzzz always angry.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, powderfreak said:

I mean this is literally what they teach you in Website Marketing 101 in college.  I've done enough of it with even ski resort websites.  It is 110% all about clicks and click through rate.  It's about exploiting emotions of humans (well, really that's what marketing is in general).  What emotion am I going to pry on to get you to do an action that will make business xyz money?

How do I get you here?  How do I get you to stay here?  Those two questions are the only questions that matter when it comes to business websites.  It's nothing more, nothing less.  CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, LA Times, NY Times, Boston Globe, whatever.  If people do not click on it, it will not be there for long.

But as soon as you click on an article, you are giving that article a "vote" of yes this is what I want.  Humans vote with their mouse pads or their touch screens.  They don't care if you agree or disagree with the article, that's irrelevant.  It's all about the click.

I think - not to sound unamerican or nothin' - Freedom Of Press was not intended for the Internet Era...

Just like the 2nd Amendment was not meant for a culture with bubble-gum dispensery fire-arms, where there is in reality hardly any threat of militia. 

Actually... speaking of bubble-gum. The dime store sophist would argue that a population overrun with incalculable fire power is in its self become a militia... particularly when it is schismatic by the Internet's ability to collect separatist cultural perspectives and then embolden their causes. 

Talk about an insoluble morass of f'ed up unintended consequences.  E-gads!  And all at the hands of human achievement, too.  WOW

I dunno how to pull it all back. Probably too late.  Cat's out of the bag. Ship's too far gone over the horizon and is out of radio range... Pick the trope.  But in an ideal world, news media should not be engaging in marketing news and information for profit, particularly when it supersedes fact.  And CNN and FOX ?  Despite operating from Left vs Right - they are after the same goal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tunafish said:

Is Phin a successful troll-er and troll-ee simultaneously?  Impressive, tbh.

 image.png.311439293ae8029956d669298b94e0de.png

 

Maybe put your money where your mouth is, catch the Delta, and write a blog on your experience?  Thx.

Either that or consider giving it a rest, champ.

LOL at wishing COVID on people you disagree with on a weather board. This is where it always ends up with you guys. Barely hidden with some of you. Do better, man.

No clue why the vax gang gets so mad when other people don’t get the jab and are fine. It’s weird!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

I think to focus on this as 100% a capitalism issue misses the reality that many large media outlets have become extremely partisan and activist-centered at this point. They have political reasons to push certain message relentlessly. That these agendas dove-tail nicely with the profit motive doesn't mean we should ignore them. I don't disagree with what you are posting at all, just wanted to highlight it isn't all just fat-cats smoking cigars in the newsroom counting bucks anymore.

Ironic perhaps ...   "activist" by definition and expected nature is supposed to be consistent with "social awareness,"  which if so .. is in an inherent conflict of interesting.

It's why ( logic ) argues they are glib, pumped up and pimped fakery that is targeting to sell to those groups.  It's kind of both in that sense?

They may have the interests of the targeted group in heart. They may not. But the "partisan" part - yeah... Targeting means excoriation of the other side by default of message.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Ironic perhaps ...   "activist" by definition and expected nature is supposed to be consistent with "social awareness,"  which if so .. is in an inherent conflict of interesting.

It's why ( logic ) argues they are glib, pumped up and pimped fakery that is targeting to sell to those groups.  It's kind of both in that sense?

They may have the interests of the targeted group in heart. They may not. But the "partisan" part - yeah... Targeting means excoriation of the other side by default of message.

 

Exactly. It isn’t just about reporting slightly slanted news any more. Now the focus is on actively destroying the opposition, tearing them down, ruining lives via doxxing, etc. This goes beyond a profit motive, IMO. The ethics of the journalism profession are in serious doubt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to where i disagreed with you or copy of my Vax Gang membership card.

Thx

28 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

LOL at wishing COVID on people you disagree with on a weather board. This is where it always ends up with you guys. Barely hidden with some of you. Do better, man.

No clue why the vax gang gets so mad when other people don’t get the jab and are fine. It’s weird!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhineasC said:

I think to focus on this as 100% a capitalism issue misses the reality that many large media outlets have become extremely partisan and activist-centered at this point. They have political reasons to push certain message relentlessly. That these agendas dove-tail nicely with the profit motive doesn't mean we should ignore them. I don't disagree with what you are posting at all, just wanted to highlight it isn't all just fat-cats smoking cigars in the newsroom counting bucks anymore.

Yeah I agree with that too. For sure, they pick an Avenue and generally stay in that lane.  Once they get a viewership they don’t want to alienate them, but I still think that’s largely any company.  Once you get a customer, you don’t want to piss that customer off (with a story that goes against their politics).

Now the real muck up is when political parties start funding media channels… it has to be happening even in obscure ways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PhineasC said:

Exactly. It isn’t just about reporting slightly slanted news any more. Now the focus is on actively destroying the opposition, tearing them down, ruining lives via doxxing, etc. This goes beyond a profit motive, IMO. The ethics of the journalism profession are in serious doubt. 

The only real media these days are small independent investigative journalists who are out there with their cameras and notebooks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...