Jump to content

The Trump Administration 2017-


Ms. Spam
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was talking more about the people distributing this stuff just was much as the people who consume it. There used to be a standard of verifying a story before it was published. Now it's just throw it out there and see if it's sticks. If we're wrong we'll print an apology.........on page 9. In the age of Trump the veracity of the story is an afterthought. It doesn't matter if it's true. As long as it hurts his image mission accomplished. That basically CNN's mission statement.

I disagree. I believe the media outlets that have verified stories are still doing that. I feel the problem is that too many people just believe everything they see in print anywhere on the internet. Hyper-partisan site have never acted like true journalists. CNN employs idiots and has serious issues with grammar and shit but they don't make things up. The internet is like the damn Wild West and it's up to each of us to verify those we get our news from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of news is "so-and-so reported" which allows various organizations to report on something, like the Buzzfeed article, and get clicks/views while technically not asserting anything.

 

And we all know that technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell my daughter started clapping when he took his shirt off. She loved it.

 

Adam Levine's body is easily the best part of Maroon 5.

 

I saw them open for Matchbox Twenty back when I worked arena event security and they were completely unknown (little known fact, that's how they got their start - Rob Thomas liked their sound. Which is damning in and of itself), and they were godfucking awful. The only good thing you could say about them is that they tried to play the Imperial March to close out the show, so at least they're Star Wars fans.

 

Can't say I've warmed to them since. But Adam Levine is a snack.

 

So. Anyway. Politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I was talking more about the people distributing this stuff just was much as the people who consume it. There used to be a standard of verifying a story before it was published. Now it's just throw it out there and see if it's sticks. If we're wrong we'll print an apology.........on page 9. In the age of Trump the veracity of the story is an afterthought. It doesn't matter if it's true. As long as it hurts his image mission accomplished. That basically CNN's mission statement.

I disagree. I believe the media outlets that have verified stories are still doing that. I feel the problem is that too many people just believe everything they see in print anywhere on the internet. Hyper-partisan site have never acted like true journalists. CNN employs idiots and has serious issues with grammar and **** but they don't make things up. The internet is like the damn Wild West and it's up to each of us to verify those we get our news from.
Getting your news online has changed everything. These journalists get paid by the click. So a salacious and usually misleading headlines are par for the course these days. When an outlet wants to run with a story, verification and facts be damned. The Covington High School kids are a great example of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a weird world we live in today, for sure. Complaining about Maroon 5 is like saying Nickelback is too edgy. I have either lived to long, or woke up in an alternate reality without realizing it a couple years ago. Or both.

It was never about Maroon 5 themselves. When it was reported that several artists turned down job, because allegedly they were supporting Colin Kaepernick, the artist who accepted was going to have an X on their chests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Getting your news online has changed everything. These journalists get paid by the click. So a salacious and usually misleading headlines are par for the course these days.

 

Not exactly. Journalists are paid either salary if they're staff, or a freelance fee, regardless of how their article performs. I say this as someone who works for a publishing company with two digital news products. If journalists were truly paid by the click, there would be no digital media. Everyone has to eat.

 

And engagement on an online story isn't just gauged by how many people click the link, it's also based on how many people stay with the story (we can tell how long you're on the site, and know the average reading time for the whole article), and by whether they stay with the site by going on to read other linked stories (THAT is the holy grail of digital news), or if they click back to whatever they were doing when they found our story. We also pay attention to reach through social media, especially organic shares off our official brand accounts.

 

And the thing that generates revenue for all of these clicks is the advertising, hence so many news sites now begging you to whitelist them if you use an ad blocker. They're not just interested in clicks, either - you notice how many ads are embedded at certain points in articles? They want people to read the whole thing, too.

 

As for clickbait... with so many sources - trusted and not - vying for eyes in the Mad Max-style social media hellscape, it is a HUGE balance when you're a legit site as to how to title a story that generates interest without giving too much away. Our Digital Editor and our Marketing Manager are at friendly odds about our headlines, as the former prefers to keep them vague, thinking the mystery will generate more readers (and then we get accused of clickbaiting), while the latter thinks name dropping will catch more eyes. They compromise with vague headlines and blatant tag-the-person-or-company posts sharing the story on social. Oh, yeah, that's another misconception about news media - journalists don't write headlines. Editors do.

 

Anyway, tl:dr - if your site is a legit, trusted news source, click-bait is used sparingly if at all. I view any sites that use click-bait to headline news stories with severe mistrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, that post would have never happened if he were still here.

 

And I do totally get that Met was using hyperbole in his initial statement. I have this weird thing where sometimes I'm like "yeah, hyperbole!" and other times I get my "well, actually" on. Don't ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying something like that really cuts off any conversation, because now anyone who disagrees with anything she said is going to be see as "man-splaining".

 

So now I'm done with this entire line of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying something like that really cuts off any conversation, because now anyone who disagrees with anything she said is going to be see as "man-splaining".

So now I'm done with this entire line of discussion.

I think theres a difference. Its not man-splaining to disagree with a woman and to say why. Poe would have come in and told her how shes wrong about her own job description which invalidates her argument. He wouldnt meet the argument itself.

 

Man-splaining is telling a woman she doesnt grasp the reality of a topic therefor invalidating her opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really feel like I should start an "I'm an Intersectional Feminist, AMA!" thread, because I've definitely noticed that terms feminists use in their own discourse tend to get twisted in meaning when the general public learn about them.

 

A man explaining something to a woman that she did not already know is not "mansplaining." A man who has a valid, stated disagreement with something a woman says is not "mansplaining." A man who has nothing more than half-developed opinions about a topic correcting someone knowledgeable in the field in question who is also a woman is definitely mansplaining. Though there are certainly people *cough*Poe*cough* who just have a ridiculously inflated sense of their own knowledge and importance in a discussion and will "-splain" to everyone and anyone. Honestly, were he to "-splain" digital media to me in this thread, I wouldn't think there was underlying sexism to it, I'd think he's just a sad troll.

 

Contrary to popular belief, feminists do not think that all men are always acting against us because of sexism. We just know that it happens more than most people would like to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t actually have anything against anything you said, Icy, but here’s what I see happened:

 

Woman posts something

 

Someone immediately goes to mansplaining, which comes across as setting an expectation that anyone offering a different opinion or contradictory facts is wrong to do so unless they’re also female.

 

It’s the type of thing that happens here and elsewhere, similar to “I think Rey is too powerful “ turning into an immediate “Sexists think Rey is too powerful “. It’s a statement intended to end conversation because the person is not just wrong in your opinion, but objectively a horrible person.

 

Not saying that there aren’t people who are sexist and believe women can’t have as much, or more, knowledge on a subject. We all have explicit and implicit biases. Harvard actually has a great tool to look at your implicit biases. I’m quite aware of my own, but it’s still worth reviewing every couple years to remind myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll do it!

 

 

Getting your news online has changed everything. These journalists get paid by the click. So a salacious and usually misleading headlines are par for the course these days.

 

I say this as someone who works for a publishing company with two digital news products.

 

:rock: False.

 

 

Too soon? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to steer it that way, it was more a supportive statement of the fact that sans Poe we actually have discussions again.

I know that you didn't mean it that way, but it's something that is used to stifle discussion. I have people call me to ask questions, because my job is to be an expert on insurance law in my state, and then get told that I'm mansplaining for not telling them what they want to hear.

 

That's happened multiple times, and I explain the same concepts using the same language to everyone.

 

It's also happened multiple times online, with similar issues. Not here, but elsewhere. But it is a term that's used to end conversation. Frequently it is used to end toxic conversation, like Poe, but it is intended to shut people up. It certainly doesn't have any positive impact on most of the people like Poe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have people call me to ask questions, because my job is to be an expert on insurance law in my state, and then get told that I'm mansplaining for not telling them what they want to hear.

Ugh, this is why people hate feminists. The real ones are by in large sane, clear-headed people, but when women pull this shit they take the cause back 100 years. I wish you could forward them to me, Ill explain a few things to those bitches.

 

fuck, they probably wear bedazzled jeans and have that reverse bob haircut that went out of style 10 years ago, too. Some people just need to ****ing go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

Don't see how I was mansplaing. My post was about the garbage stories that litter news feeds.

 

I know that journalists get paid a regular salary. A lot of these sites that need to fill content don't pay regularly. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/the_mission_sounds_simple_pay.php

 

I'm not coming at you Iceheart. I'm just showing that I was not wrong. The context of what I meant just didn't come through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That whole exchange was basically:

 

Met: Relevant and on-topic comment about the subject at hand mostly expressing an opinion.

Icy: Oh, actually I work in this field so here's some more information about how these things work from the inside.

Tank: Poe was a tool and we don't miss his mansplaining ass.

Foz: Mansplaining sucks balls in more ways than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.