Jump to content

Let that SINK IN...


Schu

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

Way over-paying for an unprofitable Social Media property just when the Social Media Craze has come to it's end doesn't look like much of a deal. Hmmm? What would make more sense - plowing $40B into battery development, spaceship development or a silly, failing, non-profitable social media sewer?

 

 

The wealthy have been known to blow huge money on unprofitable items; think $500M yachts. Most likely he thought he could purchase for less.

Like to see more development on natural gas cars.

 

Why did Elon Musk agree to buy Twitter for $44 billion, again? (yahoo.com)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twitter's customers are advertisers. Twitter's product to sell is User Behavior. User Behavior is governed by an extensive Terms of Service Agreement between Twitter and the tweeting users. So, how does "free speech" become an issue here? 
 

It seems to me a better complaint would be: Eliminate the TOS Agreements for these private platforms functioning as public utilities.

 Entirely too much of our daily activity is now governed by corporate contacts rather than civil law. That is dangerous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twitter ,“ obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape , where anything can be said with no consequences!” . This is a quote from Elon Musk . If he’s serious about this statement , then buying Twitter  could be his biggest challenge yet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tom05 said:

Twitter ,“ obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape , where anything can be said with no consequences!” .

Ha! It appears quite a few folks want that as their free speech. I still contend that's a minority whose  business model can't survive. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

It's funny that society has to put up with disinformation on a daily basis from the mainstream media

Our society doesn't and one can change the channel. Fwiw, I think people are frustrated that there's so much in the News the don't like. That's one of the the reasons they go to Social Media, to complain and/or try to spread disinformation..,"main stream" media cracked down on it and the main Social Media sites are doing the same so government doesn't get involved...

 

Meanwhile, it's nice to see out-n-out fake media sites and those sprwading falsehoods going to court and having judgements against them. That's my take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said:

Our society doesn't and one can change the channel. Fwiw, I think people are frustrated that there's so much in the News the don't like. That's one of the the reasons they go to Social Media, to complain and/or try to spread disinformation..,"main stream" media cracked down on it and the main Social Media sites are doing the same so government doesn't get involved...

 

Meanwhile, it's nice to see out-n-out fake media sites and those sprwading falsehoods going to court and having judgements against them. That's my take. 

 

Yeah, you could change the channel, but to what? They are all doing it, even Fox. You have to really dig deep to find an outlet that just reports the news. They are out there, but not at your fingertip.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shakeydeal said:

 

Yeah, you could change the channel, but to what? They are all doing it, even Fox. You have to really dig deep to find an outlet that just reports the news. They are out there, but not at your fingertip.

 

Fwiw, I think our biggest problem is people don't pay attention to REAL News if they don't agree with what's being reported from/about The people in the News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said:

Yet when they report on government some folks get bent out of shape and say what they're seeing isnt true even if it's coming from the horse's mouth. 


Well, people have no conceivable means of determining what's true. Truth is a red herring when it comes to so-called news. What people do is assign trust to sources that confirm their established bias. 
 

News is nothing but a business opportunity like diapers, TVs, and smart phones. The product is cheap to produce, cheap to distribute, and extremely profitable. Media companies owe their shareholders the same dedication to profits that a car company owes their shareholders. They owe nothing to their viewers who are the product they deliver to their advertisers. News is NOT a public service.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Yet when they report on government some folks get bent out of shape and say what they're seeing isnt true even if it's coming from the horse's mouth. 


Every person alive suffers under the illusion that the world should always turn their way. "News" is a manufactured stimulant to keep the population engaged in advertising messages. Angry is good--it drives more news consumption. There's nothing else important about it. The world is organized around creating wealth, not creating wellness. 
 

Follow the money. The US economy is 70% consumer buying. That machinery is the most important to keep going. If that merry go round stops the roof falls in. So advertising is absolutely required to keep the game going. And what better cracker to serve it up on than "gossip" -- also called "news".

 

 It's a vehicle for wealth creation and has no other inherent value as it now exists in society.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, deang said:

I always ask “why are they telling me this?”

 

They are ALWAYS selling SOMETHING, and sometimes multiple products at the same time, and then there's the actual commercials. It's not just worthwhile to decipher all of the items, ideas, and concepts actually being "pitched" here but to then assess who is actually buying them.......and then one will learn a whole lot about what it is that makes the world go round 🙂

 

"The world is a business, Mr. Beale, it has been since man crawled out of the slime....." - Arthur Jensen

 

"Keep your hands off my News Division" - Max Schumacher

 

We all know how that turned out, LOL....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One aspect that's interesting surrounding the news business over time (and part of what makes the film "Network" so prescient) is that it primarily comments from an era when the "news business" was separated from the "entertainment end" of the network such that it could perform its public service function (by at least telling people what actually happened today). Back when we had three national networks, part of the "deal" was that these networks were required to provide a certain amount of time for the public service of news and information as well as room for editorial comment as well as "local issues programming". It was designed to be "not for profit" and in many cases lost money because it cost more to put those reporters on the street and into newsrooms than the shows actually made......and that was quite OK, because the entertainment "end" more than made up for it. Most news was "staid" - read "boring" by today's standards, but watchers knew what was happening and what the "debate angles" were on a broader basis, and people in turn made their choice at the polls.

 

Then a thing came along called "60 Minutes" - that showed that tough investigative journalism could also be VERY profitable, especially if one told stories of interest, and especially when the program could explain to the viewer WHY it was important. And there was a certain amount of "sexy" that was associated with busting corporate or high government chops, or the biggest ideas gaining popularity in the country to which that show would give very interesting and effective journalistic rigor to some of the most important topics at large.

 

Once that can of worms was opened, then pressure starts to build that ALL news product should be profitable and the "public service" idea was not so important. 

 

Bear in mind also that these networks were "stand alone" entities who were not owned at the time by other conglomerates. They were broadcast entities independently and exclusively, albeit commercial enterprises by way of accepting and broadcasting advertising within it. So they weren't as attached to other corporate missions or agendas.....

 

Then, as scriptwriter Paddy Chayefsky explained, an attempt was made for a corporate conglomerate to buy ABC - and as part of that buyout offer was a promise to "make news profitable" and that's when the "light" went on, because if news HAD to make a profit, it would end up populated by soothsayers, public opinion polls, and sideshow freaks of all kinds, which would take what good DID exist (by way of an idea called "standards and practices") in the early days of TV news and throw it down the drain. In that respect Paddy really did see the future of where news was about to go, all the way back in 1976, and that became the impetus for the film "Network" - and that film remains as important today (if not moreso) than it was when it was released. Paddy understood the implications in the big picture and it was not very pleasant. A warning packaged as satire - which todays reality has lapped many many times over - making "Network" one of the most hauntingly forward seeking films that Hollywood ever produced, because Paddy really did see where all this was going, some 50 years ago.

 

Not that it was always pure "news" but the people in it were earnest and genuinely believed in and tried to do right by the profession. That struggle between "old news idea and what it should be" and what it became is the crux of the film "Network" and as such - and especially in the rear view mirror is one of the greatest films of all time.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are infinitely curious and crave gossip. News is just the technological incarnation of gossip.

 

 No one thinks a reporter is in the War Room, or in a Cabinet meeting, or in  the FBI as they review cases, right? Ergo, what reporters get is a statement from a spokesperson. That is simply gossip. They have no conceivable way to verify what they are told, aside from more statements by more spokespersons.
 

All governments everywhere operate in as much secrecy as they can muster. When the government speaks they are naturally creating the narrative they want people to accept. 
 

To ever know what's going on the tool we peasants have is the "exhaust vapors." Track the historical data that flows from government action. For example, with inflation one can look back at mountains of data from 2019-2022 and pretty easily piece together what happened to cause this inflation. But you won't get their spokesman to explain it to you on the news.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Audible Nectar said:

One aspect that's interesting surrounding the news business over time (and part of what makes the film "Network" so prescient) is that it primarily comments from an era when the "news business" was separated from the "entertainment end" of the network such that it could perform its public service function (by at least telling people what actually happened today)


Perfectly brilliant! Thanks for typing all that out! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...