Media Matters

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
321
Bias? Undue Influence? Elite? Isolated?

Ted Cruz yesterday: Cruz: "Media Will Say Trump Is The Nominee"; Trump is Media's "Chosen Republican Candidate" (Real Clear Politics)
"Tonight, Donald Trump is expected to have a good night. He’s likely to win some states, and the media is going to have heart palpitations this evening. And the media is going to say the race is over. The media is going to say Donald Trump is the Republican nominee."

“Every one of them are ready for Hillary.”

"Now the media wants to say that everything’s decided, but the question is, can the state of Indiana stop the media’s chosen Republican candidate?"

Cruz said the media executives have colluded to push Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, because Hillary Clinton can beat Trump and that both are "New York liberals".

Joe Scarborough's opinion piece: (Washington Post)
Trump’s sweep is another humiliating defeat for media and political elites
But Trump’s story is about more than a first-time candidate’s stunning rise. It is also about the humiliating defeat suffered by an increasingly isolated political and media class who still do not understand the causes and scope of Trump’s populist revolt.

In his book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” Charles Murray wrote about the rise of a new American upper class and the “narrow elites” who shape America’s economy, culture and government. The number of players who dominate the direction of media, politics and finance is surprisingly concentrated for a country as sprawling and diverse as the United States. And yet almost all of these “influencers” across Manhattan and Washington were incapable of blunting Trump’s meteoric rise.

Trump yesterday:
Donald Trump Thanks the Media (Accuracy in Media)
GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, who won another five primaries last night, increasing his commanding lead in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, thanked the media during his long-winded victory speech.

“I want to thank the media. The media’s covered me fair for the last two hours,” Trump said to laughter from the crowd. He then got a little more serious and added that “They’ve been really very fair over the last few weeks.”

Trump’s poke at the media was similar to last week when in the same speech he called them “the most dishonest people in the world,” only to turn around and call them “wonderful,” thanking them for making his candidacy possible.


As long as the media focus on Trump’s positives and downplay or ignore his negatives, he will love and praise them. But as soon as they cross the line, all bets are off on what he may say or do.

A matter of perspective? Sour grapes? Polarization of Media outlets?
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
321
Political Polarization & Media Habits (Pew Research)

When it comes to getting news about politics and government, liberals and conservatives inhabit different worlds. There is little overlap in the news sources they turn to and trust. And whether discussing politics online or with friends, they are more likely than others to interact with like-minded individuals, according to a new Pew Research Center study.

The project – part of a year-long effort to shed light on political polarization in America – looks at the ways people get information about government and politics in three different settings: the news media, social media and the way people talk about politics with friends and family. In all three areas, the study finds that those with the most consistent ideological views on the left and right have information streams that are distinct from those of individuals with more mixed political views – and very distinct from each other.

From above:
Striking Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives, But They Also Share Common Ground

Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group


Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
321
Ted Cruz Calls Out Liberal Media for Trump Bias on 'Meet the Press' (from "NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias."

(On Meet The Press, May 1, 2016)
CHUCK TODD: I understand what you believe in the Republican Party. Are you -- can you support him [Donald Trump]? Can you tell your delegates--

TED CRUZ: Chuck what I’m going to do is beat him

TODD: --Lay down your arms and support Trump? Well, you may not. You realize that?

CRUZ: I recognize—I recognize that many in the media would love for me to surrender to Donald Trump, because—

TODD: it’s not about the media--

CRUZ: Number one, because Hillary wins—

TODD: it’s about the numbers! It's about the numbers. He may win. Republican voters are the ones rejecting you! This is not a media conspiracy, Senator!

CRUZ: Well, actually, with all due respect the media has given $2 billion of free advertising to Donald. Let me ask you a question, for example, how much money did the networks make on every one of the Republican debates?

TODD: I have no idea because –

CRUZ: Millions right? Lots and lots.

TODD: --we didn't have a Republican debate.

CRUZ: But you know what's interesting, Chuck? It's been 49 days since we've had a Republican debate. The Democrats have had a debate and Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders have been willing to debate. Donald can't answer questions about his foreign policy. He can't answer questions how you bring jobs –

TODD: But why can’t you answer the question of whether you can support Donald Trump or not? You can't answer that question. Why won't you answer that question, straight forward, black and white?

CRUZ: Chuck, let me finish this point I'm making. Even though the media stands to make millions of dollars off a debate, you hear radio silence from the media about no debates. They are giving up millions of dollars and the reason is, your network's executives are partisan Democrats. Why doesn't every TV station –

TODD: You don't get to just say that! Wait a minute, you don’t get to just say that. It's not true but go ahead. You just throw -- you're broad brushing here and this is exactly what people hate about the media and politics, broad brushes, right?

CRUZ: Listen, the simple reality is, the media almost entirely are liberal partisan Democrats. That is the reality of it. The media created this Trump phenomenon and then they don't hold him accountable. Now, I'm sure the media planned to do so if he's the nominee in general election. Suddenly you'll hear every day about Donald Trump's tax returns. When was the last time you talked about his tax returns? You know, we ought to have a debate. There are real differences. Donald won't debate and the media won’t hold him accountable. I think the people of Indiana deserve a debate. I think we deserve a debate here in Indiana.

TODD: Can you the answer the question about whether are you going to support—Are you going to support Donald Trump if he's the nominee?

CRUZ: I am going to beat Donald Trump. We are headed to a contested convention and we're going to win. I'm not willing to concede this country. Listen, this is my kid's future, Chuck. It’s not simply a game –

TODD: Nobody is saying it's a game, sir.

CRUZ: If we lose this, we lose our country and lose the Supreme Court for a generation and religious liberty is taken away and second amendment is taken away. Our kids are bankrupted. We're at the edge of a cliff and I'll tell you the people of Indiana, they really are in a position. The country is depending on them to pull us back from this cliff.

Why does this have to end, Ted? I blame the two party system. I hear you saying that the liberal media is behind this, but step away from the cliff and we can talk about it.
 
Last edited:

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
321
Media Ideological Profile, Circulation/Traffic, Ad Revenue, Digital

Media Ideological Profile, Circulation/Traffic, Ad Revenue, Digital

Ideological Profile of Each Source's Audience (See graphic).
The three major news networks, Wall Street Journal, Yahoo News, Google News, Bloomberg, MSNBC news, and USA Today are generally viewed as near the average respondent's beliefs. Other news sources are listed along the left-right spectrum. USA Today is owned by Gannett Corp.

Newspapers: Circulation at the Top 5 U.S. Newspapers Reporting Monday-Friday Averages
USA Today (Gannett) has over 4 million average daily circulation. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reach 2 million each per day. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times reach 1 million combined.

Newspapers: Ad and Circulation Revenue for Publicly-Traded Companies, 2013-2014
Of the seven publicly-traded companies, Gannett had the lion's share of ad and circulation revenue - $1.5 million out of the total of $3.3 million for all seven (Gannett - 46%). Since that time, Gannett has acquired broadcast and newspapers from two of the six listed competitors.

Newspapers: Top 25 U.S. Daily Newspapers with Digital Editions
The top two - USA Today with 1.4 million and the New York Times with 1.3 million - are heads above the Wall Street Journal (900k) and the fourth, LA Times (280k).

Top 25 Newspapers by Digital Traffic
USA Today and the New York Times are again the top two with 4-5 times more digital traffic than the third highest media site, the Daily Mail.

Gannett owns over 100 daily newspapers, including USA Today, and nearly 1000 weekly newspapers, in forty-three states.
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
47,376
Reaction score
8,823
I would only be surprised if anyone found it surprising.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
7,658
Reaction score
3,656
17m5t5trj8b37jpg.jpg
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
321
The Growth of Gannett

The Growth of Gannett

Many people have focused their concerns for media as to bias in the content of articles. With size, control and power over direction of news information, media companies could potentially effect attitudes of Americans.

Newspaper/media companies have been going through a period of increased acquisitions as companies try to increase their scale and scope as well as develop multimedia platforms that include lucrative digital and broadcasting segments. As newspaper advertising plummets, ads on digital media are soaring.

Few have made more acquisitions, expanded so quickly and developed multimedia platforms as Gannett.

With its flagship paper USA Today, Gannett has twice as many readers from M-F as the second paper, the NY Times. USA Today has more readership on its newspaper/digital platforms than any other paper. In addition to USA Today, Gannett owns 106 other newspapers in about the same number of local communities, reaching over one third of the households in America. Gannett has announced these 106 newspapers have become the USA Today Network.

Gannett spun off its digital/broadcasting in a new company this past year called Tegna (a rearrangement of some Gannett letters) with attendant stock sharing among holders. Gannett/Tegna is the fourth largest broadcasting network in the U.S. with its affiliates. Gannett gets 46% of the total ad revenue of the seven publicly-traded newspapers.

Gannett, after getting FCC and Justice Dept approval for acquisition of Journal Media newspapers in Milwaukee and others, are now trying to move into larger markets and have made a bid to acquire Tribune Publishing. Tribune owns the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times and others. When closed negotiations stalled, Gannett publicized their offer based on Tribune stock price and assumption of debt, trying to force shareholders to demand a sell. Tribune has resisted and adopted a "poison pill" strategy. Gannett hires Goldman-Sachs for their acquisition.

Tribune Publishing rejects Gannett offer
Tribune Publishing adopts 'poison pill' defense against Gannett

On the newspaper side, Gannett has newspapers in Phoenix, Detroit, Indianapolis, New Jersey, Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, Memphis, Des Moines, Milwaukee, Rochester, Knoxville and others. Those with USA Today and potentially Chicago and Los Angeles would be very appealing to advertisers who could advertise throughout the USA Today Network.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
saw the facedouche stuff, and laughed...no kidding. Network news has been doing it for decades...I mean THE most trusted news man ever...Walter Cronkite, admitted that there was indeed left leanings...and justified it all with some horseshit about rooting for the underdog...whatever.

I was also laughing at the Ben Rhodes BS...if we look at some of legacy's graphics earlier on, we see the folks willingly going along with Rhodes "spin" on the Iran deal were the ones conservatives generally distrust...shocker there to.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2024!
Messages
27,326
Reaction score
10,058
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

I don't know if this belongs in "Political Correctness" or "Media Matters" but WTF......

Not surprising when you consider the rise of Facebook and how Obama pulled a lot of younger voters in his first election. Facebook had already become rather popular around '07-'08, replacing MySpace as the default social media platform for a lot of people. Obviously Zuckerberg doesn't work for the Democratic party, but I'm sure they were somewhat influential with young voters when it came to the last two elections.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

I don't know if this belongs in "Political Correctness" or "Media Matters" but WTF......
This likely sounds worse than it is. Everyone has those uncles who share emails about how Obama is the devil and how Glenn Beck has all of the answers. We'll those uncles are now on Facebook, and share/spam "news" regularly. If there are enough of them to hit the trending mark, Facebook would basically become a Breitbart sharing medium that further pushes young people away from it.

Facebook is under no ethical obligation to let "conservative" media generate horseshit "news" and have their millions of Facebook-using drones contaminate their site too.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
This likely sounds worse than it is. Everyone has those uncles who share emails about how Obama is the devil and how Glenn Beck has all of the answers. We'll those uncles are now on Facebook, and share/spam "news" regularly. If there are enough of them to hit the trending mark, Facebook would basically become a Breitbart sharing medium that further pushes young people away from it.

Facebook is under no ethical obligation to let "conservative" media generate horseshit "news" and have their millions of Facebook-using drones contaminate their site too.

the first two paragraphs of the citation included by the op are enough to tell me that, while what you say is a reasonable assumption...it isn't what was/is happening here.

"This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users."

...that doesn't sound like avoiding crazy uncle Joe being racist...that sounds like facebook fucking with conservatives and conservative gatherings.


"Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module."

...that doesn't sound like avoiding crazy uncle joe giving glenn beck undue reverence...that sounds like liberal manipulation of media to carry an agenda.
 

dales5050

Banned
Messages
404
Reaction score
39
Facebook is under no ethical obligation to let "conservative" media generate horseshit "news" and have their millions of Facebook-using drones contaminate their site too.

Unless you think ethics has anything to do with doing what you say....
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
366
This likely sounds worse than it is. Everyone has those uncles who share emails about how Obama is the devil and how Glenn Beck has all of the answers. We'll those uncles are now on Facebook, and share/spam "news" regularly. If there are enough of them to hit the trending mark, Facebook would basically become a Breitbart sharing medium that further pushes young people away from it.

Facebook is under no ethical obligation to let "conservative" media generate horseshit "news" and have their millions of Facebook-using drones contaminate their site too.

This post is embarrassing and offensive.

I love how the left talks of inclusion all the while suppressing those who do not agree.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
34,869
Reaction score
16,641
This likely sounds worse than it is. Everyone has those uncles who share emails about how Obama is the devil and how Glenn Beck has all of the answers. We'll those uncles are now on Facebook, and share/spam "news" regularly. If there are enough of them to hit the trending mark, Facebook would basically become a Breitbart sharing medium that further pushes young people away from it.

Facebook is under no ethical obligation to let "conservative" media generate horseshit "news" and have their millions of Facebook-using drones contaminate their site too.

No, but they do have an ethical obligation not to call the sidebar "Trending" (with literally no other qualifiers) and then:
1) Inject stories that aren't trending.
2) Suppress stories that are trending.

Every single user is under the impression that the "Trending" bar is an organic reflection of what people are sharing... not curated, censored news. I have no issue with Facebook running their site how they want, but I do take serious issue to them being disingenuous about the media they're showing their members. If they called the sidebar "Around the Web"... or really any term that isn't directly implying impartial, organic reflection of user-shared stories... this is a non-story.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
7,658
Reaction score
3,656
Facebook can do want they want, so long as they are transparent in what they are doing.

Interesting to think about the reach Facebook has and the indirect or direct influence it can have with politics. The number of eyes it can reach is staggering. Yet, when we talk about improper influence in politics, we usually focus in on people like the Koch brothers or Larry Ellison. While it is proper to focus on these known entities, how do we go about assigning a value on what Facebook is doing? It is obviously impacting things differently, but I don't think their power and influence is one that we should ignore.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
This post is embarrassing and offensive.

I love how the left talks of inclusion all the while suppressing those who do not agree.
Oh please. Roger Ailes and the Misinformation Stations do conservatism and the country a disservice. It's a borderline national catastrophe given that it's helped create a base that elected Donald Trump as its nomiee--and Ted freakin' Cruz as the alternate!

Everybody outside of the bubble sees it. My post didn't have anything to do with conservatism or its many merited views. It's about the stunning amount of horseshit media out there generating faux scandals and shameful amounts of misinformation...and playing devil's advocate suggesting that Facebook decided it didn't want its pipes clogged with such shit as it'll drive the aforementioned not-in-the-bubble crowd away.

If it's more than that, they deserve to be lambasted.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Facebook can do want they want, so long as they are transparent in what they are doing.

Interesting to think about the reach Facebook has and the indirect or direct influence it can have with politics. The number of eyes it can reach is staggering. Yet, when we talk about improper influence in politics, we usually focus in on people like the Koch brothers or Larry Ellison. While it is proper to focus on these known entities, how do we go about assigning a value on what Facebook is doing? It is obviously impacting things differently, but I don't think their power and influence is one that we should ignore.

good point...those with money are pretty transparent about their desires, thus people can generally judge their impact, and move to blunt them. Whereas media still live on the "impartial" gravy train when clearly there hasn't been ethics or impartiality since before Cronkite. And when media so blatantly tries to use the cloak of impartiality like facebook clearly has in this case, to forward an agenda, they need to be held to account.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
366
Oh please. Roger Ailes and the Misinformation Stations do conservatism and the country a disservice. It's a borderline national catastrophe given that it's helped create a base that elected Donald Trump as its nomiee--and Ted freakin' Cruz as the alternate!

Everybody outside of the bubble sees it. My post didn't have anything to do with conservatism or its many merited views. It's about the stunning amount of horseshit media out there generating faux scandals and shameful amounts of misinformation...and playing devil's advocate suggesting that Facebook decided it didn't want its pipes clogged with such shit as it'll drive the aforementioned not-in-the-bubble crowd away.

If it's more than that, they deserve to be lambasted.

It is hilarious you have a problem with conservatives getting their message out, yet have no problem with the left using media to get their views out. The way you feel is the same way I feel away NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, etc. and all of the news rags who are 99% filled with leftist views. You have people like Stephanopolous still on the Clinton Foundation payroll doing news stories about the Clintons (I am sure he is unbiased) which is only one example of the news ties to the Democrat party yet you see a problem in Conservatives using Facebook.

For what it is worth, I am not a Trump supporter yet I have to laugh you think FB or Fox created Trump. Try 7+ years of crap in the WH and stagnant wages for those who are lucky enough to even have a job. Worst post-recession recovery ever! Obama will be the first President to never have a year of 3% GDP growth while in office. Carter was even able to accomplish that during his one term. But go ahead blame the conservative voice. And I do not know of a Trump supporter who even calls him a conservative.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
good point...those with money are pretty transparent about their desires, thus people can generally judge their impact, and move to blunt them. Whereas media still live on the "impartial" gravy train when clearly there hasn't been ethics or impartiality since before Cronkite. And when media so blatantly tries to use the cloak of impartiality like facebook clearly has in this case, to forward an agenda, they need to be held to account.
That's the tragedy, we don't have news anymore. We have corporate media that doesn't want to do investigative journalism, a few horribly biased major outlets, moderate yet incompetent CNN, and the wild west internet.

I was watching Fox News with the fam two or so weeks ago, their 6pm show with Bret that appears news-like...before the onslaught of Hannity and Co later. Anyway they had a Kurdish ambassador on who was making the rounds in DC on a trip for more funding from the US to help fight ISIS. Bret must have interviewed him for more than five minutes, discussing the hurdles he faced in getting the Obama administration on board with the good Kurdish people. It *seemed* like news, like proper journalism on an important issue.

It also seemed like Obama had a grudge against the Kurds, or an unwillingness to defeat ISIS. And that's because it wasn't news at all, as news should accurately present all sides of the story, and they never brought up the concerns the US has with giving the Kurds more weaponry: our alliance with Turkey. They didn't say the word Turkey a single time. A viewer would have no idea that there is no border control throughout Kurdistan and American weapons given to Iraqi Kurds could easily end up committed terrorist (or in their view, independence) attacks in Turkey like the many over the last few decades.

Anyway there's my recent Fox News manipulation anecdote. News in this country is becoming nonexistent.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
That's the tragedy, we don't have news anymore. We have corporate media that doesn't want to do investigative journalism, a few horribly biased major outlets, moderate yet incompetent CNN, and the wild west internet.

I was watching Fox News with the fam two or so weeks ago, their 6pm show with Bret that appears news-like...before the onslaught of Hannity and Co later. Anyway they had a Kurdish ambassador on who was making the rounds in DC on a trip for more funding from the US to help fight ISIS. Bret must have interviewed him for more than five minutes, discussing the hurdles he faced in getting the Obama administration on board with the good Kurdish people. It *seemed* like news, like proper journalism on an important issue.

It also seemed like Obama had a grudge against the Kurds, or an unwillingness to defeat ISIS. And that's because it wasn't news at all, as news should accurately present all sides of the story, and they never brought up the concerns the US has with giving the Kurds more weaponry: our alliance with Turkey. They didn't say the word Turkey a single time. A viewer would have no idea that there is no border control throughout Kurdistan and American weapons given to Iraqi Kurds could easily end up committed terrorist (or in their view, independence) attacks in Turkey like the many over the last few decades.

Anyway there's my recent Fox News manipulation anecdote. News in this country is becoming nonexistent.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Apparently, based on how it all works, it entertains us to view the other side as evil imbeciles, and the media folks promote it, and feed off it. I used to think if I just watched some Fox and some network news...I could get an idea whats up...nope. you don't get two sides of a story...you get one completely ignoring it, and the other promoting the hell out of on aspect of it. So there is rarely even a basis to have a conversation with those who are different ideologically. And yes investigative journalism is dead.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
It is hilarious you have a problem with conservatives getting their message out, yet have no problem with the left using media to get their views out. The way you feel is the same way I feel away NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, etc. and all of the news rags who are 99% filled with leftist views. You have people like Stephanopolous still on the Clinton Foundation payroll doing news stories about the Clintons (I am sure he is unbiased) which is only one example of the news ties to the Democrat party yet you see a problem in Conservatives using Facebook.

Who said I was okay with that?

But stop acting like those mainstream examples are some left equivalent of Fox. They aren't. There simply is no liberal equivalent to Fox News.

For what it is worth, I am not a Trump supporter yet I have to laugh you think FB or Fox created Trump. Try 7+ years of crap in the WH and stagnant wages for those who are lucky enough to even have a job. Worst post-recession recovery ever! Obama will be the first President to never have a year of 3% GDP growth while in office. Carter was even able to accomplish that during his one term. But go ahead blame the conservative voice. And I do not know of a Trump supporter who even calls him a conservative.

You reveal your bias by saying it's just been seven years of hard times. Of the people supporting Trump, many feel like they've haven't improved their standing since the 1990s. This isn't an Obama thing, it's the long-term work of the global economy saying uneducated Midwestern whites aren't worth their salaries anymore.

Conservative media certainly helped create Trump's path. If you can't see that we'll just agree to disagree.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
366
That's the tragedy, we don't have news anymore. We have corporate media that doesn't want to do investigative journalism, a few horribly biased major outlets, moderate yet incompetent CNN, and the wild west internet.

I was watching Fox News with the fam two or so weeks ago, their 6pm show with Bret that appears news-like...before the onslaught of Hannity and Co later. Anyway they had a Kurdish ambassador on who was making the rounds in DC on a trip for more funding from the US to help fight ISIS. Bret must have interviewed him for more than five minutes, discussing the hurdles he faced in getting the Obama administration on board with the good Kurdish people. It *seemed* like news, like proper journalism on an important issue.

It also seemed like Obama had a grudge against the Kurds, or an unwillingness to defeat ISIS. And that's because it wasn't news at all, as news should accurately present all sides of the story, and they never brought up the concerns the US has with giving the Kurds more weaponry: our alliance with Turkey. They didn't say the word Turkey a single time. A viewer would have no idea that there is no border control throughout Kurdistan and American weapons given to Iraqi Kurds could easily end up committed terrorist (or in their view, independence) attacks in Turkey like the many over the last few decades.

Anyway there's my recent Fox News manipulation anecdote. News in this country is becoming nonexistent.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

This is all you need to know about the news we are all watching. My ancestors on my Mom's side fled Communism for a better life in America. Many have become extremely successful. Without going into details, there was a conflict in the country they fled that was not being reported by any news organization. They ultimately paid CNN what I was told was a 7 figure check to start reporting on the conflict which they ultimately started doing. If they did not have the money to do so, who knows what would have become of this event as it became world wide news. Money talks when deciding what we all see and know about!
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
321
Anyone want to write their own news stories?

Submit a Press Release (Newswire)

Reach millions. See Distribution list for journalists in outlets you may reach. Get Performance Reports with their Analytics. "See where your news appears, how many people see it, where they live, and much more!" Promote your business. Only a few hundred dollars.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,876
Reaction score
321
Confirmed: Gannett Has Bought Social Media Ad Company BLiNQ

BLiNQ works with some 600 of the world’s largest advertisers in their social media marketing efforts, specifically around Facebook but more recently also extending into other platforms, including other social media sites like LinkedIn and Facebook’s mobile efforts. TechCrunch understands that BLiNQ’s “legacy” Facebook business is profitable.
Gannett’s thinking here is that it wants to build up a business akin to SocialCode, the social media marketing analytics business that is part of the Washington Post Company. In Gannett’s case, it hopes to use BLiNQ’s social marketing platforms to complement its existing local marketing services, creating a “one-stop shop” for brands.
(The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO)
But the company is also picking up a hot property: BLiNQ is one of Facebook’s closer, trusted advertising partners, getting early looks in on many of the newer developments at the social network. And that means Gannett could end up developing a much deeper relationship with the social network itself.

Given that Facebook has been interested in how it can leverage the social graph and its move into mobile to do things like send users deals on goods and services near their location, you can see where Gannett’s emphasis and established business in local marketing might fit nicely.

Gannett press release:
MCLEAN, Va., Aug. 21, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE: GCI) today acquired BLiNQ Media LLC, a leading global innovator of Social Engagement Advertising(SM) solutions for agencies and brands. Since 2008, BLiNQ has managed social media marketing campaigns for more than 600 of the world’s largest advertisers.
“With demand for social media marketing solutions continuing to grow at a rapid pace, this acquisition is part of our ongoing transformation at Gannett and positions us to be a leader in both local and global social media marketing. BLiNQ will enhance Gannett Digital Marketing Services’ ability to deliver a one-stop shop for all marketing needs, including social marketing,” said Gracia Martore, president and CEO at Gannett.
“BLiNQ has the ability to deliver innovative and differentiated social media marketing solutions, especially at the local level, which is great news for businesses in our 100+ local communities, as well as for national brands that want to reach audiences in those communities.”
BLiNQ will continue to operate its core business as part of Gannett’s portfolio of brands, providing technology and media solutions for social advertising and engagement to agencies and brands. As part of Gannett’s Digital Marketing Services organization, BLiNQ will help develop innovative social marketing solutions for businesses that want to reach local consumers. Gannett Digital Marketing Services will fully leverage BLiNQ’s BAM 2.0 technology platform, which facilitates social media campaign planning, set-up, management, optimization and insights. BLiNQ will have a strong focus on delivering robust solutions for local social engagement at scale, including working closely with ShopLocal to help shape best practices and results in reaching, engaging and building loyalty with retail consumers via social media. Dave Williams, BLiNQ’s CEO, will report to Vikram Sharma, president and CEO at Gannett Digital Marketing Services. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

BLiNQ has had a longstanding and strong relationship with Facebook and enjoys priority access to the Facebook platform. BLiNQ was one of the first companies to gain access to the Facebook Ads API, which allows developers to create tools and services that create, buy, and manage Facebook ad campaigns. BLiNQ also is one of a small handful of companies worldwide with two Facebook Preferred Marketing Developer (PMD) badges (“Ads” and “Insights”), and one of a small number of PMDs offering premium media on Facebook. PMD Badges are awarded to developers that have demonstrated value-added capabilities that help marketers scale and achieve efficiency, and extend beyond the functionality of Facebook’s native tools. BLiNQ will continue to drive innovation across current, new and emerging social platforms, including the rapidly emerging mobile social advertising space and its industry-leading LiFT (Likes. Interests. & Fan Targets™.) planning tool.
 
Last edited:

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Messages
37,116
Reaction score
10,459
This likely sounds worse than it is. Everyone has those uncles who share emails about how Obama is the devil and how Glenn Beck has all of the answers. We'll those uncles are now on Facebook, and share/spam "news" regularly. If there are enough of them to hit the trending mark, Facebook would basically become a Breitbart sharing medium that further pushes young people away from it.

Facebook is under no ethical obligation to let "conservative" media generate horseshit "news" and have their millions of Facebook-using drones contaminate their site too.

If you say so.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Messages
37,116
Reaction score
10,459
That's the tragedy, we don't have news anymore. We have corporate media that doesn't want to do investigative journalism, a few horribly biased major outlets, moderate yet incompetent CNN, and the wild west internet.

I was watching Fox News with the fam two or so weeks ago, their 6pm show with Bret that appears news-like...before the onslaught of Hannity and Co later. Anyway they had a Kurdish ambassador on who was making the rounds in DC on a trip for more funding from the US to help fight ISIS. Bret must have interviewed him for more than five minutes, discussing the hurdles he faced in getting the Obama administration on board with the good Kurdish people. It *seemed* like news, like proper journalism on an important issue.

It also seemed like Obama had a grudge against the Kurds, or an unwillingness to defeat ISIS. And that's because it wasn't news at all, as news should accurately present all sides of the story, and they never brought up the concerns the US has with giving the Kurds more weaponry: our alliance with Turkey. They didn't say the word Turkey a single time. A viewer would have no idea that there is no border control throughout Kurdistan and American weapons given to Iraqi Kurds could easily end up committed terrorist (or in their view, independence) attacks in Turkey like the many over the last few decades.

Anyway there's my recent Fox News manipulation anecdote. News in this country is becoming nonexistent.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Time to wake up. Rarely does the news report both sides of a story.
 
Top