4 ms·

You think the same about United and now American? Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. There is a financial benefit for them writ

You think the same about United and now American? Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers.

matt4077 10y ago
Not op, but: > You think the same about United... Yes. > ...and now American? Dunno, haven't heard of it. Probably. > Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. I don't understand the mechanism you're proposing? You're insinuating that this "minority" is today no larger than it was for...similar scandals in the past, I guess? Then why would readership for news about said scandals rise? How does loudness factor into this? Does Uber go to 11? Anyway, you're wrong on the simplest of facts. It's not a minority: "Pollsters found generally negative attitudes toward United, with 47 percent viewing it unfavorably. Twenty-three percent see the airline favorably." (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-poll-voters-prefer-united-airlines-to-trump http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-pol...) > There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers. And to think that for centuries, we trusted journalists without ever noticing that they were paid (paid!) to write what they write. It's basically corruption! And now that I think of it, I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread!
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread! you jest now, but in past eras there was SIGNIFICANT political conflict about the role millers and bakers played in distribution of grain resources.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dave5104 10y ago
Yes, absolutely. I do in fact think United should not be directing law enforcement to drag their customers off their planes. I haven't heard of American being in the news lately--so can't comment on any wrongdoing that they've been up to.

matt4077 10y ago

Not op, but: > You think the same about United... Yes. > ...and now American? Dunno, haven't heard of it. Probably. > Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. I don't understand the mechanism you're proposing? You're insinuating that this "minority" is today no larger than it was for...similar scandals in the past, I guess? Then why would readership for news about said scandals rise? How does loudness factor into this? Does Uber go to 11? Anyway, you're wrong on the simplest of facts. It's not a minority: "Pollsters found generally negative attitudes toward United, with 47 percent viewing it unfavorably. Twenty-three percent see the airline favorably." (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-poll-voters-prefer-united-airlines-to-trump http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-pol...) > There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers. And to think that for centuries, we trusted journalists without ever noticing that they were paid (paid!) to write what they write. It's basically corruption! And now that I think of it, I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread!

metaphorm 10y ago
> I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread! you jest now, but in past eras there was SIGNIFICANT political conflict about the role millers and bakers played in distribution of grain resources.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dave5104 10y ago

Yes, absolutely. I do in fact think United should not be directing law enforcement to drag their customers off their planes. I haven't heard of American being in the news lately--so can't comment on any wrongdoing that they've been up to.