4 ms·

The biggest challenge to branded corporate 'masthead credibility' information sources/'news' aggregators is their reliance on firms like Outbrain for advertisin

The biggest challenge to branded corporate 'masthead credibility' information sources/'news' aggregators is their reliance on firms like Outbrain for advertising revenue. Outbrain packages up salacious and questionable material as click bait and runs it on sites like SFGate, supposedly as additional 'news' from a partner of SFGate. The result is deterioration of trust and respect for SFGate. The fuzzy term 'fake news' is fraught with problems. We've been lied to so many times in the western world via 'official' sources many people simply don't trust the mainstream media any more. Apparently more people were watching Yogi Bear reruns than CNN in the US a few weeks ago during prime time. The joy of the internet is our ability to consume information from a wide variety of sources, triangulate across many ideas, reporting and opinions to make up our own minds. The old model of having a small number of 'news outlets', such as the four commercial TV channels and one main 'news' broadcast a night that worked so well during the Vietnam war era is long gone. There seems to be a hankering for regulated, rubber stamped 'news' and credibility checks, which I think is profoundly undemocratic and against the principles of free speech.

jerrylives 9y ago
> Apparently more people were watching Yogi Bear reruns than CNN in the US a few weeks ago during prime time. lol fake news much? You got that from Sean Hannity's tweets. Cable news are reporting huge viewership http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/cable-news-ratings-cnn-fox-news-msnbc-q2-1202479416/ http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/cable-news-ratings-cnn-fox-n... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sean-hannity-mocks-reruns-of-yogi-bear-are-beating-cnn/article/2628304 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sean-hannity-mocks-reruns-...
- olivermarks 9y ago
  I read that here on right wing financial site ZeroHedge. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-06/cnns-rating-collapse-prime-time-shows-draw-less-viewers-re-runs-yogi-bear http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-06/cnns-rating-collaps... Sean Hannity's tweets - along with any other TV bobble head of either political persuasion - are not something I ever pay attention too. I try and read a cross section of perspectives across the political spectrum and draw my own conclusions from that...
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Reading a variety of garbage that doesn't share their sources or even provide a ledger for what their data means isn't going to give you good conclusions. Including any of those outlets is a mistake.
    - olivermarks 9y ago
      Everything is relative. In my social circles virtually no one watches broadcast or cable TV any more. The ad industry relies on Neilsen ratings to say everything is wonderful in the world of passive consumption, but do you trust their stats? http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/ineffective-nielsen-ratings-are-ruining-tv-and-no-one-cares.php http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/ineffective-nielsen-ratin... Your dismissive idea about not bothering to 'read a variety of garbage' implies you will only read rubber stamped, verified information. The question there, as we all seek versions of the truth, is who is doing the verifying and what is their agenda... This is why the internet is such a wonderful thing, don't be fenced in by pre chewed and spun information...
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        If you don't trust Nielsen ratings, why are you reading things that only show you a sliver of that data and use it to make attacks? Reading multiple sources doesn't matter if they're all trash, you'll read multiple biased accounts and then agree with the one conforming to your own bias. I don't read "rubber stamped information," I read things that can source their data and check the sources to make sure they aren't lying to me. Your link's only source is another article that links to themselves multiple times before providing any source, a bad sign, then the source is provided without context. It basically says "lower on this list is worse therefore CNN sucks."
        olivermarks 9y ago
        'sources' is the key word here...I'm not attacking anything.

jerrylives 9y ago

> Apparently more people were watching Yogi Bear reruns than CNN in the US a few weeks ago during prime time. lol fake news much? You got that from Sean Hannity's tweets. Cable news are reporting huge viewership http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/cable-news-ratings-cnn-fox-news-msnbc-q2-1202479416/ http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/cable-news-ratings-cnn-fox-n... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sean-hannity-mocks-reruns-of-yogi-bear-are-beating-cnn/article/2628304 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sean-hannity-mocks-reruns-...

olivermarks 9y ago
I read that here on right wing financial site ZeroHedge. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-06/cnns-rating-collapse-prime-time-shows-draw-less-viewers-re-runs-yogi-bear http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-06/cnns-rating-collaps... Sean Hannity's tweets - along with any other TV bobble head of either political persuasion - are not something I ever pay attention too. I try and read a cross section of perspectives across the political spectrum and draw my own conclusions from that...
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  Reading a variety of garbage that doesn't share their sources or even provide a ledger for what their data means isn't going to give you good conclusions. Including any of those outlets is a mistake.
  - olivermarks 9y ago
    Everything is relative. In my social circles virtually no one watches broadcast or cable TV any more. The ad industry relies on Neilsen ratings to say everything is wonderful in the world of passive consumption, but do you trust their stats? http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/ineffective-nielsen-ratings-are-ruining-tv-and-no-one-cares.php http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/ineffective-nielsen-ratin... Your dismissive idea about not bothering to 'read a variety of garbage' implies you will only read rubber stamped, verified information. The question there, as we all seek versions of the truth, is who is doing the verifying and what is their agenda... This is why the internet is such a wonderful thing, don't be fenced in by pre chewed and spun information...
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      If you don't trust Nielsen ratings, why are you reading things that only show you a sliver of that data and use it to make attacks? Reading multiple sources doesn't matter if they're all trash, you'll read multiple biased accounts and then agree with the one conforming to your own bias. I don't read "rubber stamped information," I read things that can source their data and check the sources to make sure they aren't lying to me. Your link's only source is another article that links to themselves multiple times before providing any source, a bad sign, then the source is provided without context. It basically says "lower on this list is worse therefore CNN sucks."
      - olivermarks 9y ago
        'sources' is the key word here...I'm not attacking anything.