4 ms·

Cheers to Cuban for responding so quickly. I wish the media would stop hyping this (front page news at CNN, ESPN, Yahoo, etc) until he's proven innocent or guil

Cheers to Cuban for responding so quickly. I wish the media would stop hyping this (front page news at CNN, ESPN, Yahoo, etc) until he's proven innocent or guilty. Unfortunately they make their money on pageviews not in depth reporting. If he's guilty, I wonder if sharesleuth.com will cover it.

jorgeortiz85 18y ago
It's news. Why would news organizations not report it?
- fallentimes 18y ago
  You shouldn't report just headlines. This morning CNN literally just had an unclickable headline about Cuban. No article. No link. Nothing. Just more "breaking news" linkbait/trafficbait bullshit. Ironically, TC has had the best coverage so far.
  - LPTS 18y ago
    studies show the headline is the most read, influential, and remembered part. you're not supposed to want to think, you're supposed to want to be able to convey to other people that you're part of the same cult they are by using key phrases while not putting in the effort to actually think, and be mesmerized by the ads while you are skimming well enough to bullshit your way through meaningless pseudo-conversation with other cult members about the headline along the paradigm of choices the puppet-masters create for you. Of course they should just report headlines. You are the product they sell to their customers (advertisers). You think they care one little bit about informing you of the world as it is? It works out best for everyone except you if they don't. Go back to sleep, watch american gladiators, and don't think about it too much.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Wow! Those studies are very good at uncovering the obvious. Maybe that's what you want to do, but it's not what _I_ want to do. And it's one of the many reasons why old school publications & media companies are dying. Good. While the in depth, real reporting publications are doing well (e.g. The Economist). I think you're the one that needs to go back to sleep; you've obviously given it more thought than me. What's american gladiators? You're being factitious right?
      - LPTS 18y ago
        "You're being factitious right?" see you don't want to think, you want me to give you an answer! You are starting to stir, but your next realization needs to be that your desire to read the economist instead of the CNN headlines, and the resultant feeling of superiority are themselves programming delivered the same way through the same mechanisms. Picture Rupert Murdoch playing with puppet strings attached to education, political, and religious groups talking to an emperor palpatine figure who is the ghost of Edward Barney's, being told, "We'll control the rubes with Fox, and we'll control the slightly smarter rubes with the message 'Well the rubes watching fox are brainwashed, but the source I get my information from is more sophisticated.' which we can imprint on them the same ways. We'll just program them to think they are thinking, as a way to stop them fro actually thinking." Go back to sleep, it's not as nice when you're always aware of it.
        fallentimes 18y ago
        Wrong - it wasn't. Cute attempt though. Your answers sounds like it was from someone who watches American Gladiators, but you probably already knew that. Did Rupert help produce? Unfortunately, voice tone doesn't carry over in written communication, and when someone writes with attitude dripping off theirs words it's hard to decipher what they mean. Go back to sleep, maybe when you wake up you won't be as pretentious.
        LPTS 18y ago
        I doubt that.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - jorgeortiz85 18y ago
    Readers depend on news websites to report breaking news in a timely manner. I'm sure CNN would love to have a full article about the charges as soon as they are announced, but even they need some time to read, digest, and write up their report.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Even a short paragraph (which ESPN/WSJ had before them) would be nice. It demonstrates a level of due diligence. The term "breaking news" doesn't mean anything any more because it's so overused. It's like the word unique or the word special.
      - jorgeortiz85 18y ago
        I'm a bit puzzled. "Breaking" doesn't mean "important". In this context, "to break" means: 14. (v. tr.) To make known, as news: break a story. 15. (v. intr.) To become known or noticed: The big story broke on Friday. (http://www.answers.com/topic/break) So a "breaking news" story is one that is being made known or becoming known. In the morning when the story was becoming known, I think the label was perfectly appropriate.
        fallentimes 18y ago
        Another definition (and the one I was thinking of): Breaking news is a current event that broadcasters feel warrants the interruption of scheduled programming in order to report its details
        jorgeortiz85 18y ago
        Did cnn.com really "interrupt" any "scheduled" programming with the Cuban story? They usually just have that red bar over the top with the "breaking" headline.
        fallentimes 18y ago

jorgeortiz85 18y ago

It's news. Why would news organizations not report it?

fallentimes 18y ago
You shouldn't report just headlines. This morning CNN literally just had an unclickable headline about Cuban. No article. No link. Nothing. Just more "breaking news" linkbait/trafficbait bullshit. Ironically, TC has had the best coverage so far.
- LPTS 18y ago
  studies show the headline is the most read, influential, and remembered part. you're not supposed to want to think, you're supposed to want to be able to convey to other people that you're part of the same cult they are by using key phrases while not putting in the effort to actually think, and be mesmerized by the ads while you are skimming well enough to bullshit your way through meaningless pseudo-conversation with other cult members about the headline along the paradigm of choices the puppet-masters create for you. Of course they should just report headlines. You are the product they sell to their customers (advertisers). You think they care one little bit about informing you of the world as it is? It works out best for everyone except you if they don't. Go back to sleep, watch american gladiators, and don't think about it too much.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Wow! Those studies are very good at uncovering the obvious. Maybe that's what you want to do, but it's not what _I_ want to do. And it's one of the many reasons why old school publications & media companies are dying. Good. While the in depth, real reporting publications are doing well (e.g. The Economist). I think you're the one that needs to go back to sleep; you've obviously given it more thought than me. What's american gladiators? You're being factitious right?
    - LPTS 18y ago
      "You're being factitious right?" see you don't want to think, you want me to give you an answer! You are starting to stir, but your next realization needs to be that your desire to read the economist instead of the CNN headlines, and the resultant feeling of superiority are themselves programming delivered the same way through the same mechanisms. Picture Rupert Murdoch playing with puppet strings attached to education, political, and religious groups talking to an emperor palpatine figure who is the ghost of Edward Barney's, being told, "We'll control the rubes with Fox, and we'll control the slightly smarter rubes with the message 'Well the rubes watching fox are brainwashed, but the source I get my information from is more sophisticated.' which we can imprint on them the same ways. We'll just program them to think they are thinking, as a way to stop them fro actually thinking." Go back to sleep, it's not as nice when you're always aware of it.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Wrong - it wasn't. Cute attempt though. Your answers sounds like it was from someone who watches American Gladiators, but you probably already knew that. Did Rupert help produce? Unfortunately, voice tone doesn't carry over in written communication, and when someone writes with attitude dripping off theirs words it's hard to decipher what they mean. Go back to sleep, maybe when you wake up you won't be as pretentious.
        LPTS 18y ago
        I doubt that.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- jorgeortiz85 18y ago
  Readers depend on news websites to report breaking news in a timely manner. I'm sure CNN would love to have a full article about the charges as soon as they are announced, but even they need some time to read, digest, and write up their report.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Even a short paragraph (which ESPN/WSJ had before them) would be nice. It demonstrates a level of due diligence. The term "breaking news" doesn't mean anything any more because it's so overused. It's like the word unique or the word special.
    - jorgeortiz85 18y ago
      I'm a bit puzzled. "Breaking" doesn't mean "important". In this context, "to break" means: 14. (v. tr.) To make known, as news: break a story. 15. (v. intr.) To become known or noticed: The big story broke on Friday. (http://www.answers.com/topic/break) So a "breaking news" story is one that is being made known or becoming known. In the morning when the story was becoming known, I think the label was perfectly appropriate.
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        Another definition (and the one I was thinking of): Breaking news is a current event that broadcasters feel warrants the interruption of scheduled programming in order to report its details
        jorgeortiz85 18y ago
        Did cnn.com really "interrupt" any "scheduled" programming with the Cuban story? They usually just have that red bar over the top with the "breaking" headline.
        fallentimes 18y ago