Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

One thing to remember about the NYT and 100% of all "media outlets" is that they're not in the news business per se.  They're in the ads business.  The more people who watch, the more ads they sell.  Of course, when people subscribe to their newspaper they do get revenue, but I'd wager that they get a lot more revenue from ads than they do subscriptions.  Same with TV news or all the other news sources (radio, print, TV, websites).  

The other thing that tempers me is that about 90% of the people running these shows are what I'd consider to be liberal democrats.  And I'm not trying to denigrate their political viewpoints and choices, I'm simply stating the facts.  I'm talking mostly about the national news media, people like Gayle King and any of the major news heads.  Not only are the primary anchors hard to the left, most of the whole news team is as well.  The only exception to this is somebody like Fox News or some of the other News organizations out there that cater to the right (OAN etc).  So even if they are trying to report things as accurately as possible, they are still doing it from their ideological point of view.  CNN and MSNBC, hard Left.  Fox seems to be hard right, but in all honesty they tend to fluctuate.  The end result is that you get a lot of reporting that seems really scary.  Which divides opinions and draws viewership.  Boo for the other team, hooray for our team.  

I'm reminded that in a movie a long time ago, they told Howard Stern that the people who love him listen for an average of 12 minutes or something.  The kicker was that people who hated him listed for twice as long.  It was the people who hated his show and hated him that gave him the biggest mouthpiece.  

it's your civic duty

One thing to remember about the NYT and 100% of all "media outlets" is that they're not in the news business per se.  They're in the ads business.  The more people who watch, the more ads they sell.  Of course, when people subscribe to their newspaper they do get revenue, but I'd wager that they get a lot more revenue from ads than they do subscriptions.  Same with TV news or all the other news sources (radio, print, TV, websites). 

The other thing that tempers me is that about 90% of the people running these shows are what I'd consider to be liberal democrats.  And I'm not trying to denigrate their political viewpoints and choices, I'm simply stating the facts.  I'm talking mostly about the national news media, people like Gayle King and any of the major news heads.  Not only are the primary anchors hard to the left, most of the whole news team is as well.  The only exception to this is somebody like Fox News or some of the other News organizations out there that cater to the right (OAN etc).  So even if they are trying to report things as accurately as possible, they are still doing it from their ideological point of view.  CNN and MSNBC, hard Left.  Fox seems to be hard right, but in all honesty they tend to fluctuate.  The end result is that you get a lot of reporting that seems really scary.  Which divides opinions and draws viewership.  Boo for the other team, hooray for our team. 

I'm reminded that in a movie a long time ago, they told Howard Stern that the people who love him listen for an average of 12 minutes or something.  The kicker was that people who hated him listed for twice as long.  It was the people who hated his show and hated him that gave him the biggest mouthpiece. 

corporate news media exists basically only to propagandize the public in order to manufacture consent. to give the illusion of informing the public and the patina of allowing voices for dissent- but that dissent is allowable only up-to a certain point and within a very narrow spectrum.

as chomsky often said, dictators would be envious of the uniformity and obedience of U.S. media. when people in the Soviet Union were reading Pravda they knew they were being lied to. Here people read NYT and they think it's gospel- which is fucking amazing to me considering that paper pushed probably the two greatest hoaxes on the American public in modern history- the second Iraq War and RussiaGate- and then gave themselves Pulitzer prize awards for doing so.

but you're right, media is filthy. ad money has basically created insane conflicts of interest for them to ever tell truth about anything. they are going to protect the ad dollars at all costs- and there are even sleazy things like billionaires like Bill Gates doling out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants via his foundation in order to basically buy favorable news coverage. then of course there's the whole US-A.I.D. clusterfuck with it's tentacles all over the OCCRP and other phony NGO's it funds or outright controls- which media will always uncritically cite in any news reports. US media today is mostly sensationalism, outright fabrication and lies (looking at you WMD's in Iraq), or half-truth and lying by omission- often leaving details of vital importance out of a story.

same shit, different day. Scott Gottlieb works at Pfizer as well, was appointed to their board of directors and to something called their "Regulatory and Compliance Committee and the Science and Technology Committee" - and given really cushy compensation package no doubt- basically immediately after he left his spot as the commissioner of the FDA.

They of course give people like this no-show light work board & committee jobs and pay them million dollars for their expertise of course....and NOT for their connections in the federal bureaucracy or to politicians. Definitely not that.


https://twitter.com/calleymeans/status/1894053719110463545

 media is filthy. ad money has basically created insane conflicts of interest for them to ever tell truth about anything. they are going to protect the ad dollars at all costs- and there are even sleazy things like billionaires like Bill Gates doling out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants via his foundation in order to basically buy favorable news coverage. then of course there's the whole US-A.I.D. clusterfuck with it's tentacles all over the OCCRP and other phony NGO's it funds or outright controls- which media will always uncritically cite in any news reports. US media today is mostly sensationalism, outright fabrication and lies (looking at you WMD's in Iraq), or half-truth and lying by omission- often leaving details of vital importance out of a story.

This is frightening,we should not be agreeing so much but it is the silly season

it's sometimes assumed that corporations hide revenue to avoid paying taxes and for other obvious reasons

As somebody who had worked for some very large "public" companies, it is really had to hid revenue to any great degree due to the regular audit.  And when you are a super large public company a set of auditors are on site just about year around with regular testing of the accounting results. There are ways to modify the bottom line without it costing you "cash" as long as you can justify the adjustments you make, which isn't too hard if you know your business. but even that is questioned by the auditors and will be listed in the notes on the audit report, so investors know what is going on.