****************

Night Gaut, agree about msnbc even as irritating as msnbc’s
web page is, now there is an incredible place full of more fluff
and bs even though it is better than cnn. Now, on cnn, that old
stick in the mud egomaniac woofie, the red nose, blitzkreig is,
well, is shows where cnn’s loyalty is in the grand scheme of
mainstream media panderings, which is as close to ruppies’ fux
news as one can get.

And thing is, with murduck’s penchant for having all those
bunny and pet types delivering the goods to those salivating leg
humping nascar types, either or both playboy and penthouse
could make a killing doing exposes of girls of cnn or msnbc. Or
murderk could just copy canadian ‘naked news’ but that would
cause an insanity rush to the studios…...

The worse thing about his standard is that it is used by other media giants too. Fortunately MSNBC actually has on those who not only repeat the news but actually analyze it and dissect it. That is why CNN is doing so poorly; it just reads news copy not really delve into what is going on.

****************

I don’t think this creep rubert murdock invented the ‘social hour’
of news which has for some strange reason(NOT) is generously
packed with low talent, irresponsible talking heads, beauty
contestants and pontificating distortionists but he damn sure is
using this trick to suck the idiots into his and some other
related channels to do anything but inform people of what they
should and need to know to make real decisions.

He is definitely in the top 5 most dangerous people to the
people of the world considering his precious baby, his media
empire and he really needs relieving of his part in it even though
those that would replace him would hardly be any worse of an
effect on people’s source of information. That is the standard he
has built.

For much of journalism it has become zombies by the corporate monopoly and the need for profit over actual news. That and the Internet and of course cable too has chopped the audience up into smaller and smaller groups. Very few are interested in any kind of news. My mother was that way, she found it too depressing and for her ultimately useless. (If it didn’t affect her directly then that made it of no concern.)

lll999,

“if it carries on like this journalism will die”

Talking about journalism as it has become or the posts?

As old ruppie says with not one once of guilt about his part in subverting the
msm in the usa thusly creating the worlds biggest and fattest vegetable garden in
the world where the word ‘think’ in unthought of and question is that big fat
dumb ass look on the veggies’ face when asked or questioned about his/her thoughts, opinions, beliefs or just what is on his/her mind, all brought to the usa by raper muderoch in his quest to be the best emulator of joseph goebbels, his only real ‘idol’ that he has ever loved.

Well, no thanks for the vegetables I don’t eat them anyway t*rd f*ck murderoch
you worthless pile of crap and one would have to look way lower than the belly of
a snake crawling through a cess pool to find some one like ruppie mudfuck.

And since I have responded to that 37 minutes of ‘what the fuk’ that I didn’t waste my time trying to listen to as ruppie won’t be splaining anything about the truth for the rest of his life, he just better not get caught out on the roads at night with out his private contractors protecting him.

Newscorp is a big one we want to fail.

Cry me a river Murdoch!

It seems everyone should pay for their partisan rhetorical horse pucky, yeah, seems like Murdoch is really delusional and believes he is in the news business, is sort of like Sarah Palin believing she is in the intelligence business!

Ardee, kilts are drafty and scratchy, the drafty part is dependent on the weather.

Who gives a damn what this maniacal, thieving well-poisoner does?  If you watch, read or listen to any of the bilge put out by this contemporary reincarnation of William Randolph Hearst, you’re a fool!

Murdoc will never see
one shilling coming from under me drafty kilts.

A visual I did not need!

No problem——all current subscription-by-fee services on the web are easily hacked into if you really want to do it——sometimes the thrill of the hunt is more exciting than obtaining!

I certainly don’t pay for cable.  If I did, it certainly wouldn’t be to watch the news.  In fact, I would pay to not have to watch the news, but fortunately I’m allowed to get off scot-free.

We already pay for cable un-news, why not print? The nature of information is changing anyway. “Premier” news will all become increasingly myopic and niche, while information will be dispersed through peer to peer media more. The web reminds my of the printing press. Until then, the church had a monoply on reading, interpreting and communicating the bible. Once it was in mass distribution though, people began interpretting it for themselvs and the Catholic monolith fractured into a thousand splinter groups.

If you have no money to spend you will wish that they were supported by ad revenue. I know I do. I don’t have the money to subscribe to anybody.

I think some people—niche audiences—might pay something for factually reliable content.  The problem would be establishing reliability in an absence of transparency.

Since I will now be paying for my new medical insurance
and saving up for the New Windows 7, Murdoc will never see
one shilling coming from under me drafty kilts.

Newsday, which in general is somewhat more respectable than Murdoch, is going to charge for content, too.  I don’t think the puppy paradigm of the joke is going to work, however, any more than it works in the real world.  Once people are asked to pay for something, they’re likely to want to evaluate what it is they’re paying for.  The mainstream media have made such a thoroughgoing practice of lying, obfuscating, misleading, and propagandizing, and have done it for so long, that I think they’ll be hard put to change their ways and begin producing reliable information.

There is also the difficulty about transparency.  One way we can check up on a news story is to compare reports of an event from different sources and different points of view.  An exclusive story can’t be checked in this way.  To purvey exclusive stories and get money for them a publication must have a strong reputation for reliability, a ludicrous proposition in the case of Murdoch’s empire, and in fact most of the mainstream media today.

Some efforts are being made to construct a Wikipedia-like news forum which may eventually develop into a solution for the reliable-information problem, but the interests of governments, corporations and fanatical religious and political organizations in frustrating or perverting such an enterprise are tremendous and its future is pretty chancy.

I’m reminded of a story taught to sales people.

A salesman is walking down the street and comes across young with a box of young pups and sign reading “Free Puppies.”

The next week, the salesman again walks past the boy with the same box of pups and the same sign. However, the boy had experienced no luck and had been unable to give any of the puppies away.

So, the salesman approached the boy and suggested that he charge $100 per puppy. The boy was perplexed but agreed. A couple days later, the salesam again comae across the boy, but his time there were no puppies. The salesman asked if he’d had any luck and the boy told him that as soon as he started charging for them, the puppies were gone within a couple of days. The boy was genuinely perplexed. “Why,” he asked, “didn’t people want them when they were free?”

The salesman smiled and said, “Because something that’s free has no value to people.”

Murdoch is attempting to inject artificial value into his “news” and I have no doubt that he will be at least marginally successful. The size of his audience matters less than generating enough revenue to surpass what he receives for advertising and he probably will. He is trying to transform his media comglomerate into an “elite” institution. People pay for the WSJ because they think they are a part of something more valuable, kind of like a country club. It makes them feel better, perhaps even superior, about the news they consume. In doing so, he hopes to become more influential. And it could very well work.

The upside is that his message will get out to fewer people. If I have to pay for news, it won’t be to Murdoch. I’m happy to continue to support news of real value to me. I will continue to donate to PBS, NPR, and Democracy Now.

Please, please ... do it now Rupert!  Charge for all that crap you shovel on Fox and the Daily News.  What this clown doesn’t understand is most people don’t read his content because it is worthwhile ... IT’S FREE!  Once he charges for it, they will go elsewhere.  There is no way I would give one of his rags my credit card number (with its 25% interest rate) and let them bang me with charges every time I log on.  As for the WSJ, of late it too has become mostly worthless so good riddance to it as well.

I can do without any access to a Murdoch owned rag, google or otherwise.

Murdoch is a fascist in the purest sense of the term - need one say more