Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 122 (822699)
10-31-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
10-31-2017 9:21 AM


My question is how did he get published by MSM, which wouldn't ordinarily float such a view as his.
The Daily Caller are a 'content partner' of MSN. This involves some kind of deal - the content partner may pay MSN a monthly or annual fee, and some kind of ad-revenue share deal is brokered. I don't know the details of The Daily Caller's agreement. I would imagine there are a variety of rules regarding the nature of the content that is permitted - political agreement of MSN is unlikely to be amongst them. Money, after all, talks.
As long as it doesn't bring MSN into disrepute, and ultimately makes them money - it's probably fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 9:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 31 of 122 (822709)
10-31-2017 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:25 PM


I noticed that "content partner" line but wow, what a strange result to get actual content from your partner that would never otherwise see the light of day under your label, laden with disclaimers of course, but out there where someone might actually think there could be something to it. Wow. To me it's sort of a miracle.
It makes a ton of money. Microsoft have always valued money. I don't know what's miraculous about it. The Microsoft Network gets more views, thus more ad-revenue. As do the Daily Caller. It's practically free money. And the easiest part for Microsoft is they don't even manage the content partners direct. They use VigLink (along with the Daily Caller) whose purpose is to monetize content. All Microsoft have to do is manage the server / network infrastructure which they were going to do anyway.
There are a number of ways to monetize the News. One is to get tap into a specific market (such as liberals or Conservatives) to try to get loyal regular visitors, and then use the numbers there to persuade advertisers or investors.
Another is to use advertisement networks that care less for the message they are advertising on, than they do about volume. So instead of appealing to a particular group for a loyal fanbase, you just use tactics to draw large numbers generally. This is the method that Yahoo, Microsoft and Google typically use.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 33 of 122 (822713)
10-31-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:57 PM


Hooray for greed then, it allowed the truth to slip under the censorship radar.
The issue isn't about the truth being accessible. It's that there's so much noise, a lot of it essentially copy/pasted left and right, that it drowns out the signal. And that is because of the greed element.
An op-ed piece isn't news. It's someone's opinion about the news. It is often confused for news, which is a problem. In the opinion of the author you quoted - the charges are a distraction. I'm sure someone would voice a similar opinion had members of Clinton's camp been charged for something and Trump's were not. It's not journalism, it's not news. It's someone's interpretation of the news.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 5:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 122 (822732)
10-31-2017 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
10-31-2017 5:11 PM


In this case IMO a very rare eruption of the truth occurred in the midst of leftist propaganda
I've never thought of MSN as being a particularly 'leftist' place. Are you thinking instead of MSNBC? One is owned by Microsoft, the other by Comcast via NBCUniversal. Microsoft used to be a major investor and strategic partner of MSNBC (hence the name) - owning a 50% share but they divested their interest in the channel in 2005 and the website in 2012.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 5:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 7:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 81 of 122 (822797)
11-01-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
11-01-2017 12:54 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
there is absolutely NO evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia
Naturally. There is however evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump's favour. Cui bono? It might be that Russia felt it benefited them enough for them to do it alone. It might be that Russia felt it could have a bigger impact if they acted in concert with the Trump camp. There is evidence that there was some deception about Russian communications from the Trump camp. The timings of certain statements suggest that Trump had foreknowledge of information gathered and subsequently released by Russian groups. There is evidence that Trump declined to release information regarding his finances.
So there is smoke, it's certainly a good idea to investigate the existence of a fire. And if the President was complicit in starting the fire - that is important. The consequences are such that it would be a good idea to be as certain of the truth of the issue as possible.
The consequences of a President not being eligible for the Presidency seems less consequential than if the President owes Russia - or if Russia has some leverage over the President.
along with one phony disgusting "dossier" against Trump invented by Democrats
The dossier was not invented by Democrats. The Republicans paid Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. Then the Democrats started paying Fusion GPS. Either Fusion discovered the facts, or they invented them, or they discovered other people's inventions. Not the Democrats.
there's plenty of evidence of Clinton's Russia collusion.
The right wing media should start reporting this, rather than talking about the Uranium deal, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 12:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 102 of 122 (822949)
11-03-2017 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
11-03-2017 10:41 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell? Look at the evidence.
And I heard it from a reputable source ...
that I know is reputable because they have said things I liked before ...
Don't believe everything you read. Don't read everything you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 11-03-2017 10:41 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024