Slashdot Mirror

The publishers are (slowly) moving from simply copying plain-text, which they used to print (on dead trees), to web-sites, where hyper-linking is possible.

That's all you need — usually there is no reason to corral the links into a separate "info-box".

As the print-magazines wane and digital ones rise, this realization will come to the (still) technically-illiterate journalists and even their editors.

Meanwhile here on Slashdot (and other forums, where links are allowed), there is simply no excuse for making a claim without a clickable citation behind it... See the paragraph above for an example.

It makes a lot more sense when you realize that over 95% of all media in the US is owned by 6 companies[1]. When you control the national dialog, you get to decide what's popular and what's not. This is why media companies despise the internet, and even worse, the big bad "piracy" boogie man. Us plebs being able to spread ideas and information without them being the gage keeper is literally their worst nightmare. Hell we might just go and do something crazy, like choose our own poloticians to vote for The chump change they get from media sales is nothing compared to the loss of control these companies stand to lose.

[1] Source: http://www.stateofthemedia.org...

(please excuse the typos... I'm on the mobile)

And it's performance in every way is significantly less. When they had the smaller res, they lacked the CPU/GPU the modern Apple hardware has now. The modern Android hardware has the better GPU/CPU but the screen res is killing performance. Apple let them dance right over the sweet spot.

You fail at reading comprehension. My wife is required to have an iPhone by her company, sadly. I have compared it side by side, and despite the higher resolution, my phone is as fast or faster than hers. Also, Apple hasn't "let them dance right over the sweet spot" -- their latest phone has the exact same resolution as mine. Apple has showed up late to the party, as I said.

So it's smaller? Behind them times already I guess. Otherwise the six is pocketable for anyone.

The 6 is significantly smaller. The 6 Plus is significantly bigger. My phone hits the sweet spot; the 6 Plus is far too big, and would stick out of all my pockets by a good half-inch unless shoe-horned in diagonally (and uncomfortably.) The 6 is too small and low-res.

Waterproof is something I use a case for if I need. I use the phone in the rain briefly without issue as I always have.

So you make your phone even bigger and heavier, while mine shoots photos underwater just fine right out of the box. Yeah, you're right. Apple's approach of not offering features its customers need is much better.

Your phone basically sounds like a fish-mash of things not important to anyone anymore (FM radio....)

Well done cherry-picking the *only* technology my phone has which is old tech, while ignoring all of the brand-new tech that your phone lacks (and has lacked for years, in the case of things like NFC, while *every* other manufacturer has long offered it and made great use of it.)

Which actually works and opens a whole world you'll be left behind with as you listen to... FM radio.

Well done ignoring the fact that I don't need a fingerprint sensor because my phone will be unlocked whenever it is near me, but lock as soon as it is stolen. In other words, while you're fumbling to reach a poorly-positioned fingerprint sensor that requires both hands to use and was already exploited within days of its introduction, I'll be listening to... FM radio, which as of 2012, 93% of Americans said they still did on at least a weekly basis.

Fully operational and utterly useless.

So you think Apple just added utterly useless tech? You must be so proud of them. You're also flat-out wrong: NFC in the iPhone 6 series has been confirmed to be crippled, locked down to work only with Apple Pay and not with any of the many other functions which users on Android use it for on a daily basis.

I wouldn't want what you have now either, but at least it probably also supports FM radio!

Nope, no FM radio on the watch. Unlike Apple, Google didn't try to shoehorn a bunch of pointless crap onto a tiny screen and an absolutely awful user interface for a bound-to-disappoint user experience. My watch does just enough, and does it quickly and reliably, saving me taking my phone out of my pocket dozens of times a day while monitoring my health and controlling the functions of my phone I'd actually want to control remotely. One day, you'll have your own bloated, awful equivalent of it, once Apple finally catches up.

They are never late, they arrive when they feel they have something worth selling. I as a buyer appreciate not having to tolerate half-baked crap any longer, that was fine when I'm young but like Danny Glover I'm too old for that shit. Including FM radio.

You have tunnel vision, grandpa. You're also in a small and shrinking subspecies. Even my long-time Apple zealot friends -- one of whom has exclusively used Apple products for ~30+ years and for many years ran an Apple-only retailer he founded himself -- are complaining that Apple has lost its way, lost its relevance, is churning out buggy and unreliable me-too products, and no longer satisfies them. And that really says it all.

Really vastly right leaning? Did you read about the Pew Research study that showed MSNBC to be even mored biased, and opinionated than Fox News?

I assume you're talking about this study, with further commentary here? This story was then reported by some outlets as saying that MSNBC was most "opinionated" by far (e.g., here).

If so, your use of the word "opinionated" is very misleading, and the study did not even address issues of who is "more biased."

Read the study. It's basically about the difference between type of programming. The cable news networks used to present much more of the traditional anchor looking into the camera and saying, "And now, for our next story..." -- that's "factual reporting," according to Pew.

What this study found was that cable news networks have increasingly moved to "opinion" or commentary-driven shows, with pundits talking or debating, rather than just "reading the news." MSNBC has a LOT of these shows, and much more than CNN or Fox. But that doesn't mean they are more "opinionated" or "biased" -- it just means that they have more commentary-focused shows (probably because it's cheaper to get some idiots to talk ABOUT the news than it is to put actual reporters out into the field and do research).

In any case, this says nothing about bias. It's possible for an "opinion" show to be relatively balanced, for example if guests are invited from across the ideological spectrum and treated with respect. It is also very possible for "factual reporting" to be incredibly biased -- for example, imagine a network that reported every single negative story it could find about a Democratic politician and every positive story about a Republican, but never reported the positive Dem stories or the negative Rep stories. (Or the reverse...) All of the reporting could be "factual" here, but the selection of stories could lead to a much greater overarching bias.

(I haven't really watched either one of these networks in years, so I don't have a personal stake in these arguments. But aside from a different Pew study that found a somewhat greater bias in presentation of candidates in 2012 on MSNBC than Fox, I'm not familiar with any Pew studies that have actually found greater OVERALL "bias" on liberal vs. conservative issues on MSNBC.)

If you want hard news, you watch Bret Baier, the first half hour.

The panel section... sort of, some days.
Chris Wallace is pretty good too.

MSNBC? Not even half an hours worth to provide a fig leaf.

Pew Research says Fox News (Cable) is split 55/45 commentary to fact news like most of the major networks.

MSNBC is 85/15.

http://stateofthemedia.org/201...

For the brief time AJAM was available, they had in my opinion the most even handed hard news. Their editorial/pundit? Not so much, but their hard news was pleasantly non-partisan. (and I say that as a Conservative)

Fox News may play fast and loose with the facts, but that doesnt change the fact that sources like MSNBC are much much worse.

CNN: 54% factual reporting, 46% commentary/opinion.
FOX: 45% factual reporting, 55% commentary/opinion.
MSNBC: 15% factual reporting, 85% commentary/opinion.

Here is the full report.

My oh my...

This ignorant tool right here hates the tea party so much that he has invented a fantasy world where Romney was cow-towing to the tea-party.

You know who tea party folks voted for? They wrote in "Ron Paul."

I know where you got this complete fantasy view too... the ignorant shit you just spit out came right out of the mouth of Rachel Maddow.

Here is an idea.. when you don't know what you are talking about, which is always the case when all you really have to say is to repeat what some ultra-left-wing opinion-head on an ultra-left-wing cable news network said, then dont fucking talk.

While you are at it, stop watching MSNBC entirely. 85% of their airtime is opinion instead of facts. Source: Pew Research.

Dont even bother denying that thats where you got this shit..

Fox - "In terms of programming, the top-rated Fox News Channel has been remarkably stable in prime time. The only personnel changes that occurred in the evening between 2007 and 2012 were Bret Baier replacing Brit Hume at 6 p.m. and the departure of liberal co-host Alan Colmes at 9 p.m., leaving his conservative sparring partner, Sean Hannity, as the sole host of the show."

MSNBC -"Given the current liberal approach at nighttime at MSNBC, it’s hard to remember that back in 2007, the prime-time airwaves were split between liberals (Keith Olbermann and, to a lesser extent, Chris Matthews) and conservatives (Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson). Now, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are linchpins in an ideologically reconstructed liberal lineup."

And then we have the following gem that I stumbled across in another PEJ/PEW report: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign. After noting various metrics of coverage time and coverage tone, the report asks:

In other words, not o

If you're honestly looking for a propaganda outlet to use as an example, you should probably be focusing on msnbc rather than fox.

On the other hand, if you're just being a dishonest partisan hack, carry on.

... or Fox News, or (far worse than Fox, according to a recent Pew study) MSNBC.

You seem to be confusing this Pew study with an earlier Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. survey. The Pew study found MSNBC to be the most "opinion dominated" station, with 85% of its content being opinion. The FDU survey found FOX viewers to be the least well-informed of all TV viewers... even less well informed than people who don't read or watch any news at all.

Then why do they get so much airtime?

I don't hear "typically conservative" news outlets giving PETA much of a voice. If they do, it's usually wrapped in disdain or outright mockery as it should be.

However, the traditional news outlets seem to give them a voice on just about everything they publish or promote. If political liberals hate PETA and liberals outnumber conservatives by 4:1 in the mainstream press, then why do they get so much airtime?

If what you say is true - that liberals HATE PETA - then I would expect to find PETA rarely gets a voice and we all know that's not true.

Rapidly declining advertising revenues continue to be the industry’s core problem. The losses in 2011 were slightly worse than those of 2010 – 7.3% compared to 6.3%. Ad revenues are now less than half what they were in 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/business/media/quarterly-profit-falls-12-2-at-times-co.html

The New York Times Company reported on Thursday that its fourth-quarter profit declined 12.2 percent as rising subscription and digital advertising revenue at its largest newspapers could not offset the continued drop-off in print advertising.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120703-702076.html

Mediaset SpA (MS.MI), Italy's largest private broadcaster, expects advertising revenue in its home market to decline in the first half of 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/08/itv-advertising-sales-drop

ITV expected to report first decline in ad revenues for 18 months

http://www.exa.com.au/articles/autumn_09/

Meanwhile, free to air broadcasters have experienced multi-million dollar dives in profits and are writing their assets down as worthless. Channel 7, 9 and 10 are crippled by debt and funding problems in the face of declining advertising revenues and changing trends. Likewise, print media is experiencing huge decreases in both readership and advertising revenue.

http://www.filmneweurope.com/news/romania/declining-ad-revenues-at-romanian-tv

The deficit of the Romanian's public TV, SRTV (www.tvr.ro), decreased by 0.71% in 2011, to €36.7 million Euro, while revenue from advertising was 7.4 million euro in 2011, down 24.06% from 2010.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-15/sbs-admits-financial-trouble/3830502

SBS battling falling ad revenue

http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/digital-transform/print-editions-decline/

A steady decline in print circulation and a precipitous drop in advertising revenue in 2008 and 2009, especially classified advertising, have taken their toll on newspapers and newspaper chains.

you realize we are talking about newspapers and not publishers in general?

In total US newspapers get 27% of their revenue from circulation.. To claim that this doesn't even rate on P&L statements is obviously wrong except for possible niche cases.

Hitwise takes a wholly different approach. It does not gather data directly from individual computers as comScore and Nielsen do. Instead, it gets the data from Internet service providers (ISPs) who aggregate traffic data across all the individuals to whom they deliver Internet access. Hitwise provides ISPs with proprietary software that allows them to analyze website usage logs created on their networks

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/online_sidebars_backgrounders

So what does that mean? Are they analyzing DNS queries? Are they analyzing raw IP addresses? Are they analyzing raw HTTP headers? And I'd like to know more about what ISPs are signed up for this. Is it a statistical significant portion of them, or is it only a few here and there... Do those providers use high speed, mid speed or dialup connections? These are the kinds of questions that need answering to know if the conclusions that they draw are indeed valid, or if this isn't just a marketing stunt for the company...

What CNN editorials are you referring to? Lets just look at a study on how frequently journalists on different networks interject their own opinions:

Fox: 68%
CNN: 4%
MSNBC: 27%

On specific topics, the difference was even more extreme.

Iraq:
Fox: 73%
CNN: 2%
MSNBC: 29%

Election coverage:
Fox: 82%
CNN: 7%
MSNBC: 27%

It's not like this should be a shock to anyone who ever watches both networks. CNN doesn't editorialize when journalists are reporting; Fox's main selling point is the opinions expressed by its journalists. People watch Fox to see journalists outraged by obscure college professors or the removal of a feeding tube.

I'm not saying that it's good or bad that journalists editorialize. But lets not pretend that "everyone does it the same amount". Watch each channel for a day, and the differences really stand out. Most conservatives who I've talked to who have actually watched CNN don't claim that the journalists usually editorialize liberally. They usually claim more insidious things, such as "selective reporting" to promote a liberal view.