Slashdot Mirror
NYT On Online Reputations
prostoalex writes "New York Times analyzes the importance of online postings for the company images and product success/failure rates. Intuit's TurboTax DRM "feature" is mentioned as one of the bad ideas, that was quickly and vociferously opposed by the Internet folk. The movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding got quite a nice cash flow even though the advertising budget was low, but opinions on the Internet regarded the movie highly. Rating systems of Epinions and Slashdot are also discussed briefly."
Thanks for the link to Slashdot or I may have never found it.
Now that's irony. (registration required)
For the Slashdot editors, and others:
What about a system that would let you transfer your "karma" or "reputation" from one site to another?
And, specifically for Slashdot: what about a system that would give you precise stats about the state of your karma, such as the number of negative karma moderation?
Just a suggestion...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Considering that a NYT article on second-superpower got outranked into oblivion by Googlewashing in just 42 days, online reputation is tough to achieve, even over a short period. Secondly, most online opinions are always critical, and outnumber 'shills' hands down.
Try getting your hands on an article on Microsoft and Schnazzle using Google and you can see Online Reputation at work!
And on the lighter side: Karma - Excellent; Reputation - Whore!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
As I'm sure the NY Times is aware of.... http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/922499.asp
The article mentions that online reviews and word of mouth are reducing the effectiveness of advertising. Advertising is what the compnay *wants* you to know about their products. Of course, a really gutsy, ethical company wants you to know the truth about their products, and enjoys the enhanced word of mouth the Internet provides, because perhaps they can save some money on advertising.
There have already been reports about gag orders over product criticism. I wonder when the alarm bells began ringing in the advertising industry, and how their response will develop. (Astroturfing Slashdot?)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
New York Times on reputation..... ouch.
Fuck it
I happily continue to buy movies, music, and Blizzard games to this day because in the end, when you get through all the griping, they're quality products. What's the alternative? But if you looked at the amount of complaints online you'd think these industries had been run into the ground by upset consumers.
I'd buy from the nice companies, but they've been run into the ground by pirates.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Thousands of college students use TeacherReviews.com to influence their decision as to which college classes to take. Some professors complain that they don't think it is fair that their reputation is readily available online for anybody to see (especially when their reviews on TeacherReviews.com is often the first thing Google links to), and there are professors that like it so much that they link their syllabus to the site, even when their reviews aren't so great (so that they can gather more good reviews, I suspect).
Ang Lee, director of Hulk, was not going to put the main character in purple shorts until he encountered pressure from fans online. The fans threatened to badmouth and boycott the movie if Lee didn't stick to the comic in that regard, so he switched the outfit back.
The New York Times issued a correction for their story on online reputations. It turns out the author has never been on the Internet and does not own a computer. Also, the reference to Amazon books was incorrect; Amazon actually is a the remnants of a forest, not an online bookseller. There is no such web site site as Slashdot.
The New York Times regrets the error.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
How does any digital opinion or rating system incorporate what Donald Rumsfeld called the "unknown unknowns?" From a Web eye view any opinion system is blind to private and noncirculated information, as well as any info that doesnt transfer well onto a digital medium (such as buzzing lights or a bad odor in an office).
The movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding got quite a nice cash flow even though the advertising budget was low
:) I didn't even know anything about Vardalos until after the movie had premiered; until that point I just figured this was the latest 'Hottest Romantic Comedy of the Year!' to be placed on the hype-mobile.
I live in Winnipeg (where Nia Vardalos is from, originaly, and yes, that's in Canada). I think they spent their entire advertising budget in my city alone, if the above quote is accurate.
I'm enough of a movie buff that I see about 2-3 movies in theatres a week, and let me tell you: 6 *months* before MBFGW was released, I was seeing trailers for it every few weeks. The month before it came out, the onslaught started. Every single movie I went to had a trailer for it, and I do mean *every*. During its run here, ditto. Of course, I could somewhat ignore this, until the TV campaign started in about 2 weeks before it premiered. Suddenly everyone I knew was talking about how 'good' this movie looked, well before seeing it. By the time it actually was making any money in theatres, very few people I knew hadn't yet heard of it (hell, even my parents were asking what all the fuss was about, and it's been several years since they've seen a new movie).
In a city like Winnipeg, all they had to do was mention once or twice that a film created and starred in by a 'Pegger was coming out, and the local media would have done all the free promotion they needed. Instead, we were bombarded with more trailers than I saw for Spider-Man and LOTR:TT combined, and yes, that's a lot
Maybe the rest of the world was spared from this, but up here it was insane. Then again, maybe a 'low advertising budget' just means no superbowl commercial these days.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
They've been around for a while and I think it's great. I still go there to read reviews before I make any purchasing decisions and they also have helpful advice articles written by nominated Experts on different topics like credit card debt or succeeding in college.
Read their history, they've been around since the dotcom boom and are founded by former employees at top technology companies. Unlike other dotcom companies, they've adapted and survived by making tough but sound financial decisions. When I first signed up, each review was awarded 30 cents per view by an Epinions registered visitor, but then people began abusing it. Slowly they've adjusted and lowered the payment rate and have implemented a new reward system.
I'm not surprised that companies are starting to quote Epinions' users regarding their products. They have a well established "Web of Trust" system and top reviewers are entrusted by the general Epinions' public to give objective reviews. Check it out!
Rangers Lead the Way!
All I thought was "Wow, moving text! Hey! It's that Tiger Woods product everyone's talking about!"... WOW! a NYT article I didn't have to register for!!! What's the world coming to? (Maybe slashdot has made a difference?)
Another area where e-mail is a killer are computer games: I don't know how many people I have told not to buy Master of Orion III because it is simply a piece of crap that should have been taken out to the back lot of Infogrames (now Atari, I believe) and shot.
Word of mouth is powerful, even if you don't stand on a soap box.
Or not.
Perhaps not, it's telling that the things that are popular are not microsoft, and a product that was helped was MBFGW.
Rather than this revolutionising the current marketplace, it instead opens up a new one, based around the interests of people who have access to information, and can create their own reviews. So Open Source, and small-budget but high quality productions will do much better than they would in the "real world"
It's only when we have no choice in the matter that "dumbing down occurs" - which alienates a section of the populace that don't benefit from blandness - they turn somewhere else - the internet.
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
I was reading the article and although it was nice to see /. on there id did seem to be portrayed in a kind of negative light. Yes if it something we dont like we seriously crucify it.
:)
like SCO for example
And when you do look back over the new and the articles that make on here there is about 60 rant about how bad whatever x is, 30 take the piss out of whatever x is and the last 10 is good natured honest to goodness praise.
Are we really becoming know as the cynical ass of the internet body or should we use the collective voice that we have as a wake up call for all those that read and never ever contribute (you know who you are you cowards).
I certainly acknowledge the fact that in most cases our whinges are fully justified and the rant does us and any one who reads it the power of good but there are times when a whingey little post is just so posted out of a stereotypical knee jerk reaction to a head line (some times without reading) that it makes us, as professionals, look quiet childish.
Dont worry, be happy
i am prepared for your flames so birng it on
S
Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
Hmmm, "web of trust" doesn't sound too good - I think it's that whole "being caught in a spider's web" that ruins it for me as a metaphor that works. I mean, if you're the fly, how are you going to trust a web?
I prefer "circle of trust" because it sounds so much more caring - a circle being an unbroken line that joins itself, enclosing a given area as tightly as possible, etc. It just sounds so much warmer, cosier and friendly. Robert de Niro clearly agrees with me, and who's going to argue with him?
Anyhow Redking, you sound like a nice guy, so I've had a word with Robbie and we've decided to put you in our circle of trust. But trust is a two way street - "I keep nothing from you, you keep nothing from me. And around and around we go", as Robbie likes to say.
Remember, there are no secrets inside the circle. If you break the circle of trust, you'll be placed outside the circle. Once you're out, there's no coming back.
Yep, circle's are definitely the way to go. Webs are just so 1990s.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
With as much as Slashdot bashes Microsoft, It's sure to crumble to the weight of our online opinions any minute! ...
Any minute now...
http://use.perl.org
Your example reveals a problem with reputation-based systems: who is assigning reputation.
This was obvious to me this weekend, when I went to a food flavor contest, and the items that won popular vote were the most bland and boring in every category.
The problem with reputation systems--including Slashdot--is that your reputation can be based on the opinions of individuals who are not necessarily the best for assigning reputations. They may be unknowledgable, unduly biased, etc.
In the case of classes, this gets to be a problem because students don't always like material that's necessary for them to learn. This has become painfully obvious to me as a university statistics instructor. I lecture in a department where statistics is required, but not the primary focus of the undergraduate major. My ratings tend to be good, but stats class ratings tend to be much lower than that of other classes on average, simply because the students don't want to be taking statistics. There are plenty of times when, in order to learn, the students must do something they might not want to do or not see reasons for at the time.
And so it goes for things like food flavors, movies, music, Slashdot topics, and so forth. Even within fields you see this: the majority is not always best. Popular opinion is not always the best index of quality, just what's popular. Many of us see this on Slashdot, I'm sure--a certain opinion being reinforced because it's majority, not because it's informed or insightful.
This isn't a new phenomenon of course--it's something people have wrestled with since the dawn of man, I'm sure--but it seems to have become more salient to me recently. It has become especially relevant with popular anti-critical-establishment inclinations in many domains of culture, such as music and movies, and also in online social sorting mechanisms such as Slashdot.
Not how I remember it. No mention of the scribbling crap into your boot block or inability to install into vmware machines, etc, etc...
I switched to Tax Cut.
while that's an interesting concept, it seems impracticable, for several reasons:
1. most sites don't use a comparable method to rate karma. the slashdot staff describes how the karma system was homegrown in the article, and i'm sure that's true of each site's analogous feature.
2. even if these systems used some kind of standard rating system for users, i strongly suspect that user behavior and reliability might vary from site to site. f'rex: i'm not really an IT guy, which shows in the comments i make. however, i'm a serious movie fiend. accordingly, users here should not necessarily take my thoughts on technology matters, but i can speak w/ much greater authority on IMDB.
3. let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the various sites whose user opinions are well regarded (slashdot, et al) agree to develop a method such as you propose. there would still be 2 separate and mutually exclusive methods: either a highly decentralized method (likely to be the favored tool here) or a highly centralized method. naturally, the latter would be susceptible to exploits, etc., and the interested site operators would therefore split into (at least) 2 camps, thereby rendering the universal solution impossible, IMHO.
ed
I remember long time ago there was a ./ story that was
basically an advertisement for a product called FreeVeracity.
The product is dead now ...
Of course, a really gutsy, ethical company wants you to know the truth about their products, and enjoys the enhanced word of mouth the Internet provides, because perhaps they can save some money on advertising.
Of course and UNethical company - which may be a requriement for a PR firm - will simply put one or two people to work posting through pseudonyms to create the illusion of a vast population of enthusiastic supporters. (Like the paid endorsements and fake man-on-the-street interviews in commercials and political ads, written large on the internet.)
The term of art is "Astroturf" - for phoney grass-roots.
And after the NYT article you can expect a sudden wash of it, polluting the net as a reputationg system for some time to come.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Indeed, we gripe about Blizzard and the RIAA because their practices are evil, not because their product always sucks (though in RIAA it's an often).
/w a 1-hit-wonder) - then the whole issue with filesharing would be much less. I decided a long time ago I wouldn't buy new CD's, and not because I knew anything about evil RIAA practices at the time, but actually because the products sucked.
When you go to epinions.com and look up a car, digital camera, or whatever, you're not checking to see whether Honda/Kodak has a reputation for their execs running over small babies, you're checking on the quality/popularity of the product.
Similarly, if I am "Joe Average" checking music, somebody ranting about the evils of the RIAA whilst I'm trying to see if the newest "Santana" CD is any good, they're likely to get ignored. A comment like "RIAA is evil, sued a college kid for his life savings" just doesn't pierce most people' s intent to get a product. However, a comment such as "disc was nice on my CD player, but copy-protection made it f*** up in my home theatre, computer, and car CD-changer" is much more likely to be relevant to the person making the purchase - due to personal impact.
Now, part of the problem is when you get suckish product that you pay good money for. Crippled CD's etc are part of the reason we hate the RIAA. If they made discs worth the $20 they cost (a really good CD would be worth it to me, not just a mix
One little article about the RIAA sueing college kids isn't going to sink them when little Suzi still asks for a BSB CD for her birthday. However, as the amount of these practices increase in conjunction with other sliminess, I think we can expect the proliferation of reviews to finally clue people in - it will just take a few years.
Yea, real hard to find info on that, took me all of 2 seconds. Nope, it is not the NYT article, but you could pay to access the NYT archive and get the original.
When Googling second-superpower we now get articles about your famed "googlewash effect" that whine endlessly about people not using the "Official anti-war Sanctioned Definition by of second-superpower".
I really fail to see the point of this complaint, unless it is an effort by a handful of people to control the language, then I see it quite well. Yes, it is Orwellian and the Orwellians wishing to control the language are the ones bringing up Orwell the most!
There is a different paralell to be found in the book from whence my handle came. A popular grass-roots movement demanding the government censor everything under the sun and a homogonized language. Perhaps this is what you want, but none for me thank you
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
When I saw a copy in the bookshop and glanced through it, it was bulked out with badly written C code and didn't have nearly enough theory, and in one place seemed to lack the courage for an ambitious feature.
So now this makes me wonder how so many books get high ratings. The denizens of comp.lang.c++ might disagree with Herb Schilt getting 4.5 stars for his C++ books also.
As this "online reputation" concept is realized by big business, more postings will be made by online employees of these businesses. We are spoiled right now by the relatively low number of paid commentators on the Internet. The future will probably include various companies' paid posters battling each other on a scale to rival the spam phenomenon. The more that companies think we can influence their sales... the more they will try to influence the postings on the Internet.
I hope that those e-commerce sites won't abuse the online fora, to increase their own sales etc, by word of mouse, as this article calls it.
:)
Because I think that would lead to a downfall of the quality of those services, and they would cut themselves in the fingers.
btw, on a side note, I find this quote rather funny:
"I think that, now, the power of the Internet is captured in the ability of everyday Americans to give their opinion on any product or event that they want," Mr. Gulbransen said.
As if no other inhabitant of other countries in the world uses the internet to express their opinions about certain products.
Of course I realise that this is an American Newspaper, read mostly by Americans, but still, its content is on the global internet
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
There are now a large quantity of sites out there that use slashcode for their news-distribution.
So about your points:
1. most sites don't use a comparable method to rate karma. the slashdot staff describes how the karma system was homegrown in the article, and i'm sure that's true of each site's analogous feature.
Same code=same method of determining ratings.
2. even if these systems used some kind of standard rating system for users, i strongly suspect that user behavior and reliability might vary from site to site. f'rex: i'm not really an IT guy, which shows in the comments i make. however, i'm a serious movie fiend. accordingly, users here should not necessarily take my thoughts on technology matters, but i can speak w/ much greater authority on IMDB.
Right. Karma isn't an indication of how smart you are. Its more like e-bay's seller ratings - it's an indication that people think you've been a decent chap for a while, as the name "karma" would indicate. This is specifically true because mostly you don't get much moderation DOWN unless you've been nasty, though moderation UP is a matter of time. Same principal, it might be a good idea to make the bonus based upon percentage of good versus bad scores rather than just using addition and subtraction.
3. let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the various sites whose user opinions are well regarded (slashdot, et al) agree to develop a method such as you propose. there would still be 2 separate and mutually exclusive methods: either a highly decentralized method (likely to be the favored tool here) or a highly centralized method. naturally, the latter would be susceptible to exploits, etc., and the interested site operators would therefore split into (at least) 2 camps, thereby rendering the universal solution impossible, IMHO.
Things like this are built into database systems, and the exploit would have to be in that, as would the collective nature of it. Do you think this hasn't been done? There are ready-made database solutions that can be destributed which are not very susceptable to exploits.
Even if you don't do this, do you know how difficult it is to break public key encryption when you don't have the private or the public key? Because that's what it would be like for anyone who wasn't a part of the trusted network of karma distributers. This idea is quite feasable. It's not even close to as complicated, as say, creating a p2p network.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Whenever I'm considering a product, I google for that product + "review", and I generally get a good idea of how well the product was received. Mountain bikes, monitors, cars ... there's almost always a review by *someone*. It's probably the case that dissatisfied customers are more likely to post than satisfied ones; still, I've seen tons of comprehensive reviews ("It's mostly good, but watch out for this aspect ...") as well as cheerleaders ("This is the best xyz ever!!!!! You must get it NOW!!!!")
... As a simple example, I looked at a bunch of reviews of a certain mountain bike. The only complaint (this being for a hardtail, mind you, not full suspension) was that it felt a bit rough landing 7-foot jumps. Well, I'm quite certain I won't be doing that, and if I were to be doing that, I'd probably get a full suspension bike. So that complaint didn't alter my generally positive view of the bike one whit.
... granted, that's not the same as establishing a view of the corporation, but customer reviews of several key products are probably a good indicator of how well a company is meeting its customers' needs.
Sure, it takes some amount of brain activity to synthesize the reviews into a belief of how well the product will serve me
Anyway, point being, it's easy to find a wide variety of reviews on any single product
-monique
I rarely complain about the install problems with Redhat or Mandrake because they enable me to go around the problems in advanced text mode. That is just smart programming. Don't mess with your base of knowledgeable users. Give them a way out, and all will be happy.
Of course, if it was open-source, I'm sure the community could find ways of optimizing it such that abuses could be nearly eliminated.
Slashcode is free software under the GPL. The biggest abuse I see here on Slashdot is abuse of the M2-immune "overrated" moderation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Maybe if the NYT (registration required) allowed Google to index their stories (registration required) then Google would be able to find their article. It's not rocket science or evil conspiracies, it's just that GoogleBot doesn't have an NYT registration.
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Who in his right mind would read that piece of fish-wrap. The latest deceit stories comming from NY Lies are only the tip of the iceberg. The selection as well as the presentation of news in this paper is dishonest and morally destructive. NY Lies indeed.
Early this year, the wrath of the World Wide Web rained down on Intuit when its TurboTax software programs displeased some customers, who then promptly posted their grievances all over Internet forums.
The velocity in the spread of those critical remarks created a crisis for the company and a colorful case study for the budding academic field that examines the dynamic of online reputations.
In January, soon after TurboTax's release, angry customer reviews flooded Extremetech.com, CNET.com, Slashdot.org and many other sites that allow the public to contribute product reviews. Much of the criticism was aimed at antipiracy features in the software that made it hard for a customer to install the program on more than one computer and created the impression with some that Intuit was tracking users surreptitiously. On Amazon.com one reviewer wrote, "This reeks to high heaven!" Comments descended from there.
Intuit's chief executive, Stephen M. Bennett, responded quickly by sending e-mail to angry customers assuring them that Intuit was not spying on them. He managed to halt a brewing boycott.
A more positive example of online reputation-building was the box office success of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," which received a slew of favorable early reviews on Web sites, which may have helped the film compensate for a small advertising budget.
Although it is difficult to quantify how much online reviews affect sales of particular products, the Internet's ability to quickly tarnish or gild reputations has interested businesses for many years.
Academic interest in the field has grown recently, spurred by the availability of more data as the Internet ages and by recognition of the importance of understanding the dynamics of online reputations.
In late April, the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was host to a conference, financed by the National Science Foundation, on "reputation mechanisms in online communities." At the conference, academic experts in game theory, sociology and marketing discussed how "word of mouse" influences businesses as well as how eBay and other e-commerce companies can better manage the quality of the information the public posts on Web sites and reduce the risk of fraud online.
"The data are a researcher's playground," said Paul Resnick, an associate professor at the University of Michigan's School of Information and one of the organizers of the M.I.T. conference.
Chris Dellarocas, an M.I.T. professor and an organizer of the conference, said he was interested in the potential of online reputations "to transform longstanding institutions like the legal system, the traditional media and advertising."
Mr. Resnick runs a Web site devoted to research looking at online reputations (databases.si.umich.edu/reputations/). Nearly half of the more than 100 papers on the site have been added in the first five months of this year.
Academic scholars wrote many of the papers, but some come from corporate researchers. For example, Claudia Keser of I.B.M. Research submitted a paper that used principles of game theory to examine how a site like eBay can best measure the reputations of individual online sellers and buyers. I.B.M. financed the work, according to a spokeswoman, because it believes that kind of research will in the long term increase e-business.
The potential financial implications of online reputations are substantial. "The more consumers come to trust the opinions posted on online forums, the less effective traditional advertising will become in influencing consumer behavior," Mr. Dellarocas said.
Amazon.com, for example, has eliminated its entire budget for television and general-purpose print advertising, putting the money it saves into free shipping on qualifying orders over $25.
"Word of mouth is still important because it reaches people who may not be e-commerce shoppers yet," said Bill Curry
Please. That whole Register rant was an instance of googlewhining.
As others have pointed out, Google ranks tend to even out fairly quickly.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
fireboy:
you make some good points. i have a few thoughts:
1. even though the same code may be in use, the implementation within each distinct site may very well vary and possibly enough to render an apples: apples comparison irrelevant.
2. agreed, but this is again (IMHO) an implementation issue. all of which is to say (unclear from your response whether you're conceding this point or not): results from site to site cannot be compared apples: apples fashion, which (it would seem to me) would be the real objective of any such system, no?
3. i've worked with databases. that doesn't scare me. what does scare me is the probability of reconciliation amongst the various servers. let me explain: perhaps i'm not being clear.
let's say that 25 site operators put their heads together and thrash out a standard whereby this data is maintained in a nice, decentralized fashion. so who owns that standard? and at some point, wouldn't micro$oft or someone else like them come along and "embrace & extend" this new standard, thereby leading to the balkanization i've described? perhaps i'm not understanding your point correctly, which i confess is entirely possible, as i'm insufficiently caffeinated?
ed
I think that most of the more astute /. readers quickly become pretty impervious to astroturf replies in the threads; and the rest can pretty well follow along by reading the comments of other readers.
When I read or see something, and they are obviously selling the sizzile, not the steak, my hockey-meter goes up pretty quick; the other thing is if the online reviews and comments are just plain wrong, it gives the companies entire line bad-karma (accountants would call this crediting the Goodwill account). Norton have some rather good products, but I've recieved so much spam over them, I just don't consider them when I'm buying. Ironicaly I know the spam came from a third-party, selling privated copies, they should have moved on the guy before he gave them the bad-karma.
Also Astroturfing pollutes the online opinion pool, which I would think a valuable marketing resource. Marketing departments belong attached to the VP that controls R & D, not the VP that controls Sales and advertising.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Actually, looks like Greg Packer is a real person. A real and very *obsessive* person.
. html
3 20,0,6305134.photo?coll=ny-nynews-headlines
Here's an article about him (He apparently makes a hobby of being first in line to meet celebrities)
http://www.timessquare.com/bway/features/feat_guy
And here's a picture of him...
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-3r0
Oh yes, he is real, but in the same sense as astroturfers are. Somehow the NYT can always find him for a quote.
Even talk radio screens out the too-frequent callers!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I have to wonder what happened to our old friend Bernie. He's got to be a prime example of online reputations.
Probably no coincidence at all, the NYT probably keeps very close tabs on traffic volumes and referers, so when they start getting hits from /. they can check the context pretty quick and if they chose, use the Self Serve Ad System and put up 175,000 impressions for $1,000, in almost the blink of an eye. Or even a bet on who's refers slows who's servers by 25% first; say maybe the purchase of a banner ad?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Anyway. Assuming news reporters are liberal (there is some evidence that they lean Democratic in their voting patterns, which doesn't necessarily mean they're liberal but that's a different topic) the stories they write must be approved by assistant editors, "full" editors, and to an extent their fellow reporters. The stories cannot defend one side too much more than the other and a factual basis is needed.
But to get back on topic - the lack of diversity you speak of is a different kind of diversity. Furthermore, it's not as if these "liberal" (using the term very loosely) reporters are making business decisions. Whether or not a newspaper pulls a "me too" is out of their hands - that's what the owner of the newspaper chooses to do.
Guess what? Business owners tend to be conservative.
Another thing (and I'm not being sarcastic)...WHAT liberal media? This is gonna go very far off-topic, so just email me. falsified@gmx.net
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
>the stories they write must be approved by assistant editors, "full" editors, and to an extent their fellow reporters.
>The stories cannot defend one side too much more than the other and a factual basis is needed.
The stories can be entirely factual yet biased in that news favorable to liberal causes is heavily reported while news unfavorable to liberal causes is not reported or never reported nationally.
Some examples:
1. Clinton and the democrats were favorablly repored as wanting South Carolina to quit flying the conferate flag over the capital building.
Clinton never ever did anything to stop celebrating 'Conferate Day' while governor of Arkansas - never ever reported nationally
Clinton did nothing about changing the parts of the Arkansas flag which were taken from the Conferate flag
Earnest Hollings - democrat - was the govenor whom got the conferate flag raised over the South Carolina capital building in the first place. This was not reported nationally even though he was in the senate advocating South Carolina to not fly the flag.
2. Senator Robert Byrd is a former member and leader of the K K K. This is never reported nationally and he is never ever described as 'former klansmun Robert Byrd...'. This type of labeling is applied to conservatives.
3. How come there is never a 'radical left wing' used in a news story while 'radical right wing' is used repeatedly? Does that mean that there is no radical left wing?
> Guess what? Business owners tend to be conservative.
It does not follow that a conservative media/newspaper owner == conservative reporting since that would mean that the owner would hire conservative rporters, editors, etc...this cannot be since the large majority of reporters, editors, and news industry workers are liberal in their voting.
1) Not using that stupid comic book panel/telephone call shot where multiple scenes are presented simultaneously. I found the multiple shots in multiple panes extremely distracting since it kept reminding me I was watching a movie, instead of allowing me to enjoy the story.
2) Speeding up the intro/origin a bit. Like many other comic book movie adaptations, Hulk suffers from having the hero origin taking up too much screen time.
3) More action, less thought. Hulk should be an action flick with a bit of man vs himself instrospection, not the other way around. Granted there should be some instrospection since Hulk draws inspiration from "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (as well as "Frankenstein" and "Beauty and the Beast"). But fundementally, Hulk is a study of arrested development and childish naivete coupled with frightening power and poor impulse control. Hulk Smash!
4) Telling the story chronologically. Too many goddamn flashbacks and dream sequences kept interfering with my enjoyment of the story.
5) Using the racuous, frantic music from the trailer, instead of the ethereal, moody instrospective music.
Is Greg Packer like the real-life equivalent of a "First Post" troll?
You're right - and if you read what I said, I wasn't arguing otherwise. When I wrote that, I was referring to the fact that these conservative owners do have the final say in what the newspaper publishes - and whether or not the paper picks up stories from other sources and reprints them or if the paper comes up with its own material. The conservative owners make the business decision to save resources and homogenize the media.
However, it's quite possible (and pretty likely) that the reporters, down at the bottom, writing the material, lean left. If you read my original post, that's what I said.
As for the other points you make, it may be that Robert Byrd isn't associated with the Klan anymore because he doesn't believe in any of it anymore. However, I do think that people have the right to know about that - and I think that the common person would have no idea that he used to be a Klansman. (I did know, but I only found out a couple weeks ago.) A radical left wing is referred to, but using different words (words that are, more often than not, inaccurate) such as socialist, anarchist, anti-American, etc. Also, hearing the words "left-wing" as opposed to "liberal" often brings a sense of radical thought that "right-wing" doesn't bring, at least not to me. As for the points about Clinton, I always thought of him as pretty half-assed. However, I gotta ask, was Confederate Day an official state holiday, or something that some non-governmental group came up with? If it's something non-governmental, Governor Clinton had no say (nor should he) in what happened. And finally, did Hollings have any say in what happened with the confederate flag? Also, it's not like he's any more politically safe as a senator than as a governor - he gets voted out (or back in) by the same people. He may have been in office when the flag was raised, but that doesn't mean he liked it. If the flag-raising was attached to a budget bill or something that had to be passed quickly, he may have had little say.
I'm rambling, sorry, and I think I asked more questions than I answered, but you ARE right - it's easy to make a story lean one way, and lies of omission can do a lot of damage.
A more general comment on the bias of the media. I do think that the media, on the whole, lean to the left slightly but, due to the fact that such a bias in popular media cannot be very obvious, the liberal cause is VERY poorly demonstrated and ends up looking half-assed. The bias harms liberals/progressives more than it helps.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.