True to form, liberal media has gone AWOL.
Liberal media is nowhere to be found when union protesters have signs with gun cross-hairs on the picture of the Wisconsin governor.
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell is dangerously deceitful reporting about the passivity of intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood. After only 24 hours removed from an interview of a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood stating clearly of the express intention of the Muslim Brotherhood to establish sharia law, Mitchell was on the air dutifully regurgitating secular socialism dogma that the Muslim Brotherhood is as harmless as kittens.
The liberal media have given a pass to the amateur foreign policy of the Obama administration--one camp stating Mubarak needs to stay and one camp saying he needs to go immediately.
The liberal press has given a pass to the most incompetent, ill-prepared and unqualified candidate and now sitting president in the history of the United States. He has no experience ever starting or running or being a part of or being an employee of a private sector business, a for-profit company. His ideal economy is a command economy, a centralized economy, a marxist economy. He is absolutely clueless about the private sector and free-market economies. And the liberal press, the secular socialist press love him for it.
The liberal press was AWOL in reporting Obama's favorite professors in college were Marxists. They were AWOL in reporting that he sat at the feet of a racist preacher for 20 years--20 years!!! They were AWOL when they omitted his political victories were obtained by eliminating his political opponents--removing them from the ballots. They were AWOL in reporting that Obama had a predilection for voting "present". Who does that? Liberal media gives him a pass on being a smoker, on being a cocaine user, on not providing a birth certificate, of hiding every written document from his college years, of not releasing his medical records. Never has a candidate been less vetted by the press, and given more of a pass that Obama. And never has there been a sitting president that is openly embarrassed by the United States of America.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The great Dana Loesch on the power of Citizen Journalism and New Media
I advocate Citizen Journalism and New Media. The great Dana Loesch advocates Citizen Journalism and New Media; she rightly compares them to the Minutemen that served to deliver liberty and freedom to the colonists from the tyrannical monarchy of the past.
Today we confront and battle the tyranny of propaganda media dressed in the clothes of impartial journalists; media that are puppets for leftists and secular socialists who's purpose is to abrogate your liberty and freedom.
Don't let it happen. Do not succumb to leftists propaganda; do not wilt or cower to secular socialists like George Soros, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, MSNBC. If you love freedom and liberty, secular socialists hate you and despise you, mock you, and want to eliminate you. Don't give in, don't give up; never let them control you.
Use your camera as a tool to protect freedom and liberty. Expose the lies, and the errors, the darkness, the corruption, the clandestine agreements of the leftists media to subjugate you.
The leftists media is nothing more that a propaganda apparatus of leftists politicians. Leftists politicians desire to subjugate your liberty to their own purposes--to enlarge the secular-socialism ideal of state control of personal property.
Today we confront and battle the tyranny of propaganda media dressed in the clothes of impartial journalists; media that are puppets for leftists and secular socialists who's purpose is to abrogate your liberty and freedom.
Don't let it happen. Do not succumb to leftists propaganda; do not wilt or cower to secular socialists like George Soros, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, MSNBC. If you love freedom and liberty, secular socialists hate you and despise you, mock you, and want to eliminate you. Don't give in, don't give up; never let them control you.
Use your camera as a tool to protect freedom and liberty. Expose the lies, and the errors, the darkness, the corruption, the clandestine agreements of the leftists media to subjugate you.
The leftists media is nothing more that a propaganda apparatus of leftists politicians. Leftists politicians desire to subjugate your liberty to their own purposes--to enlarge the secular-socialism ideal of state control of personal property.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
It is jaw-dropping amazing how clueless old media is
New media expert Chris Anderson gets it. He understands what is happening, the trends, the economic realities, the economic principles, the economic forces of our time, the economic gravity of our era; he gets it.
And read how utterly clueless--the depths of cluelessness the Spiegel interviewer reaches. This level of absolute ignorance is remarkable. How can anyone be so oblivious to what is happening? How can anyone as self-supposedly smart as Spiegel be so obtuse? Precisely for this reason--this very occlusion to reality--of what is really happening--that large media like Spiegel are falling from their perches and falling behind in the race against new media.
You can either ignore principles/realities and harm yourself as a consequence, or, you can learn and understand and demonstrate humility towards principles/ realities and utilize them and benefit from them. Principles do not bend to accommodate us; principles do not bend to our whim or our liking or to popularity or to governmental fiat or to presidential proclamations; we submit to principles; we contour ourselves toward principles. We change and modify and conform and reshape ourselves to fit into principles.
The principles Anderson identifies in the article are the very concepts that Spiegel has the most conflict with. This is a neon-bright indication that Spiegel, which is stuck in the 20th century, is on its way out; out of money, out of attention, out of influence.
The contrast in reality of Anderson's comments and the fiction that Spiegel is clinging to:
1) Reality: Definitions change; Value migrates
What used to be an accurate definition, and what used to be valuable can change into something meaningless, and useless (definitions of words; and actual things like horse carriages). The implication is that the people most closely associated with or tied to or clinging to the non-reality, lose.
Fiction: Using meaningless words like media, news, and journalism--all constructs of the 20th century that were adequate then to explain reality--using those same words and definitions now is adequate to explain reality. We have a different reality now, where "news" can come from sources other than "news" sources; where anyone can be and is a "journalist"; "media"--the plural form of the word "medium" as in middle or broker or intermediary. Who needs the network news media to get news anymore?
2) Reality: Important "news" reaches me after permeating through chosen and trusted filters.
Fiction: "News" can only be obtained at a centrally located and controlled news outlet.
3) Reality: Many individuals (abundance) are more responsive (abundance) to niche issues (abundance) than;
Fiction: A small number of journalists (scarcity) at one centrally located and controlled news broker (scarcity) covering a limited number of popular topics (scarcity) is the best way to create abundance in news.
4) Reality: Sources of "news" other than well-written news stories from established news companies can be valuable as well. What is happening on my street is important and valuable but of no interest to news organizations.
Fiction: Only new sources from well-written stories from established news organizations is valuable.
5) Reality: to compile, analyze, add value to and distributing information is valuable, and for which there are many business models to do so.
Fiction: Newspapers are the only business model to compile, analyze, add value to and distribute information. Web-based model cannot support itself.
6) Reality: Costs are too high offline. "The math of profit is pretty easy, revenues minus cost. You do your best on the revenue side and if you are not making money you lower your costs. The problem is not that there isn't money to be made online, it's just that our costs are too high."
Fiction: Its impossible to make money online
7) Reality: Large amounts of people are making small amounts of money selling news online. Many of the small amounts of offline news sellers are losing money both online and especially offline.
Fiction: Its impossible to make money online and only the few established news outlets will continue to remain solvent despite the new media.
8) Reality: Online ads are built for immediate transactions and not for building brands. Offline ads are a good vehicle for branding purposes.
Fiction: All ads vehicles are the same and the expertise of the offline ads can be directly translated to the online environment.
9) Reality: Attention and reputation are as valuable as monetization.
Fiction: Money is the only valuable commodity.
10) Reality: There is creative destruction.
"There is no law that says that industries have to remain at any given size. Once there were blacksmiths and there were steel workers, but things change. The question is not should journalists have jobs. The question is can people get the information they want, the way they want it? The marketplace will sort this out. If we continue to add value to the Internet we'll find a way to make money. But not everything we do has to make money."
Fiction: There is no creative destruction because the market will arbitrarily be controlled and stop economic progress through legislation, regulation, bureaucratization, lobbyists, tariffs, taxes, special interests, and unions.
11) Reality: Money can be made by giving away things for free and monetizing it in another way.
"The online economy is about the size of the German economy. And it's based on a default price of zero. Most things online are available in a free form. We have never seen an economy this big with a default price of zero. I realized that we needed an economic model to explain how an economy could be based on "free." And we need to understand the psychology of that."
Fiction: Nothing can ever be given away for free no matter what and expect to monetize it in another way.
12) Reality: Free is the default price; free is the gravitational price. The marketplace follows the underlying economics. "You can be free or compete with free. That's the only choice there is."
Fiction: Somehow, someway things will revert back to the way things used to be and "free" will disappear.
13) Reality: Charge for the niche content or the scarcity and give the abundant popular content away for free.
Fiction: Charge for abundant popular content and give away scarce niche content away for free.
And read how utterly clueless--the depths of cluelessness the Spiegel interviewer reaches. This level of absolute ignorance is remarkable. How can anyone be so oblivious to what is happening? How can anyone as self-supposedly smart as Spiegel be so obtuse? Precisely for this reason--this very occlusion to reality--of what is really happening--that large media like Spiegel are falling from their perches and falling behind in the race against new media.
You can either ignore principles/realities and harm yourself as a consequence, or, you can learn and understand and demonstrate humility towards principles/ realities and utilize them and benefit from them. Principles do not bend to accommodate us; principles do not bend to our whim or our liking or to popularity or to governmental fiat or to presidential proclamations; we submit to principles; we contour ourselves toward principles. We change and modify and conform and reshape ourselves to fit into principles.
The principles Anderson identifies in the article are the very concepts that Spiegel has the most conflict with. This is a neon-bright indication that Spiegel, which is stuck in the 20th century, is on its way out; out of money, out of attention, out of influence.
The contrast in reality of Anderson's comments and the fiction that Spiegel is clinging to:
1) Reality: Definitions change; Value migrates
What used to be an accurate definition, and what used to be valuable can change into something meaningless, and useless (definitions of words; and actual things like horse carriages). The implication is that the people most closely associated with or tied to or clinging to the non-reality, lose.
Fiction: Using meaningless words like media, news, and journalism--all constructs of the 20th century that were adequate then to explain reality--using those same words and definitions now is adequate to explain reality. We have a different reality now, where "news" can come from sources other than "news" sources; where anyone can be and is a "journalist"; "media"--the plural form of the word "medium" as in middle or broker or intermediary. Who needs the network news media to get news anymore?
2) Reality: Important "news" reaches me after permeating through chosen and trusted filters.
Fiction: "News" can only be obtained at a centrally located and controlled news outlet.
3) Reality: Many individuals (abundance) are more responsive (abundance) to niche issues (abundance) than;
Fiction: A small number of journalists (scarcity) at one centrally located and controlled news broker (scarcity) covering a limited number of popular topics (scarcity) is the best way to create abundance in news.
4) Reality: Sources of "news" other than well-written news stories from established news companies can be valuable as well. What is happening on my street is important and valuable but of no interest to news organizations.
Fiction: Only new sources from well-written stories from established news organizations is valuable.
5) Reality: to compile, analyze, add value to and distributing information is valuable, and for which there are many business models to do so.
Fiction: Newspapers are the only business model to compile, analyze, add value to and distribute information. Web-based model cannot support itself.
6) Reality: Costs are too high offline. "The math of profit is pretty easy, revenues minus cost. You do your best on the revenue side and if you are not making money you lower your costs. The problem is not that there isn't money to be made online, it's just that our costs are too high."
Fiction: Its impossible to make money online
7) Reality: Large amounts of people are making small amounts of money selling news online. Many of the small amounts of offline news sellers are losing money both online and especially offline.
Fiction: Its impossible to make money online and only the few established news outlets will continue to remain solvent despite the new media.
8) Reality: Online ads are built for immediate transactions and not for building brands. Offline ads are a good vehicle for branding purposes.
Fiction: All ads vehicles are the same and the expertise of the offline ads can be directly translated to the online environment.
9) Reality: Attention and reputation are as valuable as monetization.
Fiction: Money is the only valuable commodity.
10) Reality: There is creative destruction.
"There is no law that says that industries have to remain at any given size. Once there were blacksmiths and there were steel workers, but things change. The question is not should journalists have jobs. The question is can people get the information they want, the way they want it? The marketplace will sort this out. If we continue to add value to the Internet we'll find a way to make money. But not everything we do has to make money."
Fiction: There is no creative destruction because the market will arbitrarily be controlled and stop economic progress through legislation, regulation, bureaucratization, lobbyists, tariffs, taxes, special interests, and unions.
11) Reality: Money can be made by giving away things for free and monetizing it in another way.
"The online economy is about the size of the German economy. And it's based on a default price of zero. Most things online are available in a free form. We have never seen an economy this big with a default price of zero. I realized that we needed an economic model to explain how an economy could be based on "free." And we need to understand the psychology of that."
Fiction: Nothing can ever be given away for free no matter what and expect to monetize it in another way.
12) Reality: Free is the default price; free is the gravitational price. The marketplace follows the underlying economics. "You can be free or compete with free. That's the only choice there is."
Fiction: Somehow, someway things will revert back to the way things used to be and "free" will disappear.
13) Reality: Charge for the niche content or the scarcity and give the abundant popular content away for free.
Fiction: Charge for abundant popular content and give away scarce niche content away for free.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Reciprocity is fair
The information technology of weblogs and Twitter has caused a leveling or has leveled the playing field for athletes against sports journalists. Athletes have always had to compete up-hill against slanted journalists. In a way, the journalists have been the hunters and the athletes the prey. Give the Deer a gun and then you will have a real sport. Words are dangerous and journalists have wielded them unreciprocated since forever until now.
Reciprocation: journalists are finding out that reciprocation can be an unpleasant experience. Playing by the same rules seems to have diminished some journalists' bravado and excited others'. Journalists don't like it that athletes now have a megaphone as well--a platform to tell their side of the story. Some hate it and some are intimidated by it. Kudos to those non-coward journalists who are not afraid of people's ability to defend themselves; for people's ability to bring to light the truth; for people's ability to shine a spotlight on inauthentic and corrupt journalism. Only the corrupt hate reciprocity; only the corrupt hate mutual benefit.
Congratulations to the authentic and honest sports journalists:
"Journalists practically beg athletes to be honest. We want them to be provocative, fun and raw. And as soon as they are -- particularly if it's an opinion with which we disagree -- we annihilate them for their original thoughts."
A real separation is now possible between legitimate sports journalists and the corrupt.
And athletes, just because you can tweet doesn't mean you should tweet; remember, reciprocation.
Reciprocation: journalists are finding out that reciprocation can be an unpleasant experience. Playing by the same rules seems to have diminished some journalists' bravado and excited others'. Journalists don't like it that athletes now have a megaphone as well--a platform to tell their side of the story. Some hate it and some are intimidated by it. Kudos to those non-coward journalists who are not afraid of people's ability to defend themselves; for people's ability to bring to light the truth; for people's ability to shine a spotlight on inauthentic and corrupt journalism. Only the corrupt hate reciprocity; only the corrupt hate mutual benefit.
Congratulations to the authentic and honest sports journalists:
"Journalists practically beg athletes to be honest. We want them to be provocative, fun and raw. And as soon as they are -- particularly if it's an opinion with which we disagree -- we annihilate them for their original thoughts."
A real separation is now possible between legitimate sports journalists and the corrupt.
And athletes, just because you can tweet doesn't mean you should tweet; remember, reciprocation.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Liberal Media and Democrats Exploit Shooting for Political Purposes
Democrat politicians and liberal media are the scum of the earth for their heartless depravity--exploiting the death of innocent people for gruesome political purposes--blaming everyone except the murderer. Democrat politicians and liberal media reveal who they really are, what they really a farce of the journalistic profession and an insult to the pursuit of honesty and truth.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257591/civility-thee-victor-davis-hanson?page=2
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257591/civility-thee-victor-davis-hanson?page=2
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Hold Journalists to Their Political Ideology
Liberal journalists should give away their money to the state and let the state redistribute it back to them.
Journalists should disclose their political holdings just like financial analysts disclose their financial holdings.
Journalists should disclose who they voted for from the President all the way down to the local elections.
Journalists should be asked if they claim to be unbiased, non-partisan or without a political agenda.
Journalists should be held to the standard they claim.
Liberal journalists will NEVER live the way they advocate and demand everyone else live; and submit to the state.
Journalists should disclose their political holdings just like financial analysts disclose their financial holdings.
Journalists should disclose who they voted for from the President all the way down to the local elections.
Journalists should be asked if they claim to be unbiased, non-partisan or without a political agenda.
Journalists should be held to the standard they claim.
Liberal journalists will NEVER live the way they advocate and demand everyone else live; and submit to the state.
Friday, November 26, 2010
There is a terrific disad, John Fitzgerald Kenn | Dictionary.com
Watch how the self-righteous press squirm, recoil and writhe with bitterness when the power of the press is turned on themselves; when the cleansing light of accountability is gloriously shined on the press itself--that is watching hypocrisy at its ugliest zenith.
"There is a terrific disadvantage in not having the abrasive quality of the press applied to you daily...Even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didn't write it, and even though we disapprove, there isn't any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press." (John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917–1963), U.S. Democratic politician, president. quoted in Theodore C. Sorensen, Kennedy, pt. 3, ch. 12 (1965).
Ionmedia advocates a very, very active citizen press corps to scrutinize the press itself--to keep the press accountable; to assist the press in self-decontamination; to serve as an anti-corruptive agent striving to bring back a free society. Emboldened by a dearth of transparency and accountability the press destroys liberty and freedom and the right to free speech. A corrupt press will always seek to create an unnatural monopoly on free speech; to artificially create a scarcity of truth, perspective and information; especially a scarcity of self-revelatory information on bias, perspective and political agenda. A corrupt press will claim impartiality and act partially.
"There is a terrific disadvantage in not having the abrasive quality of the press applied to you daily...Even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didn't write it, and even though we disapprove, there isn't any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press." (John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917–1963), U.S. Democratic politician, president. quoted in Theodore C. Sorensen, Kennedy, pt. 3, ch. 12 (1965).
Ionmedia advocates a very, very active citizen press corps to scrutinize the press itself--to keep the press accountable; to assist the press in self-decontamination; to serve as an anti-corruptive agent striving to bring back a free society. Emboldened by a dearth of transparency and accountability the press destroys liberty and freedom and the right to free speech. A corrupt press will always seek to create an unnatural monopoly on free speech; to artificially create a scarcity of truth, perspective and information; especially a scarcity of self-revelatory information on bias, perspective and political agenda. A corrupt press will claim impartiality and act partially.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)