aviet Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 James Clapper tells Congress he will release more evidence of Russian interference They've not released any evidence. As someone who knows the ropes, unless it was a complete 'tard who "hacked" these emails, they would have no idea who "hacked" them, as it is very simple to connect to the internet anonymously - the reason why there are so many online drugs markets and dealers who have been operating for several years with authorities all but helpless. So far all they have done is do what they have been doing for the past 2 years, say: With no evidence. If they had evidence it would be very easy to just release it after over a year of unsubstantiated claims and vaugeries, refuted by other intelligence officials. But as mentioned, such evidence is unlikely to exist. So the only likely evidence they could have is internal communications obtained by some means from Russian sources. But the best they have come up with is: US intelligence agencies have suggested that Russia passed the hacked material to WikiLeaks through intermediaries. All of a sudden the people who have a track record of making up actual conspiracy theories, lying and not wanting to share any data now think the public should know as much of this as possible I don't know what happened and seems fairly clear neither do they. This smells of Iraq again, with made-up, complicated sounding words like "weapons of mass destruction", probably invented only to activate people's fear receptors and ignore the fact there wasn't any evidence. This time it's "multifaceted" and "unprecedented cyber war"! But in reality it was actually a simple phishing email, that I could fish passwords for ten a penny within a few hours and [probably] emails leaks to Wikileaks by DNC staffer Seth Rich who was subsequently murdered, prompting Wikileaks to offer a $20,000 bounty for information leading to the killer. And like Iraq, the presstitutes in the MSM are out howling "Proof!", "We're at war!", "Russian scum!", as they virtually daily have to retract their fake news articles that they accuse anyone who is not anointed of publishing nothing but. Consider an outlet that is actually liberal and fact-based: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-assanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived The other meme that they have been putting out is that numerous alternative news sources are Russian fake news propaganda! Their first bible of what is fake Russian propaganda was a rough list scrawled up by a far-left, feminist academic. After the list was discredited as being based on nothing but her opinion, they quickly heralded the new authority on fake new, an anonymous quickly thrown up web-template (http://www.propornot.com/p/home.html) which is so inaccurate it lists the "father of Reaganomics" a major left-wing Russian propagandist. After being hit by lawsuits from genuine news outlets on the list, they've walked away again. This is now the mainstay of the MSM: Anonymous intelligence sources Anonymous, unsourced, new, low budget sites An inability to understand intermediate level computing And now actual presstitues. After those ploys failed, news on Facebook is going to be independently fact checked by exclusively left-wing fact checkers. The most notable of them being Snopes, which was founded by a guy and his wife. As she ballooned in weight, the guy began embezzling money from the company and spending it on "high class" prostitutes. He eventually dumped the wife and married one of the prostitutes. That not being enough, he bumped the fat ex-wife out of the fact checking business and replaced her with his new wife, the prostitute, who still operates. So now, the fountain, the bastion of officially approved news is a literal presstitute who has been paid to sleep with 1,000s of men. If people are so stupid that they need all of their news fact checked by prostitutes, why not take it to the next level and give all their ballots to prostitutes for them to proxy everyone's votes, drawing on their deep repositories of wisdom. The media is dying under its own lack of credibility, delusion, hysteria, slew of retractions, fake news and meltdown. Someone said the other day, "What will we do for fun the day the MSM ceases to exist." These are the global traffic ranks of MSM: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48777-breitbart-goes-stratospheric/?p=443896 During the biggest news cycle ever. You would have expected considerable upticks, but instead you see parity at best. All the traffic went to other sources: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com 1
DCLugi Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 More fuel? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-idUSKBN14S0O6
Caley McKibbin Posted January 17, 2017 Posted January 17, 2017 The press is not "dying". People believe particular fairy tales because they prefer the tales are true, not because random goofs ever had credibility. Dave Rubin is spot on when he describes modern decentralized media as a more specifically tailored intellectual safe space or echo chamber. This was always inevitable because that is basically what people want. It's like how people want to play video games where they are overpowered. Everything has been moving in this direction. But none of this is anything to be concerned about precisely because the media does not change how people generally think. It is not really changing the world. Democrats want to hate Putin because he represents the era of reform after the communist experiment in Russia. That is why the fairy tale is successful.
Rventurelli Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 The press is not "dying". People believe particular fairy tales because they prefer the tales are true, not because random goofs ever had credibility. Dave Rubin is spot on when he describes modern decentralized media as a more specifically tailored intellectual safe space or echo chamber. This was always inevitable because that is basically what people want. It's like how people want to play video games where they are overpowered. Everything has been moving in this direction. But none of this is anything to be concerned about precisely because the media does not change how people generally think. It is not really changing the world. Democrats want to hate Putin because he represents the era of reform after the communist experiment in Russia. That is why the fairy tale is successful. I would say that the mainstream media is dying, because its audience is literally dying. The proportion of Millennials and Generation Xers that do not even have cable television is ever increasing. The only people who still seen to trust what they see on television are Baby Boomers and Silents, simply because they are at the age where people really do not care much what happens to the world -- they feel their time has passed already and there is no reason to adapt to the changing reality. Let me give you a comparison to make it a little bit easier to understand. I have read in a magazine many years ago (unfortunately do not remember the name), that on average, when someone hits 40 years of age, they stop consuming new music and just looks for things he knows already, for example, daddy grew up with 1960s and 1970s rock and hard rock bands. Instead of looking up for contemporary rock bands, he will only look forward to bands still surviving from the time or look at other bands from the time that he missed when he was growing up. Same thing seems to happen for technology -- my mother (56 years old), never truly learned how to use computers, anything more than absolute basic she needs my little brother to show her how to do. She only consumes (fake) news over Facebook and television. My father (53) came from a well off family so he had access to computers early on, but he really grew up reading printed newspapers. Unless it is the online version of the printed newspapers he believes to be reputable, he does not even bother reading it. Take a look at the demographics of newspapers readers: http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/newspapers-daily-readership-by-age/
aviet Posted January 22, 2017 Author Posted January 22, 2017 Take a look at the demographics of newspapers readers: http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/newspapers-daily-readership-by-age/ I have come to the same conclusion with the demographics and think now would be a great time to start a new media site if you have the right skills and angle. A lot of people are chanting slogans like 'dinosaur media'. They are getting a bit ahead of themselves. Outlets like The Guardian, CNN, BBC, WaPo, NYT are still giants online. They did take a big hit in 2016 though: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48777-breitbart-goes-stratospheric/?p=443896 The trends looks like it is heading towards a large number of smaller outlets. 1
Rventurelli Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 I have come to the same conclusion with the demographics and think now would be a great time to start a new media site if you have the right skills and angle. A lot of people are chanting slogans like 'dinosaur media'. They are getting a bit ahead of themselves. Outlets like The Guardian, CNN, BBC, WaPo, NYT are still giants online. They did take a big hit in 2016 though: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48777-breitbart-goes-stratospheric/?p=443896 The trends looks like it is heading towards a large number of smaller outlets. It certainly is the right time to do it. Donald Trump could never have been elected just merely fifteen years ago, when the gatekeepers still had much power.
Recommended Posts