CNN is reporting the same thing. In fact, this is the first I've heard that it was a private company's rocket that exploded, but I basically get all my news in the 10-15s it takes me to get through the lobby and into an elevator.
It was a private rocket, but I think it was carrying a NASA payload. Though I'm slightly disappointed in Fox's misspelling machine. I was half expecting ISS to be ISIS
Kinda funny but the reporting on this has been very similar across networks. Before it blew everybody was talking about it being a private company doing the launch and touting that. But the second it blows up everybody is talking about how the NASA rocket blew up on launch its pretty embarassing.
Seriously, fuck our corporate media, bunch of dishonest assholes. Also incredibly stupid fucking assholes to boot. I know there are losers that will eat their shit right up and forget the narrative leading right up to the launch, but I'm pretty sure most are going to be insulted by the insinuation that their memories aren't that good and that they don't have access to sources that show the media is full of shit. At least the local stations have been better about reporting accurately, which makes me sad that a bunch want to emulate the dumbass national media outlets.
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
So you're on Team Incompetent then?
Because if they didn't intentionally twist the narrative to support a specific agenda, then they did it inadvertently and to the detriment of the truth. You know, that thing reporters are supposed to report on, ideally.
I bet half the people who see the headline don't bother to click the link. Headlies are always wrong. Especially when it isn't any harder to put actual facts in them.
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
It is often easier to be wrong to generate interest in stories.
It's pretty much this thread's raison d'etre
Psn:wazukki
+3
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
Except, no-one really needs to know false context. Even if no-one's ever heard of the company, everyone can understand the concept of a rocket exploding. attaching NASA to that stinks of trying to adhere to a narrative of "NASA BAD".
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
"Private company rocket headed to ISS" -> "Private company rocket explodes"
not
"Private company rocket headed to ISS" -> "NASA rocket explodes"
It isn't a different story, it's the same story but without the lying
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
It is often easier to be wrong to generate interest in stories.
It's pretty much this thread's raison d'etre
Couldn't agree more. I've no doubt that the person who wrote that headline knew that it was misleading, but did so hoping it would lead to more page views because of name recognition plus spectacle.
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
A perfect example of why a for-profit media is insanely stupid
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
A perfect example of why a for-profit media is insanely stupid
Wait, what? How does for-profit play into this? There is plenty of good journalism done for a profit, and I doubt it being run as a non-profit would change anything about how biased outlets report stories.
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
A perfect example of why a for-profit media is insanely stupid
Wait, what? How does for-profit play into this? There is plenty of good journalism done for a profit, and I doubt it being run as a non-profit would change anything about how biased outlets report stories.
Because if it weren't for profit there would be no reason to change the title to generate more traffic. The emphasis, in theory, would be on reporting true things.
I think people are reading too much into this. The headline is there to capture and sell the story, in this case it's that a rocket exploded, but that's not really enough detail to grab a reader. It's not that the news organizations are out to blame the government and praise the capitalists, it's that they're trying to sell the spectacle and aren't interested in assigning blame unless that's also a good story.
Then why did Fox change its headline from the private company to NASA?
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
A perfect example of why a for-profit media is insanely stupid
Wait, what? How does for-profit play into this? There is plenty of good journalism done for a profit, and I doubt it being run as a non-profit would change anything about how biased outlets report stories.
Because if it weren't for profit there would be no reason to change the title to generate more traffic. The emphasis, in theory, would be on reporting true things.
Now now, sometimes it's to further an ideology...
Which can be to gain profits...
But that can also be, oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
So this is something I've been thinking about lately while reading this thread but what exactly is our alternative to for-profit media? The only options I see are government-run media which is obviously host to its own bias and non-profit which seems to likely have similar partiality as government-run.
Is the answer for-profit but with better regulations, for instance, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine?
Honestly, there's no way to have a non-profit media because then you get Asian media.
The best solution is to somehow drive to more independent media again. Most of the problems we have are from the megaconglomerate media corporations that run the majors.
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So this is something I've been thinking about lately while reading this thread but what exactly is our alternative to for-profit media? The only options I see are government-run media which is obviously host to its own bias and non-profit which seems to likely have similar partiality as government-run.
Is the answer for-profit but with better regulations, for instance, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine?
independent media funded by the government, such as BBC. Although they also do some of the trendy idiot bullshit like "we will read the opinions of morons on the air". It also has the danger of removing funding if you shittalk a bunch of crybaby opposition, which is happening in Australia right now with the ABC, or sometimes happens with NPR.
So this is something I've been thinking about lately while reading this thread but what exactly is our alternative to for-profit media? The only options I see are government-run media which is obviously host to its own bias and non-profit which seems to likely have similar partiality as government-run.
Is the answer for-profit but with better regulations, for instance, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine?
independent media funded by the government, such as BBC. Although they also do some of the trendy idiot bullshit like "we will read the opinions of morons on the air". It also has the danger of removing funding if you shittalk a bunch of crybaby opposition, which is happening in Australia right now with the ABC, or sometimes happens with NPR.
But this also becomes an issue that voters could potentially care about and influence.
Whereas currently we can't do anything but not watch Fox news and that doesn't appear to be working.
Just in case anyone was still confused on if Glenn Greenwald was a giant piece of shit, his news outlet wrote an entire article to throw someone who left the outlet under the bus
So this is something I've been thinking about lately while reading this thread but what exactly is our alternative to for-profit media? The only options I see are government-run media which is obviously host to its own bias and non-profit which seems to likely have similar partiality as government-run.
Is the answer for-profit but with better regulations, for instance, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine?
I don't think content regulation is the answer. Ownership regulation may be but even that has the regulation constantly fighting against market forces.
In the this makes me sad as a person category, in 20 fucking 14 Rachel Maddow has to explain how an IUD is not a made up conservative term for birth control.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So this is something I've been thinking about lately while reading this thread but what exactly is our alternative to for-profit media? The only options I see are government-run media which is obviously host to its own bias and non-profit which seems to likely have similar partiality as government-run.
Is the answer for-profit but with better regulations, for instance, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine?
It mostly requires 2 things, a publicly funded competitor to the profit-driven media outlets, and that publicly funded outlet needs to be allowed to run without the emphasis on being revenue neutral.
Essentially a mixed market with both public and private companies competing. If private companies are unable to provide the service at the cost and quality the public is demanding, then there is an alternative that the public has a say in.
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Kind of like how in every birth control conversation someone has to explain that birth control pills are not "abortion pills."
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Kind of like how in every birth control conversation someone has to explain that birth control pills are not "abortion pills."
What I hate about the "debate" is that the term Aboritificants or however they are spelled is complete hocus pocus made up bullshit. No method of BC or even emergency BC applies to the made up word. And yet we have to treat it like a real thing and that there are real drugs that fit that category that women take, and its not and never has been.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
She is specifically there to sit on the end of the table and wear a short skirt. Fox is nothing more than her pimp.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
If this is a private company, then yeah. lol
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
which may be even worse than Fox
like, it makes sure to specify that it's contracted out to a private company but then goes ahead and throws NASA under the bus just because
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Private sector and free market are infallible. It was only the taint of the government ilk that doomed this noble endeavor.
So you're on Team Incompetent then?
Because if they didn't intentionally twist the narrative to support a specific agenda, then they did it inadvertently and to the detriment of the truth. You know, that thing reporters are supposed to report on, ideally.
They didn't change the headline, it was a different story. NASA sending a rocket to ISS isn't a story, but a private company doing it will generate some interest. The rocket exploding was it's own story, and attaching NASA to that in the headline is an easier bit of context than Orbital Sciences; a name that most people still won't recognize.
It is often easier to be wrong to generate interest in stories.
It's pretty much this thread's raison d'etre
Except, no-one really needs to know false context. Even if no-one's ever heard of the company, everyone can understand the concept of a rocket exploding. attaching NASA to that stinks of trying to adhere to a narrative of "NASA BAD".
But it didn't explode
NASA's exploded
Good god, man, don't you watch the news?
"Private company rocket headed to ISS" -> "Private company rocket explodes"
not
"Private company rocket headed to ISS" -> "NASA rocket explodes"
It isn't a different story, it's the same story but without the lying
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Couldn't agree more. I've no doubt that the person who wrote that headline knew that it was misleading, but did so hoping it would lead to more page views because of name recognition plus spectacle.
A perfect example of why a for-profit media is insanely stupid
Wait, what? How does for-profit play into this? There is plenty of good journalism done for a profit, and I doubt it being run as a non-profit would change anything about how biased outlets report stories.
Because if it weren't for profit there would be no reason to change the title to generate more traffic. The emphasis, in theory, would be on reporting true things.
Now now, sometimes it's to further an ideology...
Which can be to gain profits...
But that can also be, oh no, I've gone cross-eyed.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Is the answer for-profit but with better regulations, for instance, reinstatement of the fairness doctrine?
The best solution is to somehow drive to more independent media again. Most of the problems we have are from the megaconglomerate media corporations that run the majors.
independent media funded by the government, such as BBC. Although they also do some of the trendy idiot bullshit like "we will read the opinions of morons on the air". It also has the danger of removing funding if you shittalk a bunch of crybaby opposition, which is happening in Australia right now with the ABC, or sometimes happens with NPR.
But this also becomes an issue that voters could potentially care about and influence.
Whereas currently we can't do anything but not watch Fox news and that doesn't appear to be working.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/30/inside-story-matt-taibbis-departure-first-look-media/
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't think content regulation is the answer. Ownership regulation may be but even that has the regulation constantly fighting against market forces.
In the this makes me sad as a person category, in 20 fucking 14 Rachel Maddow has to explain how an IUD is not a made up conservative term for birth control.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It mostly requires 2 things, a publicly funded competitor to the profit-driven media outlets, and that publicly funded outlet needs to be allowed to run without the emphasis on being revenue neutral.
Essentially a mixed market with both public and private companies competing. If private companies are unable to provide the service at the cost and quality the public is demanding, then there is an alternative that the public has a say in.
MWO: Adamski
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
What I hate about the "debate" is that the term Aboritificants or however they are spelled is complete hocus pocus made up bullshit. No method of BC or even emergency BC applies to the made up word. And yet we have to treat it like a real thing and that there are real drugs that fit that category that women take, and its not and never has been.
pleasepaypreacher.net