I think it is time people stop pretending news companies are any different from any other media companies. The NYTimes was created by one of the wealthiest bankers for christ's sakes.
24 karma · joined March 28, 2019
I think it is time people stop pretending news companies are any different from any other media companies. The NYTimes was created by one of the wealthiest bankers for christ's sakes.
The house of representatives should serve as a bulwark against "moneyed interests", but even they are being targeted and bought by money. What good is democracy if a small group of people buy all the politicians?
It's true bill gates wouldn't have amounted to much had he been born in 1950s china because china was heavily undeveloped. But had he been born later in the 60s or 70s with china opening up, he could have been a Jack Ma.
From the US to Japan to Germany to China, energy consumption is the most glaring predictor of rising wealth and standards of living. I suspect this is also hold true for India, ASEAN and Africa in the coming decades.
Either they are going to start consuming a lot more energy or they are going to be stuck in poverty. I don't see how can justify keeping billions of people in poverty.
Journalist integrity would be the economist not lying and smearing someone who they disagree with in the first place. To call an orthodox jew an "alt-right sage" means the people working at the economist are lazy and incompetent or they are liars smearing a jewish individual for ideological reasons. You could follow the thread. You could probably also find the deleted tweets by the economist and their editor too if you want.
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1111301001359904770
To label a pathetic smear campaign by the economist as "journalistic integrity" just shows the terrible state of journalism today. And the only reason the spineless cowards at the economist apologized is because Ben Shapiro has a big enough following to fight back. Otherwise, they would have stuck to their lies and slander. And I have to disagree with your last statement. The economist is most definitely one of the "rags that are purely motivated by partisan ideology.". But we are all entitled to our own opinions.
The "northeast" isn't much more affordable. I guess it depends on where in the northeast as the northeast is a big region, but housing values near NYC, Boston and even philadelphia has increased dramatically in the past 10 years.
The only difference is that traditional media doesn't allow for counter arguments. At least on social media, people can counter quackery. In traditional media, their quackery can't be disputed until they decide it is in their financial interest.
Of course online content is generated. My point is whether that generated online content gains actual traction. Whether that generated online content has legs and real enthusiasm behind it.
An easy way to tell is if politicians can draw crowds to their speeches. You can measure online interactions between actual people and their enthusiasm. For example, if a politician has tons of online interest and he can draw big crowds, then we can assume that his online interest is real rather than fake. If a politician has tons of online interest but can't draw any people to his speeches, it's like his "enthusiasm" is bought for and has no traction.
Processed foods and overeating is the true problem in the western diet.
But I wouldn't say we shouldn't trust online phenomenon. Online phenomenon is why Obama and Trump got elected. Trump has effectively bypassed the traditional media's stranglehold on the american mind via his use of twitter and social media. And online phenomenon is why we have occasio-cortez.
As the internet gains more mind share, we have to start taking the online space more seriously.
It's pretty much high risk, high reward. The startup I worked at, we all slept in our offices working 24/7 to reach milestones every few months. The point work hard and get the company sold off within 10 years and retire.