Jump to content

Foosters

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Foosters

  1. 2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

    Has Trump been right to criticize CNN and MSNBC as "fake news?" Do they try and control narratives?  

    I say yes. 

    Has Trump countered with alternate sources that are not credible? Likely Yes and No depending on who you speak to and the source, but at least an awakening has happened with regard to the MSM's game in the first place. 

     

    This is a bullshit take. He complains because they are critical. He's not on some holy crusade to rid the nation of biased news sources. He spends most of his day propping up arguably the most powerful news organization in the country, because they spin his every move in the most positive light. 

    • Like 7
  2. 2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

    I think some could make the case you're making about all voters in general.  All politicians, with the exception of a VERY small group, are con men/women.  But calling everyone fucking idiots for voting in a charade-shit show doesn't seem like a good way to foster growth, unity or civil disagreement. 

    The bigger picture is the battle against disinformation.  The silver lining with Trump for me personally is his pulling back of the curtain on the power levers in Corporate Media and the awakening of the general masses as to the role the media obviously plays in controlling information and narratives.  

    By routinely citing and legitimizing media that does the same thing but on the other side of the coin?

    "Fake news is Fake! They are the enemy of the people!  Btw, here's a bunch of links to 'real' news organizations that will tell you the truth!"

  3. 9 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    lulz. 

    Muslims ruin countries because they can't keep their religion out of politics. 

    what about this muslim that kept his religion out of politics? 

    well, i wasn't counting muslims that can keep their religion out of politics.

    Even better when he supports Christian politicians trying to interject religion into politics.

  4. Icono can't face the fact of growing white nationalist extremism. Doing so would acknowledge that he has sided with a group that wants nothing more than to kick him out of this country. At best.

  5. Conservatives: "You liberals are so fucking stupid! Run by the out-of-touch hollywood elite! Worshiping at the alter of fame. What do celebrities know about politics!"

    Also conservatives when any human being with one foot in entertainment espouses a non-liberal talking point: "Look at the wisdom! Quick, better get him on Fox and Friends every Tuesday for the next 2 years."

    • Like 1
  6. 2 minutes ago, TtomTerrific said:

    every libtard dork here LOVED the "redacted" report from the DOJ on Lois Lerner, her boss and the disappearing evidence. 

     

    every libtard here spent the last two years with the hoping and praying for Robert fucking Mueller and his stacked libtard team of "investigators" to deliver them from their misery. 

     

    You go to kill the King,... you better but miss, you limp wristed faggots....

    You are God Damned right that Barr is coming for your bitch ass. 

     

    you did this 

     

    you live with this 

    Let go of the bottle, Tom. You're killing your family

  7. Just now, Lhorn said:

    I’m not generalizing that the wealthy get the short end of the stick from the legal system and I think you know that I’m not.  I also don’t think that I’m the only one who feels that the proposed punishment for Lori Loughlin seems a bit out of proportion to the crime.  I’m not a lawyer so maybe years to decades is prisonis the norm. 

    Factoring her likelihood to do something so blatantly criminal again, negligible harm to society, that the crime was non violent, etc I’m not sure that 20 plus years in prison is the best use of our system. 

    I know. I was just being a flippant ass. I would agree with you.

    • Haha 1
  8. 15 hours ago, Lhorn said:

    Anyone speculated on what penalty Singer will end up paying for this?

    The possible penalties aunt Becky is at risk for is some bullshit.  What a dog and pony show.  I find it hard to believe that if the entirely of the accused were just regular folks that we’d be talking about penalties anywhere near the decades of prison time they are threatening. People get less time in prison for killing in some cases. 

    Free aunt Becky. 

    Yeah, the rich and famous get so screwed by our legal system. If only they were poor and unknown.

    • Like 2
  9. Just now, Francisco 2.0 said:

    Nothing finer and more entitled than an offended snowflake creating a thread on a message board bitching about (checks notes) censorship on a privately held publication somewhere else.

    Then carrying on and on about it endlessly like a victim would.

    Similar to those who defend the rights of private businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ, while simultaneously demanding that the government do something about Twitter silencing conservative voices.

    Astounding stuff.

    • Like 1
  10. 11 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

    According to the new head censor, the WSJ needed to create a safe space for women and snowflake millennials who supposedly couldn’t handle the logic and wisdom of the regular WSJ commenters. What the lame ass journalists really want to do is silence the voices of those that are the majority at the WSJ - namely white men, Christians and Jews rightfully critical of rabid anti-Semites like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, those that support our President and want to stem the illegal immigrant horde. We’re not going away. Netanyahu winning is a precursor to the GOP and Trump winning in 2020. MAGA. I’m out and so are a lot of people. Fuck this shit.

    https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/04/goodbye-moderators-hello-audience-voice-reporters-heres-how-the-wall-street-journal-is-refocusing-the-comments-to-incentivize-better-behavior/

    Goodbye “moderators,” hello “audience voice reporters”: Here’s how The Wall Street Journal is refocusing the comments to incentivize better behavior

    “In the case of commenting, we have concluded that overly focusing on the small subset of users who comment frequently and want no one intervening at all in their comments is costing us the opportunity of engaging with our much larger, growing, and diversifying audience.”
    By LOUISE STORY April 9, 2019, 8:13 a.m. 
     

     

    Editor’s note: The Wall Street Journal is making some changes in how it thinks about commenting and conversation on its digital platforms, announced a few hours ago by editor-in-chief Matt Murray. Here, Louise Story, the Journal’s editor of newsroom strategy and interim chief technology and product officer, explains the research and strategy underlying the changes.

     

    Our readers this week will see a lot of changes built around the goal of elevating the quality of community discourse on WSJ.com. It’s a project we’ve been working on for months, starting with rigorous research and ending with a strategy to foster healthy conversations around our coverage. First, a few of the changes:

    • Audience posts will be more prominently featured in our stories that are open for audience conversation.
    • Select articles will be open for audience posts, and we will feature clear boxes on every article page showing where audience conversation can be found.
    • Conversations will begin with question prompts from our reporters, who will occasionally engage directly.
    • Participation in these conversations will be an exclusive benefit for Wall Street Journal members.
    • We’ve relabeled “comments” as “conversations” to help create an environment where everyone is welcome and encouraged to share their thoughts.
    • These efforts will be supported by a new Audience Voices & Community newsroom team comprised of an editor, reporters, and multimedia producers.

    wsj-comments-990x990.png

    Last year, as the midterm election approached, web sites of all sorts were seeing increasingly hostile comments posted by their users. In our news coverage, we wrote about some examples, like hate speech on YouTube Super Chats.

    But at some point, we looked at ourselves and asked what we were doing about it. Were we providing a forum for thoughtful conversation? Were we providing an experience that interested most of our audience? Were we leading by example?

    We decided we could do more to foster elevated discourse and to welcome broader parts of our audience to join in conversations around our articles. We kicked off a five-month process of in-depth audience research and news product development. It involved everyone from the Journal’s Standards desk, community team and numerous reporters to the product, design, technology, R&D teams, and the membership and customer service desks.

    We know there will inevitably be a small group of people who may not like the changes, but there is a far larger group that would like to contribute to audience conversations if the postings became more thoughtful. Here is what we have learned from our research about audience conversation:

    From the perspective of heavy commenters:

    • Heavy commenters are often not reading much of the articles they comment on. They go to the headline, sometimes scan a small part of the story, and skip right on down to the comment box. In a sense, some have more interest in having a place to post their thoughts than in engaging with the journalism.
    • Some heavy commenters do not post original comments; instead, they stick to replying to other people’s comments. These “repliers” tend to have a higher frequency of breaching our comments policies (which bans abusive or disparaging posts) than do commenters who post original thoughts.
    • Most heavy commenters appreciate moderation but don’t want it to feel like censorship.
    • Some heavy commenters are concerned about censorship, but many appreciate moderation and want standards upheld. “I think moderation is a good idea, to keep people from going over the top. To keep people from misbehaving.”

    From the perspective of light commenters:

    • Light commenters are more likely to say that moderation improves comment quality.
    • Even light commenters check back to see what the reaction to their comments has been, albeit only once or twice per story.
    • And light commenters are open to posting more — one thing that holds them back is feeling that our journalists don’t look at their comments. They said they would comment more if they knew someone was reading or acknowledging their words. (And indeed, when we tested asking reporters to pose questions on the top of the comments boxes, it led to more thoughtful comments.)

    There are, of course, also tons of non-commenters. In fact, there are also lots of people who subscribe to the Journal and never, ever take a peek at our comments sections.

    Screen-Shot-2019-04-09-at-8.06.00-AM-990

     

    Screen-Shot-2019-04-09-at-8.08.22-AM-990

    The comments box and first few comments on one of the first articles open for audience posts under the new system.

    One of the concepts you learn in Economics 101 is opportunity cost — which means that when you do one thing, you’re missing out on doing something else. The thing you are missing out on is the opportunity cost. In the case of commenting, we have concluded that overly focusing on the small subset of users who comment frequently and want no one intervening at all in their comments is costing us the opportunity of engaging with our much larger, growing, and diversifying audience.

    Indeed, when we looked at the demographics of our heavy commenters, we found they don’t represent the Journal as a whole. That led us to focus on the people who are not commenting as much. Women and younger people have been less represented among our commenters than they are among our subscribers, so we took a look at what was keeping them away. What we heard was they want to feel safe from bullying and share their comments in a forum in which they won’t be attacked. This is important feedback that led us to look at workflow changes that would enable us to better enforce our existing commenting policies.

    Some other audience findings shaped our approach. Among them: Most commenters don’t expect to be able to comment on all articles. (Yes, some may, but research found them to be a real minority.) From this insight, we realized we could use our resources better if we picked articles each day for audience conversation, listed them openly for the audience to find and had our moderators spend more time finding great comments and story leads and bringing those into our journalism. In fact, we have reframed the approach so much, that we are not calling our team “moderators”; instead, we are calling them “audience voice reporters.” They will report on the audience conversation.

    So where does this leave us? We hope in a place where more people will participate in our audience conversation. Visiting our site should feel like there is more focus on that conversation, even though it’s happening on fewer stories, because we have modules on every article about which stories are open for conversation. And we will be featuring thoughtful audience posts high up in stories in a revolving carousel to capture a variety of perspectives.

    Our standards for posts remain the same — and they can be found here — but they will be enforced more than they were. We owe it to our readers and our journalists to lead the way with thoughtful discourse.

     

    Louise Story is editor of newsroom strategy and interim chief technology and product officer at The Wall Street Journal.

     

     

     

    Goddam you're such a pussy.

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  11. 8 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    The onus is also on the population living in the area. SF residents should realize that any meal out should cost a min of 20-30 dollars to support the high cost of living in that area. Instead they build a robot to make burgers for 6 bucks. 

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/sf.eater.com/platform/amp/2018/6/21/17489084/creator-robot-burgers-san-francisco

    If all of the restaurants do close it would be the correct outcome. Until the local society is willing to pay the true cost they shouldn’t enjoy the service. 

    Teachers cant afford to live in the cities they teach?  Close the schools. Parents will move to Where the schools are or the city will pay accordingly. 

    All the more reason to keep flooding the country with unskilled labor. 

    In an effort to "save" the city, you're encouraging the citizens to close all schools in the entire city?

  12. 2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

    If he were to ban Russians from staying at his hotels, that would be discrimination on the basis of nationality.  Correct counselor? Not the first time I've had to explain the law to you.

    By the way, does he even own the hotels? He mainly leases his name is my understanding, though I expect he owns some personally.

    Emoluments is a dead letter. But good luck with that. Russians were going to stay at his hotels if he won or lost. All I'm advocating for is don't miss.

    When did Rocko skull fuck hammer and take over his username?

  13. So the guy who just threatened to kill Ilhan Omar because he needs to get "radical Muslims out of our government" didn't get the memo that he wasn't supposed to take words literally?

  14. 6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    What fucking world are you living in? All publicly available evidence about kleptocracy points to Trump being even worse than initially advertised.

    No matter your ideology, that very basic fact was present from the moment he declared bankruptcy almost 30 years ago

    Why are you bothering with this troll? He spews lies, gets called on them, and then disappears to another thread. 

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...