Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda

[CPUd]

Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda

The 2016 Presidential election shook the foundations of American politics. Media reports immediately looked for external disruption to explain the unanticipated victory—with theories ranging from Russian hacking to “fake news.”

We have a less exotic, but perhaps more disconcerting explanation: Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.

While concerns about political and media polarization online are longstanding, our study suggests that polarization was asymmetric. Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites. But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season.

Attacks on the integrity and professionalism of opposing media were also a central theme of right-wing media. Rather than “fake news” in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading. Over the course of the election, this turned the right-wing media system into an internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenged it. The prevalence of such material has created an environment in which the President can tell supporters about events in Sweden that never happened, or a presidential advisor can reference a non-existent “Bowling Green massacre.”

We began to study this ecosystem by looking at the landscape of what sites people share. If a person shares a link from Breitbart, is he or she more likely also to share a link from Fox News or from The New York Times? We analyzed hyperlinking patterns, social media sharing patterns on Facebook and Twitter, and topic and language patterns in the content of the 1.25 million stories, published by 25,000 sources over the course of the election, using Media Cloud, an open-source platform for studying media ecosystems developed by Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and MIT’s Center for Civic Media.

When we map media sources this way, we see that Breitbart became the center of a distinct right-wing media ecosystem, surrounded by Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, the Washington Examiner, Infowars, Conservative Treehouse, and Truthfeed.

https://i.imgur.com/JE9csIi.png
Fig. 1: Media sources shared on Twitter during the election (nodes sized in proportion to Twitter shares).


https://i.imgur.com/EaoofYm.png
Fig. 2: Media sources shared on Twitter during the election (nodes sized in proportion to Facebook shares)


Notes: In the above clouds, the nodes are sized according to how often they were shared on Twitter (Fig. 1) or Facebook (Fig. 2). The location of nodes is determined by whether two sites were shared by the same Twitter user on the same day, representing the extent to which two sites draw similar audiences. The colors assigned to a site in the map reflect the share of that site’s stories tweeted by users who also retweeted either Clinton or Trump during the election. These colors therefore reflect the attention patterns of audiences, not analysis of content of the sites. Dark blue sites draw attention in ratios of at least 4:1 from Clinton followers; red sites 4:1 Trump followers. Green sites are retweeted more or less equally by followers of each candidate. Light-blue sites draw 3:2 Clinton followers, and pink draw 3:2 Trump followers.


...
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php

[UWDude]

Wow, the sky is blue. these guys are brilliaint.

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/OCzepP2.jpg

[RPtotheWH]

When they put CNN as a middle news organization it pretty much discredits them right away. Isn't CNN the one that ran with the peeing on Russian prostitutes story and removing the MLK bust on day one? I mean I guess they are neutral, at least they didn't give away debate questions?

[UWDude]

When they put CNN as a middle news organization it pretty much discredits them right away. Isn't CNN the one that ran with the peeing on Russian prostitutes story and removing the MLK bust on day one? I mean I guess they are neutral, at least they didn't give away debate questions?

they are basing it on tweets from supporters of trump or hillary.
Twitter science studies.
For those who think Facebook and twitter are the real world.

[RPtotheWH]

Lol and I just noticed they have the WaPo as pretty neutral, didn't they hire John Podesta as a columnist? How is that neutral?

[UWDude]

Where's the big hillary backbreaker there?
I cant see the image, they got wikileaks in there?

Or are MSM boobuses trying to act like it never existed again?

[RPtotheWH]

Oh I see it's a twitter study, Nvm so it's completely useless. What's the breakdown of twitter users based on political standing?

[CPUd]

Lol and I just noticed they have the WaPo as pretty neutral, didn't they hire John Podesta as a columnist? How is that neutral?

The data is empirical, they explain their methodology.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Tis a shame that the big red dots aren't The Liberty Report and the RP Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

[UWDude]

The data is empirical, they explain their methodology.

empirical twitter study, which is infested with bots and shills, amongst other things that make the whole study worthless.

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/mTKSGqo.png

https://i.imgur.com/v0QWzbJ.png

[angelatc]

But the Huffington post...now that there's some fine, fine reporting.

[angelatc]

https://i.imgur.com/mTKSGqo.png

The Hill got more Twitter shares than Buzzfeed? I suspect shenanigans are afoot.

[CPUd]

The Hill got more Twitter shares than Buzzfeed? I suspect shenanigans are afoot.

Their articles are much easier to repost and share. Not a lot of ads in text or interstitials.

[UWDude]

LoL Wall Street Journal is slightly more pro Trump than anti.

LOL

Flawed, worthless study.

But let the idiots gobble it up as truth. The more misguided they are, the more they fail.

[UWDude]

Their articles are much easier to repost and share. Not a lot of ads in text or interstitials.

You seem to know a thing or two about media. I remember you saying the media isn't the enemy, trump is.

[UWDude]

LOL FOX News is extremely pro Trump, but CNN is slightly left of center.

[CPUd]

Tis a shame that the big red dots aren't The Liberty Report and the RP Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Probably because our slogans were co-opted and used to drive hyper-partisan clickbait sites:


Take a look at Ending the Fed, which, according to Buzzfeed’s examination of fake news in November 2016, accounted for five of the top 10 of the top fake stories in the election. In our data, Ending the Fed is indeed prominent by Facebook measures, but not by Twitter shares. In the month before the election, for example, it was one of the three most-shared right-wing sites on Facebook, alongside Breitbart and Truthfeed. While Ending the Fed clearly had great success marketing stories on Facebook, our analysis shows nothing distinctive about the site—it is simply part-and-parcel of the Breitbart-centered sphere.

And the false claims perpetuated in Ending the Fed’s most-shared posts are well established tropes in right wing media: the leaked Podesta emails, alleged Saudi funding of Clinton’s campaign, and a lack of credibility in media. The most Facebook-shared story by Ending the Fed in October was “IT’S OVER: Hillary’s ISIS Email Just Leaked & It’s Worse Than Anyone Could Have Imagined.” See also, Infowars’ “Saudi Arabia has funded 20% of Hillary’s Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims,” and Breitbart’s “Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together.” This mix of claims and facts, linked through paranoid logic characterizes much of the most shared content linked to Breitbart. It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as “fake news”; their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually-reinforcing network of like-minded sites.

[UWDude]

LOL Business Insider is slightly pro-Trump.

[UWDude]

according to Buzzfeed’s examination of fake news

LOL

[UWDude]

LoL Real Clear Politics is slightly pro Trump!? HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/7RtM3rX.jpg



While mainstream media coverage was often critical, it nonetheless revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set: immigration. Right-wing media, in turn, framed immigration in terms of terror, crime, and Islam, as a review of Breitbart and other right-wing media stories about immigration most widely shared on social media exhibits. Immigration is the key topic around which Trump and Breitbart found common cause; just as Trump made this a focal point for his campaign, Breitbart devoted disproportionate attention to the topic.


https://i.imgur.com/zboLA5V.jpg

[UWDude]

LOL Buzzfeed and NBC are equally left, and buzzfeed is only moderately left. HA HA HA!

[timosman]

Another great thread started by CPUd.:cool:

[CPUd]

https://i.imgur.com/gXQZ0ZD.jpg
Number of sentences in mainstream media that address Trump and Clinton issues and scandals.

[UWDude]

LOL USA Today was centerist on Trump.

The authors of this study are clearly delusional.

[angelatc]

Their articles are much easier to repost and share. Not a lot of ads in text or interstitials.

ROTFL! It's Twitter. Reposting isn't a thing!!

omg - too funny.

Buzzfeed exists only to feed social media.

[angelatc]

LOL USA Today was centerist on Trump.

The authors of this study are clearly delusional.

Gee, a Harvard study to study Breitbart's influence on an election came to a pre-determined conclusion? Imagine.

What really sucks is that CPUd doesn't care. It knows most people will only read the headlines. That's why it starts so many threads.

[UWDude]

Number of sentences in mainstream media that address Trump and Clinton issues and scandals.

because infowars is MSM

[UWDude]

LoL, The Onion is leftist.

[RPtotheWH]

https://i.imgur.com/gXQZ0ZD.jpg
Number of sentences in mainstream media that address Trump and Clinton issues and scandals.

Is this graph saying the media reported more on Clinton's issues/scandals than Trump? That would mean they were all totally faking it on election night with their reactions as the results rolled in.

[timosman]

Did CPUd kidnap all the mods?:eek:

[CPUd]

ROTFL! It's Twitter. Reposting isn't a thing!!

omg - too funny.

Buzzfeed exists only to feed social media.

Reposting is a thing on message boards, that's mainly how threads get started here.

[CPUd]

Is this graph saying the media reported more on Clinton's issues/scandals than Trump? That would mean they were all totally faking it on election night with their reactions as the results rolled in.

How so?

[UWDude]

Is this graph saying the media reported more on Clinton's issues/scandals than Trump? That would mean they were all totally faking it on election night with their reactions as the results rolled in.

They forgot to mention three straight days of the media whining in unison about Trump bowing out gracefully when he loses the election.
They forgot to mention the week straight when the media harped about trumps grabbing comment.

Perhaps they dont consider those things "issues" to vet out who is deep state propaganda, and who are journalists.

[UWDude]

Is this graph saying the media reported more on Clinton's issues/scandals than Trump? That would mean they were all totally faking it on election night with their reactions as the results rolled in.


How so?

Only you are confused by his statement.

[CPUd]

From their quoted buzzfeed story:

https://i.imgur.com/7SLN3J5.png

https://i.imgur.com/fig2Erx.png

[UWDude]

From their quoted buzzfeed story:



You are quoting buzzfeed again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQglZPVmoo8

[CPUd]

How Teens In The Balkans Are Duping Trump Supporters With Fake News

BuzzFeed News identified more than 100 pro-Trump websites being run from a single town in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
posted on Nov. 3, 2016, at 7:02 p.m.


“This is the news of the millennium!” said the story on WorldPoliticus.com. Citing unnamed FBI sources, it claimed Hillary Clinton will be indicted in 2017 for crimes related to her email scandal.

“Your Prayers Have Been Answered,” declared the headline.

For Trump supporters, that certainly seemed to be the case. They helped the baseless story generate over 140,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.

Meanwhile, roughly 6,000 miles away in a small town in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a young man watched as money began trickling into his Google AdSense account.

Over the past year, the Macedonian town of Veles (population 45,000) has experienced a digital gold rush as locals launched at least 140 US politics websites. These sites have American-sounding domain names such as WorldPoliticus.com, TrumpVision365.com, USConservativeToday.com, DonaldTrumpNews.co, and USADailyPolitics.com. They almost all publish aggressively pro-Trump content aimed at conservatives and Trump supporters in the US.

The young Macedonians who run these sites say they don’t care about Donald Trump. They are responding to straightforward economic incentives: As Facebook regularly reveals in earnings reports, a US Facebook user is worth about four times a user outside the US. The fraction-of-a-penny-per-click of US display advertising — a declining market for American publishers — goes a long way in Veles. Several teens and young men who run these sites told BuzzFeed News that they learned the best way to generate traffic is to get their politics stories to spread on Facebook — and the best way to generate shares on Facebook is to publish sensationalist and often false content that caters to Trump supporters.

As a result, this strange hub of pro-Trump sites in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is now playing a significant role in propagating the kind of false and misleading content that was identified in a recent BuzzFeed News analysis of hyperpartisan Facebook pages. These sites open a window into the economic incentives behind producing misinformation specifically for the wealthiest advertising markets and specifically for Facebook, the world’s largest social network, as well as within online advertising networks such as Google AdSense.

“Yes, the info in the blogs is bad, false, and misleading but the rationale is that ‘if it gets the people to click on it and engage, then use it,’” said a university student in Veles who started a US politics site, and who agreed to speak on the condition that BuzzFeed News not use his name.

...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo

[UWDude]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo

you are quoting buzzfeed again.

[timosman]

Is there any point to reheating these leftovers?:confused:

[P3ter_Griffin]

Probably because our slogans were co-opted and used to drive hyper-partisan clickbait sites:

Personally I think this quote has more to do with their success:


It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as “fake news”; their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually-reinforcing network of like-minded sites.

It is a complete psychological operation opposed to a news one. And they are really fucking good.

[MallsRGood]

The "End The Fed" account was created last March by a guy in Romania...

....no apparent connection to the liberty movement.

So...


our slogans were co-opted and used to drive hyper-partisan clickbait sites

Yea

[UWDude]

Personally I think this quote has more to do with their success:



It is a complete psychological operation opposed to a news one. And they are really $#@!ing good.

MSM is one giant psy-op. Has been for decades. It is not a "news" operation.

[timosman]

MSM is one giant psy-op. Has been for decades. It is not a "news" operation.

Now think about this site. :rolleyes:

[P3ter_Griffin]

The "End The Fed" account was created last March by a guy in Romania...

....no apparent connection to the liberty movement.

So...



Yea

How many Trump people are really concerned with ending the fed though? If there is any sort of large co-option we would expect more commonality in desires I think. I think this is a rosy view. If Ron Paul was influential to these people then they would listen to him. Opportunistic for sure. But I don't think that the name drove its success as much as the content of its tweets.?

[UWDude]

Anyways, I am glad to see the media and its CIA analysts using massive datamining to try to figure out why americans dont believe their poop is chocolate anymore. I am also happier to see how miserably biased they are. As I sad a few days ago, they became so obsessed with the science of persuasion, they stopped even trying to find a foundation of truth to build their research for lies upon.

This study misses some of the most powerful forces on the internet, with its navel gazing.

I am sure the solution is to build a left wing nerve center, call it maybe shareblue, and then create a bunch of shills to flood the web with spam, measure the metrics, and adjust to outcomes. (https://www.scribd.com/document/337535680/Full-David-Brock-Confidential-Memo-On-Fighting-Trump#from_embed?content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=&keyword=ft500noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate&irgwc=1) (see pg 12) And that might* work, if they actually would report to themselves the outcomes honestly, but they won't, because everybody gets a trophy at shareblue and deepstate analytics, inc. How can six figure income earners be wrong.

And I use the word might for a reason: might indicates probability.

And there is very little chance anything will work.

Deep state just can not even admit yet it has completely lost control of the narrative. The old models from the bible, to the printing press, to television, of top-down narrative building and single entry point memetic introduction have ended. It is the dawn of a new age. Nobody controls the narrative. It is completely chaotic now.
And that means the words and logic mean little, it is the style of delivery, and who delivers it.

It is now a post fact, (including cherry picked facts a la Deep State propaganda) world.

On the internet, the spammers are becoming more and more reviled: because nobody likes spammers.
Third wave feminism is failing... ..because nobody likes bitter angry women.
What matters now more is the personality of the person delivering the message, rather than the facts.
And the media is full of angry, smug, repetitive talking head. Even if a person agrees with them, over time they will be filled with the same venemous attributes, and start to sound like them... and normal people will pull away from them in revulsion.

Keep spamming.

[CPUd]

Personally I think this quote has more to do with their success:



It is a complete psychological operation opposed to a news one. And they are really fucking good.

Yes, I think it is interesting to study where this stuff originates and how it finds its way down the tubes.

[UWDude]

Yes, I think it is interesting to study where this stuff originates and how it finds its way down the tubes.
You mean how a bunch of biased "researchers" think it finds its way down the tubes. Ha ha ha.
Just because somebody publishes a report, doesn't make it true.
Plus, there are some things that just can not be explained or numeralized, and human behavior is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, to numeralize.

I find it interesting you take this study as fact. Just because it has numbers and models and graphics and charts. Geeze, I wonder if they are missing the most important element of them all, that blows their whole hypothesis away?

I brushed on it. But I will not go into details.

Let's just say, this "report" is 20th century science, with 20th century reporting.
It is dead wrong.

And by dead, I mean in a decade or two, mass graves dead wrong.

I can just see the deep state stooges now, looking at this report and thinking, "so if we strike down Breitbart, we can gain some weighted advantage! Have Edward model us how much of the narrative we could re-control if Breitbart were suddenly taken down."

Same stupid Hollywood movie nonsense. Kill the head vampire, all the other vampires disappear. It just doesn't work that way. When are you stooges going to get that through your thick skulls? You may kill the genetic line, but memetics are different in so many ways.

Just give up, stooges. The best way to actually win, is just give up... ..and be honest about how you feel for once. Stop trying to persuade with logic, facts, lies, and obfuscations abotu your true intentions, and just say who you are.

Be like Bill. Bill just straight up said he would prefer the Deep State to the Trump State.

Rule 1 from Propaganda: Clearly state your purpose at the beginning.

[MallsRGood]

How many Trump people are really concerned with ending the fed though? If there is any sort of large co-option we would expect more commonality in desires I think. I think this is a rosy view. If Ron Paul was influential to these people then they would listen to him. Opportunistic for sure. But I don't think that the name drove its success as much as the content of its tweets.?

Lots of Trump people are former Paulites who once shouted "End The Fed."

This is the "teh banksters n globalists n NWO o noes!" crowd, mind you, rather than the people who understand economics, but still...

...they were with us once, and were then co-opted.

I agree that the Trump machine would have drawn a great many of them anyway, but using Paulian terms made the task easier.

[UWDude]

...they were with us once,

So were you.

And then you were banned.

Banished from "us", only to return and reclaim the title of "us".

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Did CPUd kidnap all the mods?:eek:



https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-05-2015/T6ALTa.gif

[P3ter_Griffin]

MSM is one giant psy-op. Has been for decades. It is not a "news" operation.

Isn't it good to find out when a new player has entered the game? An organization like this is not built for one man or one election. They want settler news here to stay.

[MallsRGood]

So were you.

And then you were banned.

Banished from "us", only to return and reclaim the title of "us".

You're not part of the "us" to which I was referring.

"Us" referred to libertarians.

You are part of the "they," i.e. formerly Paulite Trumpcucks.

[timosman]

You're not part of the "us" to which I was referring.

"Us" referred to libertarians.

You are part of the "they," i.e. formerly Paulite Trumpcucks.

Looks like somebody is pushing too hard. I am afraid trolling at this level is considered excessive. :cool:

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What really sucks is that CPUd doesn't care. It knows most people will only read the headlines. That's why it starts so many threads.

CPud finally found his niche here after Donny won. His technique is pretty good though. Just flood the most popular sub-forum with his headlines. Zip's technique is to post early in a thread, often second. He does that because each succeeding post in a thread gets diminishing views. After Zip gets called out, his countering gets to be too much work, or the thread has many multiple pages, he moves on to the next big thread.

Is that about how they told you to do it, fellas?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Now here's a guy who had the best technique: PRB. He played a libertarian who was supposed to be off his rocker. Sort of like this fringe guy whose purpose was to scare people away. Too bad he hardly comes around ever since he got the second most red rep bars ever on this site:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?55014-PRB



It's sort of odd, but I somewhat miss my nemesis.

https://media.tenor.co/images/8707c39f0146b9256ca6027265a0cb3b/raw

[UWDude]

You're not part of the "us" to which I was referring.

"Us" referred to libertarians.

You are part of the "they," i.e. formerly Paulite Trumpcucks.

Cute. You still think insults matter. You even imitate the Trump Train slang. A form of flattery. Secretly, you like them.

[UWDude]

"Us" referred to libertarians.


Do you mean anarcho-minarchi-valuntaryist-capitalist libertarians, or the theocra-minarchi-anarcho libertarains, or the paelo-anarcho--capitalist conservatives or the paleo-liberal capitalists?

[MallsRGood]

Do you mean anarcho-minarchi-valuntaryist-capitalist libertarians, or the theocra-minarchi-anarcho libertarains, or the paelo-anarcho--capitalist conservatives or the paleo-liberal capitalists?

Any of them who aren't supporting the nationalist-socialist-PATRIOT-ACT-loving-Libya-invading orange chimp who lives in the white house.

[UWDude]

Any of them who aren't supporting the nationalist-socialistist-PATRIOT-ACT-loving-Libya-invading orange chimp who lives in the white house.


Them? You mean "us"? That's how this started. You are claiming a form of solidarity that clearly does not exist. There is no "us" for you. You even got banned from the most libertarian friendly forum on the internet. Somehow, you don't do well with "us". You are just a loner thinking you can blab your way to power by typing your inane opinions on the internet and thereby this makes you the part of a movement, that by and large, you already alienated god knows how many times by being told to never come back.

Yeah dude, there must be some real ideological core here somewhere, and if you arent part of that core, you are on the outside... ..right? Well guess who was on the outside, probably multiple times?

YOU.

[RPtotheWH]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo

Trump creating more jobs?

[MallsRGood]

Them? You mean "us"? That's how this started. You are claiming a form of solidarity that clearly does not exist. There is no "us" for you. You even got banned from the most libertarian friendly forum on the internet. Somehow, you don't do well with "us". You are just a loner thinking you can blab your way to power by typing your inane opinions on the internet and thereby this makes you the part of a movement, that by and large, you already alienated god knows how many times by being told to never come back.

Yeah dude, there must be some real ideological core here somewhere, and if you arent part of that core, you are on the outside... ..right? Well guess who was on the outside, probably multiple times?

YOU.

Does...

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ez5q9vB11r2b0qy.gif

[Jamesiv1]

Conclusions:

People that read Breitbart link to pro-Trump stuff
People that read HuffPo link to pro-Hillary stuff
Breathing is good for you

[CPUd]

a. People that read Breitbart link to pro-Trump stuff
b. People that read HuffPo link to pro-Hillary stuff
c. Breathing is good for you


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMc3f588yc

[MallsRGood]

Is the lesson available for purchase on VHS?

[KrokHead]

LOL USA Today was centerist on Trump.

The authors of this study are clearly delusional.

I read usatoday every day, and yes the authors are clearly delusional. But at least they had the common courtesy to tell you exactly where they were coming from and exactly what they were doing.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/91295020/

I apologize about Google making the link look less legitimate. But if you don't want to read for yourself, it says that the editorial board determined that Trump is not fit to lead the country. Of course, there are not any articles that paint Trump in a positive light. (Not that it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.)

Mainstream Media continues to be delusional and over play their hands. They will never blame themselves for the ride of breitbart or the common acceptance of infowars. You only can lie to idiots for so long and call them stupid. This created need sources for these idiots that will lie to them and call them smart.

Nwo, msm, libtards, etc. Act as bullies and think they can shame people away from their beliefs and opinions. Hell, it has been working big time for generations. However with the internet hitting a whole new stride where even regular people feel no shame ignoring the outside world, these regular people no longer feel ignored or insane. They no longer have to read news that says everything they believe is wrong, that they are stupid, and that they are the cause of injustice and the world's problems: what mainstream media has done to normal Americans for years.

Yeah, breitbart and infowars are complete shit, but CNN and Usatoday have to take a look in the mirror. If they continue to be arrogant they will continue to feed their "monster."

Just report the facts and let the people decide, but that'd be dangerous right?

[timosman]

Is the lesson available for purchase on VHS?

I am sorry, we are closed. You need to go home.;)

[UWDude]

Does...

Does this mean we aren't friends anymore?

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8ez5q9vB11r2b0qy.gif

We never were friends, buck-o.

[nikcers]

While we are all distracted by the establishment's divide and conquer tactics.

'Trump will keep his promise to move embassy to Jerusalem' (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/226139)

[CPUd]

While we are all distracted by the establishment's divide and conquer tactics.

Good catch. We must stay vigilant.

[AZJoe]

What it means:

http://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/hqdefault.jpg

[MallsRGood]

If you define MSM as a certain groups of outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc), then yes.

But if you define MSM as "the biggest purveyors of state-slobbering nonsense," then the MSM isn't dying, it's just changing names.

[CPUd]

Thanks to Trump, the New York Times added more subscribers in three months than in all of 2015


WRITTEN BY

Ashley Rodriguez
Zameena Mejia
February 03, 2017


Donald Trump’s war against the media has been good for business at the “failing” New York Times.

The publication, which the US president has mocked on Twitter, as “dishonest” and “fake news,” just posted record subscriber growth on its digital-news platform.

During the last three months of 2016, the Times added 276,000 net digital-only subscribers for its news product, which includes access to NYTimes.com and all NYTimes apps, the company announced (pdf) today. That’s more than the 184,000 net subscribers who signed up for the news organization’s digital editions in the whole of 2015, past earnings releases showed. It also marks the best quarter the New York Times’ digital publication—which currently costs $3.75 a week for basic access—has had since it launched its paywall in 2011, the company said.

The New York Times’ unprecedented growth was reportedly “buoyed by readers’ intense interest in the presidential election,” Sydney Ember, a New York Times media reporter wrote (paywall).

http://i.imgur.com/BVELpSy.png

That increased interest was in spite of repeated shots Trump took at the publication (as well as other mainstream media outlets, including CNN and the Washington Post) during the quarter, for what he called inaccurate coverage of his presidential bid and transition.

...
https://qz.com/901684/thanks-to-trump-the-new-york-times-added-more-subscribers-in-three-months-than-in-all-of-2015/