Newsday Learns An Important Lesson

As pointed out here on the Pulpit, charging people for news is one sure way to get people to stop reading your news. Three months into their own 'pay to read' experiment, Newsday.com has a total of (35) paid subscribers. Yes...THIRTY-FIVE. They paid $4 million to upgrade the site to accept payments, and have made $9,000. Heh. Good riddance. That's the price you pay for not reading the Pulpit Newsday.

Next up: The New York Times.... I'm looking forward to that crash and burn.

Mainstream Media HALL OF DOOM!

Nothing gets people interested in watching TV or reading newspapers & magazines quite the way that impending doom does. Just like clockwork, whenever the mainstream media runs out of legitimate stories (or when the current legit story get stale like, say, an ongoing debacle of a war in Iraq) they will trot out the latest "_This_ will scare the sh*t out of You!!" Story.

So today I inaugurate my new Mainstream Media Hall of Doom (MMHOD). This will be an ongoing collection of current and past "this is really going to ruin your life" themes the media harped on and then promptly forgot as the next juicy story overtook it. You may have forgotten about these yourself, so I will archive them here.

Mainstream Media Hall of Doom (MMHOD)

• Swine Flu Outbreak (2009) Attack of the Sick Pigs!
• Cell Phones and Cancer (2004- current) Boy, *that* was an expensive call
  
• Water Shortage (2003 - Current - Does this mean Water World won't happen??)
• Global Fish Shortage (Current 2008 - Suddenly, food=fear)
• Worldwide Food Shortage (Rice Famine? 2008 "At the end of the day, you will pay the price for being a fussy eater.")
• Colony Collapse disorder (2007 So Long, And Thanks For all The Pollen!!)
  
• Bird Flu (2006-2007)
• Rogue Asteroid Strike (2004)
• SARS (2003)
  
• Terrorism (current)
  
• Global Warming (current)
• Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (1990s -2000's Angry cows on the warpath)
  
• Y2K Glitch (1999)
• Deformed Frogs (1995)
• West Nile Virus (2002-2005 Invasion of the Infected Vampires)
• Satanic Day Care (1980-1990)
• Hole In The Ozone Layer (1985)
• Acid Rain (Late 1980's)
• Global Cooling (1975)
• Population Explosion (late 1960's)
• Commies Are Going To Get Us! (1950s-1980s)
  
• Nuclear Annihilation (1950-1980)

_______________________________________________________________
I have color coded these in the following way:

Green - While it might have been real to some extent, if you never fretted about it, you'd be no worse off
Orange - Maybe you should (or should have) worried a little about this one.
Red - OMG, the Media was right! We're all DOOMED!
Black - An ongoing event (too early to tell...so you'd better worry yourself into an ulcer just to be on the safe side).

Of course, an item's color code will change if the situation warrants.

Originally Posted: 4/24/2008
Last updated: 11/15/2009
_______________________________________________________________

The Death Of (Online) News

Rupert Murdoch announced that all of his News Corp business will being charging for content. Let me be the first to say goodbye to News Corp.

The Financial Times is also floating the same ballon that within the next 12 months "news agencies" (Read: The Financial Times) will begin charging for content as well. At least the FT had a 120 + year run at it. I, personally, am looking forward to watching the prestige and power quickly and quietly drifting away from any news organization who walks this path.

What does all this talk of charging really mean? I think means that news agencies are realizing that the internet bubble of 2000 actually ended. It also means that the current financial crisis is bringing their empires to an abrupt end....and we've just caught a glimpse of the hand they're holding. If they're losing too much money, why not just shut the site down and avoid the embarrassing fade to insignificance? I have a theory....

First, lets take a look at the brief history of news:

1. First there was gossip/rumor
2. Then there was government controlled 'news'
3. Then the free press got in on the game to help form public opinion and foment revolutions...somewhere around the time of the American Revolution (with their pamphlets and all....)
4. Then people started charging pennies for pamphlets to cover their printing costs
5. Weekly/daily newspapers started popping up in populated localities, usually charging enough to cover the business costs
6. Advertising was introduced as a way to "make money" in these newspapers
   
7. Radio came along with no way to charge so the profit/expenses were all covered by advertising (and payola).
   
8. TV came along with the same problem, so the news was given for free (just like radio). It was done at a loss that was made up for by advertising on the 'entertainment' side of the business. This was done because the networks realized the news gave them leverage to use against the government. As a result, TV networks (and to a lesser extent, a few newspapers) gained power as the unelected mouthpiece of a nation, forming public opinion as they wished.
   
9. This bloody internet thing came along (to upset everything) and the established media saw it only as a way to extend their TV/newspaper reach.
10. Magazines and Newspapers get into the game thinking they can charge the same price for their electronic product as their paper product (and it costs almost nothing to distribute). It fails miserably (with few exceptions).
    
11. Everybody is happy with the results until the Great Depression of 2008-?
12. All the established news organizations realize they're going bankrupt because advertisers can't afford to pay the fees anymore. Desperation sets in.
13. People like Murdock float the idea that they'll begin charging everyone for what they used to get for free.

Sounds like a great plan in the midst of a massive global economic depress..err..recession. Day-dreaming of the good the old days won't help the bottom line of News Corp or any of the other faded, fat, greedy news media. If Murdock goes through with his promise, News Corp will quickly be reduced to insignificance.

I predict however that they will quickly change their mind, much like an airline trying to raise airfares by itself, when their page hits drop 99% [On a side note, I can't wait to see the look on a Fox reporter's face when President Obama answers one of the (last) Fox News questions by starting with "You can tell you 15 readers - it is 15 right? or did you guys get a new subscriber in the last week ?- that the reason..."]

But it won't happen, because charging won't happen. Because after all, what mass media is about is power. The power to sway opinion. And it's a power people like Murdock are willing to pay for, even if they have the audacity to try charging you for it.

Rupert and Friends would be smart to remember the Encyclopedia Britannica. Once a proud source of knowledge, for over 200 years, now relegated to a dark, seldom visited corner of the internet/library.

That all happened after this site showed up just 8 years ago: Wikipedia - Much maligned, but still triumphant.

Just wait until you see what the plan is for your kingdom. The free ride might be over, but that doesn't mean people will pay to ride. They might just go back to walking.

I'm Calling Aiko The Robot A Hoax

Everyone is covering this robot story now, it's even on CNN. But I'm going on record and calling this thing a hoax. The thing that really looks fake is when the Aiko's "creator" Le Trung holds up a sheet containing a hand-written algebra problem and the robot provides the answer.

Also the name AIKO apparently translates to "Love Child" (?).

Fake.

"Red State vs. Blue State" Is Designed To Control Your Political Choice

If you haven't figured it out yet, the whole Red vs. Blue concept is a media ploy designed to make you feel that there are only two political choices out there: RED or BLUE.

The truth is, that Red Vs. Blue is the media's own concoction (specifically Tim Russert's) designed to limit the choices they need to cover. They don't have to worry about covering too many political conventions for example, because after all, there's only the Red one and the Blue one.

Resist the media's attempt to dumb down the American political process.

Water Is Added To The MMHOD

Or actually, the lack of water.

MMHOD

12 Years On, America Must Come To Terms With A Stranger In The House

It's hard to believe, but on August 6th JonBenét Ramsey would be turning 18. As a sad irony, her parents and brother were finally cleared of her murder by police just a few weeks before. Until the announcement last week that newly developed Touch DNA had cleared her family, they had lived under a crushing cloud of suspicion and innuendo for nearly 12 years. Sadly, Patsy Ramsey died before she was able to reclaim her good name and position as a victim rather than a murder and/or co-conspirator.

It's interesting to note that the DNA discovered by the newly developed Touch DNA process was not new. It matched DNA found in a standard 1998 DNA test on material that was found on JonBenét's underwear and under her fingernails. All of this DNA matched an unknown male, who is all but certainly her killer.

So now, other than starkly factual reports of the DA's proclamation of innocence, there's a deafening silence from the media. Pundits who either open or subtly accused the Ramseys are noticeably silent.

Perhaps the reason why the world was so quick to pass judgment on John and Patsy Ramsey is that the alternative was just too horrible to comprehend: An unknown, faceless predator entering a big, safe home in the middle of the night to carry out unspeakable horrors, staging a kidnapping (while lurking in the house for what was likely hours) then slipping away in the night while the parents slept. Where is he now? How many more victims have there been? Will there be? How much time have we wasted chasing dead-end leads?

I guess we'll have to wait for that horrible truth to fully sink in before we hear any apologies.

The Baltimore Sun Lives Up To Their Abbreviation

The "BS" shows you can never stoop too low in an effort to sell newspapers.

An eye-catching headline like this is bound to sell some papers:

Illicit guns flow into Maryland: In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported

What difference does it make if that's a completely unsubstantiated claim?

The article, claims that 44% of the guns used in Maryland crimes were from other states, and then continues on to quote various Maryland officials who pat themselves on the back and take credit for the high percentage. Why? Because it clearly shows that Maryland's gun laws are so tough, criminals are going outside the state to buy their guns. Of course they don't take credit for the fact that the majority of guns are still purchased in Maryland. Only politicians have spines so flexible.

But what about that percentage? Turns out, if you actually look at the study(PDF) their story was based on, the facts are oh so different.

The study is based on gun serial number traces. It shows that in Maryland there were 7,517 gun traces (usually by law enforcement) in 2007. Of those, in only 4,397 traces were the ATF able to tell where the gun was originally purchased. Of those, 44% came from a state other than Maryland.

The front page of the study clearly states the following two very important facts the Baltimore Sun doesn't want you to know:

1. Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.
2. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals or any subset of that universe.
   

So how does the BS determine that 44% of guns used in Maryland crimes came from other states when we don't know if any of those guns were used in crimes? And even if they were, the study's own authors (ATF) state that they are in no way, shape or form representative of all firearms used in crimes in Maryland.

So what does that mean about the BS' statement of "In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported"?

The Baltimore Sun completely made that up. Why? The only answer I can come up with is that it supports an agenda either the Baltimore Sun and/or reported Annie Linskey has. There can be no other explanation.

Remember that the next time some 'news' source quotes some statistic. In this case, the BS story was absent any details (or even a link to the source). That should always tell you there's something really wrong with what they're telling you and their only option is to hide the truth from you.