A Thought On News - Making Every Problem Your Problem (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

In hindsight, I should have known talking about the media as I did in the opening post was bound to get political like it did. My mistake.

You mean you didn't?

No.

I meant what I said when I wrote in the opening post, "And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political."

I'd hoped we could keep the topic on the original post "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

We couldn't. And I was part of that problem.

 

[ZADO]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

Thanks. Understood.

I feel like most people here do care about being informed. At least more than "not much". But that's just my perception.

Wanting unbiased news reporting should be a common desire for most people . 1440 is pretty straight down the middle no nonsense reporting , no opinions swaying thoughts , which is great .

 

[Terminalxylem]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

I feel like middle aged and older, wealthier people tend to be more interested in politics. Certainly more of them vote.

Pop culture, not so much.

Which demographic do you believe is most politically involved?

Maybe younger people, college and just out of college.

But I agree with you.

But I don't think FBG demo is wealthier. Do you?

Yes. I think we’re largely college-educated, which correlates with income.

 

[MTskibum]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

I read many of the same topics that are posted in that thread, however I read them on tech/science sites and when i do want to discuss them i post over on tech/science sites and not here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

I read many of the same topics that are posted in that thread, however I read them on tech/science sites and when i do want to discuss them i post over on tech/science sites and not here.

May I ask why not here? We’re not a tech site but plenty of people here are knowledgeable in those areas.

 

[MTskibum]

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd agree people in this forum would merit "not much" for how informed they want to be,

I am simply going off the threads that draw eyeballs and interaction here. It is not current events.

I'll give an example: Artifical Intelligence. Kind of a big deal. Less interesting here than the price of an Egg McMuffin.

This seems self-evident to me. @Nathan R. Jessep has a 5 year old thread with random/interesting stories in it. He posts science developments, non-political items that catch his eye. Lot of cool, non-political stuff. No one is in that thread.

There's two guys posting back and forth in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

This is not an indictment of anyone. People are older. Less interested in new things. Less interested in what's happening beyond their circle, whatever that circle encompasses. Human nature. Humans everywhere, not just here.

I read many of the same topics that are posted in that thread, however I read them on tech/science sites and when i do want to discuss them i post over on tech/science sites and not here.

May I ask why not here? We’re not a tech site but plenty of people here are knowledgeable in those areas.

Usually each of the posts in Nate's science thread is an article with an entire topic of 100+ replies devoted to on various tech sites, It is a different level of discussion.

Depending on the article you usually have people who work in the field posting in the comments.


Edit:
Similar with boating, you have worked in boating and there are numerous people here skilled in various aspects of boat ownership and mechanic ability, over at thehulltruth where i post for boating stuff there are many people there who work in the industry or can just build a boat from the ground up. It is a different level of discussion around boats. Detailed discussion on how to design, choose a material, and then build transoms and stringers, etc

 

[djmich]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Was listening to a podcast recently that sorta hit on this. Basically the answer is you’re not busy enough. Immerse yourself in something productive.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Was listening to a podcast recently that sorta hit on this. Basically the answer is you’re not busy enough. Immerse yourself in something productive.

Truth in this.

 

[Gatorade]

Just to clarify, I am not anti-news and certainly don’t think everyone would be better off if they didn’t pay attention to the news.
I’m just saying that eliminating news consumption from my daily routine has been a net positive for my psyche. YMMV.

And like most things, it's a spectrum. I think the trick is finding the answer to what you asked earlier about how much consumption is enough to stay informed and be a good citizen.

It's been my experience there that the "sweet spot" maybe less consumption than one might think. At some point, there are diminishing returns for the consumption on the scale of how much is actually needed. And of course, "need" is subjective too.

I do follow your line of thinking, getting upset about news can be bad for the psyche and in today's environment there's a lot of things people can get upset about and we're also getting news or maybe I should say "news" from many different sources. On the other hand the vast majority of people are grossly misinformed, partly due to the sources of news, and probably partly due to the amount. So a few soundbites from a bad intentioned or misinformed source will be their primary source for information.

My wife was like this. She would get so upset that she finally had to completely stop watching the news. I fed her little snippets of info now so she stays somewhat informed, but she is much more relaxed now not watching the news.

 

[The Duff Man]

News is a business and so the business side will always influence content.

Not sure what the alternative is: state funded media? NO THANKS (ahem…the Canadian CBC)

 

[Gally]

In hindsight, I should have known talking about the media as I did in the opening post was bound to get political like it did. My mistake.

I am a bit confused on the "no politics" rule. For example, your statement here. I haven't thought that anything in this thread has gotten "political" in a negative way. I see you post that political topics aren't allowed or to keep things away from politics.

I don't think "politics" is the problem or what you are trying to avoid here. I think people getting personal in responses revolving around political views is the problem. Based on that i don't think any topic is inherently bad to discuss but there are some that are so emotionally charged they will turn "bad". So I wonder if there is a different term that should be used instead of "no politics allowed".

This thread has seemed to get hung up on this a bit. I don't think the discussion has been in the forbidden area even though the general "politics" is involved.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I haven't thought that anything in this thread has gotten "political" in a negative way.

Thanks. I appreciate what you're saying but I think others would disagree.

And yes, it's not the actual politics. It's how people respond.

We'll be fine. We've done a good job of keeping things non political since we made the change a while back.

 

[rockaction]

I don't see how this isn't political. His thesis is NPR isn't diverse politically.

Uh, it's totally political. It's not even close to not political. Anything that concentrates on DEI and the disparity of Republican/Democrats on a news staff is political, but I think we can remain neutral about it and let it pass. Joe wanted to post it, and he owns the joint. But it's Bari Weiss for God's sake. That's pure politics.

Gotta say rockaction, that's disappointing to hear. Sadly, it appears this is more and more the norm.

I think maybe you're taking what I said just a touch differently than I meant. I'm pretty sympathetic to people's experiences and such. I just have a hard time imagining that people weren't exposed to intersectionality back about thirty years ago when I was exposed to it. I just need to remember that we all have different life experiences. It's just that identity politics of that sort are what I've argued against for so long I can't remember it ever not being an issue.

Yeah, but . . .

In fairness to everybody else, the terminology was different 30 years ago. I don't think the term "intersectionality" had broken out of the legal literature in the 1990s, for example. The concept was definitely there, but it wasn't called that, so you can understand why people think it's new today. Also, most people maybe encountered this stuff in college, blew it off (the same way they blow off the intermediate value theorem, the Platt Amendment, and all sorts of other stuff that doesn't involve drinking or alcohol), and spent the next 30 years forgetting about it. They didn't get to ride in the passenger seat for multiple decades watching this stuff grow and develop the way that people like you and I did. Our perspectives are different because we marinated in this sort of thing and it's not novel to us.

I do kind of wish people hadn't been so dismissive of this movement, say, ten years ago. ("They're just dumb college kids - they'll grow out of it.") But it's not like persuading a few people in the former PSF would have changed anything.

Hope you are doing well and you come back to entertain and enlighten us again this fall—at the very least in the Shark Pool, IK. You are missed here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't see how this isn't political. His thesis is NPR isn't diverse politically.

Uh, it's totally political. It's not even close to not political. Anything that concentrates on DEI and the disparity of Republican/Democrats on a news staff is political, but I think we can remain neutral about it and let it pass. Joe wanted to post it, and he owns the joint. But it's Bari Weiss for God's sake. That's pure politics.

Gotta say rockaction, that's disappointing to hear. Sadly, it appears this is more and more the norm.

I think maybe you're taking what I said just a touch differently than I meant. I'm pretty sympathetic to people's experiences and such. I just have a hard time imagining that people weren't exposed to intersectionality back about thirty years ago when I was exposed to it. I just need to remember that we all have different life experiences. It's just that identity politics of that sort are what I've argued against for so long I can't remember it ever not being an issue.

Yeah, but . . .

In fairness to everybody else, the terminology was different 30 years ago. I don't think the term "intersectionality" had broken out of the legal literature in the 1990s, for example. The concept was definitely there, but it wasn't called that, so you can understand why people think it's new today. Also, most people maybe encountered this stuff in college, blew it off (the same way they blow off the intermediate value theorem, the Platt Amendment, and all sorts of other stuff that doesn't involve drinking or alcohol), and spent the next 30 years forgetting about it. They didn't get to ride in the passenger seat for multiple decades watching this stuff grow and develop the way that people like you and I did. Our perspectives are different because we marinated in this sort of thing and it's not novel to us.

I do kind of wish people hadn't been so dismissive of this movement, say, ten years ago. ("They're just dumb college kids - they'll grow out of it.") But it's not like persuading a few people in the former PSF would have changed anything.

Hope you are doing well and you come back to entertain and enlighten us again this fall—at the very least in the Shark Pool, IK. You are missed here.

I think the vibe for the forum was frustrating and discouraging. I too hope he returns as I think he makes it better.

Hope you're doing great @IvanKaramazov

 

[dickey moe]

I don't see how this isn't political. His thesis is NPR isn't diverse politically.

Uh, it's totally political. It's not even close to not political. Anything that concentrates on DEI and the disparity of Republican/Democrats on a news staff is political, but I think we can remain neutral about it and let it pass. Joe wanted to post it, and he owns the joint. But it's Bari Weiss for God's sake. That's pure politics.

Gotta say rockaction, that's disappointing to hear. Sadly, it appears this is more and more the norm.

I think maybe you're taking what I said just a touch differently than I meant. I'm pretty sympathetic to people's experiences and such. I just have a hard time imagining that people weren't exposed to intersectionality back about thirty years ago when I was exposed to it. I just need to remember that we all have different life experiences. It's just that identity politics of that sort are what I've argued against for so long I can't remember it ever not being an issue.

Yeah, but . . .

In fairness to everybody else, the terminology was different 30 years ago. I don't think the term "intersectionality" had broken out of the legal literature in the 1990s, for example. The concept was definitely there, but it wasn't called that, so you can understand why people think it's new today. Also, most people maybe encountered this stuff in college, blew it off (the same way they blow off the intermediate value theorem, the Platt Amendment, and all sorts of other stuff that doesn't involve drinking or alcohol), and spent the next 30 years forgetting about it. They didn't get to ride in the passenger seat for multiple decades watching this stuff grow and develop the way that people like you and I did. Our perspectives are different because we marinated in this sort of thing and it's not novel to us.

I do kind of wish people hadn't been so dismissive of this movement, say, ten years ago. ("They're just dumb college kids - they'll grow out of it.") But it's not like persuading a few people in the former PSF would have changed anything.

Hope you are doing well and you come back to entertain and enlighten us again this fall—at the very least in the Shark Pool, IK. You are missed here.

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

 

[Doug B]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Not like IK to disappear- he has bark. Come back @IvanKaramazov !

 

[dgreen]

I assumed he was suspended, but I guess not?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd hoped we could keep the topic on the original post "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

The goal of journalists is to report facts. The goal of social media & “3rd way” media is to cause discord & generate clicks & revenue. And for those companies & bloggers/podcasters/personalities there is no ‘goal’ except activity. There may not even be a problem per se until they’ve created it. That’s it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

Article is restricted. Regardless, what does Bari Weiss possibly advising CBS have to do with my point, of "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

You said this isn't complicated. I don't disagree with that.

Or to the bigger thing, what's your exact point?

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I assumed he was suspended, but I guess not?

No. Not suspended.

 

[uwillbsoon]

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

Article is restricted. Regardless, what does Bari Weiss possibly advising CBS have to do with my point, of "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

You said this isn't complicated. I don't disagree with that.

Or to the bigger thing, what's your exact point?

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Not to speak for him, but Bari Weiss is an example of someone who left traditional media for the more sensationalist "individual" media.

Traditional media typically has quite a firewall between advertising/revenue and the newsroom.

Weiss and others who have gone that route don't. They rely more on their personality and getting attention than traditional media. Their work tends to be more opinionated. (I believe most of her history is in op Ed, anyway, so she's not a fact based reporter, mostly)

Putting her in charge of a traditional media org runs the risk of it mimicking her individual reporting, which would be more sensational and have more of a viewpoint than more journalistic entities

I'm coming at this without any real knowledge of Weiss, so you can probably pick this apart. But I see a significant difference between someone who makes their money as an opinionated individual than someone that's part of a newsroom.

So they move more towards your opinion of media than they normally would.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd hoped we could keep the topic on the original post "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

The goal of journalists is to report facts. The goal of social media & “3rd way” media is to cause discord & generate clicks & revenue. And for those companies & bloggers/podcasters/personalities there is no ‘goal’ except activity. There may not even be a problem per se until they’ve created it. That’s it.

When I was at a newspaper, there was a big, impenetrable wall between advertising and newsroom. That was a lot easier put-investment

That wall didn't exist for

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

Article is restricted. Regardless, what does Bari Weiss possibly advising CBS have to do with my point, of "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

You said this isn't complicated. I don't disagree with that.

Or to the bigger thing, what's your exact point?

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Not to speak for him, but Bari Weiss is an example of someone who left traditional media for the more sensationalist "individual" media.

Traditional media typically has quite a firewall between advertising/revenue and the newsroom.

Weiss and others who have gone that route don't. They rely more on their personality and getting attention than traditional media. Their work tends to be more opinionated. (I believe most of her history is in op Ed, anyway, so she's not a fact based reporter, mostly)

Putting her in charge of a traditional media org runs the risk of it mimicking her individual reporting, which would be more sensational and have more of a viewpoint than more journalistic entities

I'm coming at this without any real knowledge of Weiss, so you can probably pick this apart. But I see a significant difference between someone who makes their money as an opinionated individual than someone that's part of a newsroom.

So they move more towards your opinion of media than they normally would.

This was my thought as well. I do listen to some of her pods, and there are some topics/issues she struggles with being unbiased on - Isreal/Gaza, for example.

That said, i think you will get pushback about how compartmentalized the ads and news are in traditional media. Imo they blur way more in that format vs some how have gone on their own and might depend more on a subscription model.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

I'd hoped we could keep the topic on the original post "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

The goal of journalists is to report facts. The goal of social media & “3rd way” media is to cause discord & generate clicks & revenue. And for those companies & bloggers/podcasters/personalities there is no ‘goal’ except activity. There may not even be a problem per se until they’ve created it. That’s it.

When I was at a newspaper, there was a big, impenetrable wall between advertising and newsroom. That was a lot easier put-investment

That wall didn't exist for

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

Article is restricted. Regardless, what does Bari Weiss possibly advising CBS have to do with my point, of "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

You said this isn't complicated. I don't disagree with that.

Or to the bigger thing, what's your exact point?

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Not to speak for him, but Bari Weiss is an example of someone who left traditional media for the more sensationalist "individual" media.

Traditional media typically has quite a firewall between advertising/revenue and the newsroom.

Weiss and others who have gone that route don't. They rely more on their personality and getting attention than traditional media. Their work tends to be more opinionated. (I believe most of her history is in op Ed, anyway, so she's not a fact based reporter, mostly)

Putting her in charge of a traditional media org runs the risk of it mimicking her individual reporting, which would be more sensational and have more of a viewpoint than more journalistic entities

I'm coming at this without any real knowledge of Weiss, so you can probably pick this apart. But I see a significant difference between someone who makes their money as an opinionated individual than someone that's part of a newsroom.

So they move more towards your opinion of media than they normally would.

This was my thought as well. I do listen to some of her pods, and there are some topics/issues she struggles with being unbiased on - Isreal/Gaza, for example.

That said, i think you will get pushback about how compartmentalized the ads and news are in traditional media. Imo they blur way more in that format vs some how have gone on their own and might depend more on a subscription model.

In the old days his assessment was correct, because advertisers had limited options and the editorial side could afford to say “we will use our news judgment and nothing else” when deciding what to cover and how to cover it. But the economic model that made that happen isn’t sustainable anymore.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd hoped we could keep the topic on the original post "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

The goal of journalists is to report facts. The goal of social media & “3rd way” media is to cause discord & generate clicks & revenue. And for those companies & bloggers/podcasters/personalities there is no ‘goal’ except activity. There may not even be a problem per se until they’ve created it. That’s it.

When I was at a newspaper, there was a big, impenetrable wall between advertising and newsroom. That was a lot easier put-investment

That wall didn't exist for

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

Article is restricted. Regardless, what does Bari Weiss possibly advising CBS have to do with my point, of "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

You said this isn't complicated. I don't disagree with that.

Or to the bigger thing, what's your exact point?

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Not to speak for him, but Bari Weiss is an example of someone who left traditional media for the more sensationalist "individual" media.

Traditional media typically has quite a firewall between advertising/revenue and the newsroom.

Weiss and others who have gone that route don't. They rely more on their personality and getting attention than traditional media. Their work tends to be more opinionated. (I believe most of her history is in op Ed, anyway, so she's not a fact based reporter, mostly)

Putting her in charge of a traditional media org runs the risk of it mimicking her individual reporting, which would be more sensational and have more of a viewpoint than more journalistic entities

I'm coming at this without any real knowledge of Weiss, so you can probably pick this apart. But I see a significant difference between someone who makes their money as an opinionated individual than someone that's part of a newsroom.

So they move more towards your opinion of media than they normally would.

This was my thought as well. I do listen to some of her pods, and there are some topics/issues she struggles with being unbiased on - Isreal/Gaza, for example.

That said, i think you will get pushback about how compartmentalized the ads and news are in traditional media. Imo they blur way more in that format vs some how have gone on their own and might depend more on a subscription model.

In the old days his assessment was correct, because advertisers had limited options and the editorial side could afford to say “we will use our news judgment and nothing else” when deciding what to cover and how to cover it. But the economic model that made that happen isn’t sustainable anymore.

Very fair. I think in an ideal world we would have that separation, but IMO the lobbies and big sponsors of ads have too much power now. In theory if somebody broke off with a subscription type format with the promise of delivering balanced, fact-based news that would be more likely to succeed in 2025. If they didn't deliver on that, the subscriptions would go down. Again, in theory.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

I'd hoped we could keep the topic on the original post "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

The goal of journalists is to report facts. The goal of social media & “3rd way” media is to cause discord & generate clicks & revenue. And for those companies & bloggers/podcasters/personalities there is no ‘goal’ except activity. There may not even be a problem per se until they’ve created it. That’s it.

When I was at a newspaper, there was a big, impenetrable wall between advertising and newsroom. That was a lot easier put-investment

That wall didn't exist for

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

Article is restricted. Regardless, what does Bari Weiss possibly advising CBS have to do with my point, of "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

You said this isn't complicated. I don't disagree with that.

Or to the bigger thing, what's your exact point?

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Not to speak for him, but Bari Weiss is an example of someone who left traditional media for the more sensationalist "individual" media.

Traditional media typically has quite a firewall between advertising/revenue and the newsroom.

Weiss and others who have gone that route don't. They rely more on their personality and getting attention than traditional media. Their work tends to be more opinionated. (I believe most of her history is in op Ed, anyway, so she's not a fact based reporter, mostly)

Putting her in charge of a traditional media org runs the risk of it mimicking her individual reporting, which would be more sensational and have more of a viewpoint than more journalistic entities

I'm coming at this without any real knowledge of Weiss, so you can probably pick this apart. But I see a significant difference between someone who makes their money as an opinionated individual than someone that's part of a newsroom.

So they move more towards your opinion of media than they normally would.

This was my thought as well. I do listen to some of her pods, and there are some topics/issues she struggles with being unbiased on - Isreal/Gaza, for example.

That said, i think you will get pushback about how compartmentalized the ads and news are in traditional media. Imo they blur way more in that format vs some how have gone on their own and might depend more on a subscription model.

In the old days his assessment was correct, because advertisers had limited options and the editorial side could afford to say “we will use our news judgment and nothing else” when deciding what to cover and how to cover it. But the economic model that made that happen isn’t sustainable anymore.

Very fair. I think in an ideal world we would have that separation, but IMO the lobbies and big sponsors of ads have too much power now. In theory if somebody broke off with a subscription type format with the promise of delivering balanced, fact-based news that would be more likely to succeed in 2025. If they didn't deliver on that, the subscriptions would go down. Again, in theory.

Most people won’t pay to read internet content. This habit started in part because in the early years of the internet, newspapers put all of their content online for free, never imagining that it would overtake the print edition as their main product.

Entities like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal can make money off paywalled content because of their brand and the demographics of their readers, but most can’t.

 

[MAC_32]

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

3 years ago this was a topic that was discussed in the PSF, not the FFA. It's only here now because that other place was shut down. But if we want to discuss its contents here egg shells must be walked on.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd hoped we could keep the topic on the original post "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

The goal of journalists is to report facts. The goal of social media & “3rd way” media is to cause discord & generate clicks & revenue. And for those companies & bloggers/podcasters/personalities there is no ‘goal’ except activity. There may not even be a problem per se until they’ve created it. That’s it.

When I was at a newspaper, there was a big, impenetrable wall between advertising and newsroom. That was a lot easier put-investment

That wall didn't exist for

A thought from the "Make the forum better" thread https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/how-can-the-forum-be-better-your-thoughts.812250/

And I know some folks think the forum would be better with political talk back but we're not going to do that. And please don't make this non political thought political.

Naval Ravikant is a famous guy I like. One of his lines is "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

I think that's 100% true. The news feels important because it's often about important stuff and has a long history. But it's really a TV show. And like any TV show, they need interest.

The way the news spins that is making problems personal. A local bank was robbed in Oklahoma City? If you live in Brooklyn, that probably doesn't affect you that much. But if you're not affected, you're not interested. So the people delivering the news have to figure out how to make you care. And they do that by making it your problem.

Well Joe I thought you might be interested to know Bari Weiss is being brought in with Sky News to oversee content at the new CBS.

This isn’t complicated. Follow professional journalists. That’s it, that’s the whole thing when it comes to your whole ‘who to trust’ conundrum.

And I realize you’re saying you’re being non-political by saying you’re being non-political. But you’re being political right now. As Rush once said, even you’ve made no choice, you still have made a choice.

Salud.

Article is restricted. Regardless, what does Bari Weiss possibly advising CBS have to do with my point, of "The goal of the media is to make every problem, your problem."

You said this isn't complicated. I don't disagree with that.

Or to the bigger thing, what's your exact point?

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Not to speak for him, but Bari Weiss is an example of someone who left traditional media for the more sensationalist "individual" media.

Traditional media typically has quite a firewall between advertising/revenue and the newsroom.

Weiss and others who have gone that route don't. They rely more on their personality and getting attention than traditional media. Their work tends to be more opinionated. (I believe most of her history is in op Ed, anyway, so she's not a fact based reporter, mostly)

Putting her in charge of a traditional media org runs the risk of it mimicking her individual reporting, which would be more sensational and have more of a viewpoint than more journalistic entities

I'm coming at this without any real knowledge of Weiss, so you can probably pick this apart. But I see a significant difference between someone who makes their money as an opinionated individual than someone that's part of a newsroom.

So they move more towards your opinion of media than they normally would.

This was my thought as well. I do listen to some of her pods, and there are some topics/issues she struggles with being unbiased on - Isreal/Gaza, for example.

That said, i think you will get pushback about how compartmentalized the ads and news are in traditional media. Imo they blur way more in that format vs some how have gone on their own and might depend more on a subscription model.

In the old days his assessment was correct, because advertisers had limited options and the editorial side could afford to say “we will use our news judgment and nothing else” when deciding what to cover and how to cover it. But the economic model that made that happen isn’t sustainable anymore.

Very fair. I think in an ideal world we would have that separation, but IMO the lobbies and big sponsors of ads have too much power now. In theory if somebody broke off with a subscription type format with the promise of delivering balanced, fact-based news that would be more likely to succeed in 2025. If they didn't deliver on that, the subscriptions would go down. Again, in theory.

Most people won’t pay to read internet content. This habit started in part because in the early years of the internet, newspapers put all of their content online for free, never imagining that it would overtake the print edition as their main product.

Entities like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal can make money off paywalled content because of their brand and the demographics of their readers, but most can’t.

You are probably right here. I guess what I had in mind was podcasts that broke off since I listen to too many of those, but that is part ads/part subscription options for perks. If I remember right, Weiss' The Free Press is similar for their site? You can upgrade to paid for more content and the ability to comment - that type of model. Not purely subscription.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Are you folks suggesting mainstream media

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

You folks maybe read more and closer than me but I don't remember that with @IvanKaramazov. He has strong opinions on some things but I found his posts to be thoughtful. Not toward a less rational or extremist side.

 

[MAC_32]

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

I could not disagree more with this statement and don't even know where to start in rebutting.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

You folks maybe read more and closer than me but I don't remember that with @IvanKaramazov. He has strong opinions on some things but I found his posts to be thoughtful. Not toward a less rational or extremist side.

I think this thread is a good example.

He bought hook line and sinker into the "the Olympics are an attack on Christianity" narrative that was driven by an intentionally out of context ragebait screengrab that went viral on social media and was then picked up by the "news".

When presented with the full video that clearly shows it was an intentionally misleading screenshot meant only to stir up rage everyone else backed off, while he instead doubled down on the talking head talking points. accusing everyone else of gaslighting and not having an honest discussion for objectively looking at a video that seemed to pretty clearly debunk the ragebait.

There was more and more of that kind of thing in the following months as he bragged that he had found and curated a perfect Twitter news feed of infallible news sources but consistently refused to say who any of them were.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There was more and more of that kind of thing in the following months as he bragged that he had found and curated a perfect Twitter news feed of infallible news sources but consistently refused to say who any of them were.

Thanks. I don't remember anything about infallible news sources. But I also didn't follow things maybe as closely as others.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Article is restricted.

Fwiw this is the full article.

(Unfortunately the software only allows 1000 characters? Why? We have no idea.).

Spoiler

CBS in Distress: Colbert’s Exit & The Rhodes-Weiss Era​

As Paramount prepares to remake itself, David Rhodes has emerged as a likely successor at CBS News, possibly advised by Bari Weiss. And company insiders suggest that the Colbert cancellation was purely economic, but is that buyable?


Everyone in town seems to be talking about Stephen Colbert’s impending exit from CBS—and whether His Orangeness is ultimately behind the cancellation of The Late Show. I’ll get to that. But first, a big behind-the-scenes name may be about to join the company.

David Rhodes, the onetime CBS News head and current executive at Sky in the U.K., is in talks to take over CBS News if/when the Skydance acquisition of Paramount closes, per three sources familiar with the negotiations. As with all of these things, talks could still fall apart. But if David Ellison and his Skydance team sign Rhodes and close a pending deal to acquire The Free Press, the center-right media brand founded by Bari Weiss, the plan would call for Rhodes to manage and operate CBS News day-to-day alongside Weiss as an ideological guide of sorts. (Skydance declined to comment. Rhodes didn’t respond when I DM’d him.)

Are you surprised? The Rhodes negotiation is a closely held secret within the Skydance-RedBird acquisition team (or so they thought), but he kinda represents the perfect mix of what Ellison seems to want at CBS News: a credible centrist journalism manager who can handle the idiosyncrasies of CBS (there are many) and likely won’t cause an exodus of talent, but will also signal to Donald Trump, F.C.C. chair Brendan Carr, and many Republican skeptics that the overseer of 60 Minutes at least has conservative bona fides on his résumé. Rhodes, who is currently executive chair of Sky News, ran CBS News from 2011 through 2019. Before that, he worked at Fox News for 12 years, albeit running the news shows, not the opinion programming. (That was back in the ’90s and 2000s under Roger Ailes, when there was a much clearer distinction.) Before joining Sky, Rhodes also worked for the Murdochs on media initiatives in the U.K. His name came up in the speculation around who would take over CNN after Chris Licht was ousted in 2023. (His brother is Ben Rhodes, the former top Obama aide.)

Given the size of Sky News, I could see how running CBS News, if the deal comes together, might seem like a step down. But Rhodes is American, the CBS News brand still matters a great deal here, and the ambition (and checkbook) of the Ellisons may be especially appealing. Plus, things didn’t end great for Rhodes during his first stint at CBS News—ratings were falling and he had to fire star anchor Charlie Rose after Rose was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. Rhodes also caught heat for replacing Scott Pelley at CBS Evening News with Jeff Glor, who lasted only two years before being chased to a weekend slot by Norah O’Donnell. Some talent at CBS News found Rhodes awkward in the role, and he had a few clashes with the 60 Minutes team, according to sources.

But that was then, and Ellison, who I’m told has met personally with Rhodes, believes he possesses the even-keeled temperament to steer the plane through the current turbulence and balance Weiss, who can be… less even-keeled. And that’s the ultimate question, here: How would a Rhodes-Weiss partnership work? Would she consult broadly on overall coverage strategy, or sit in morning news meetings and suggest specific story ideas? Would she appear on 60 Minutes? Bigfoot experienced news executives? CBS News has been tossed and turned by the Trump litigation and the concessions forced upon it by this Paramount sale—which isn’t over, by the way. And like I said, CBS News is a particularly prickly operation, with a current president, Tom Cibrowski, who is experienced and trusted internally. Bringing in a new leader is never easy, but it would be doubly complicated by adding Weiss, who carries an explicit ideological perspective.

The Colbert Conundrum​

Speaking of complicated: Today’s announcement that CBS will end Late Show With Stephen Colbert at the end of the 2026 season came as a shock to you, me, and those who’ve worked on the program for years. Paramount co-C.E.O. George Cheeks pulled the trigger on this one, though sources tell me CBS executives have been discussing the future of the Late Show franchise for months. The Colbert team was notified around July Fourth that the show was in jeopardy, and Colbert himself was told of the final decision last night. CBS did not plan to announce the move so soon, per sources, but Colbert decided that to avoid leaks, he wanted to reveal it this afternoon to his staff and discuss it on his show tonight, which he did. You can tell from the clips he’s still kinda in shock, and backstage, I’m told he was resolute and matter-of-fact with his top staff, thanking them and “not angry, actually,” per one source in the Ed Sullivan Theater.

For those keeping track of Paramount merger politics, Cheeks did not consult Ellison, Jeff Shell, or the incoming Skydance team in advance. Canceling a money-losing program does not rise to the level of a “material decision” that must be run by the new regime, and Late Show has been losing more than $40 million a year for CBS (though that doesn’t include some ancillary revenue). While the show still garners an average of 2.47 million viewers a night, leads its 11:35 rivals in total audience, and just this week scored its ninth consecutive Emmy nomination for outstanding talk/variety series, its ad revenue has plummeted precipitously since the 2021-22 season.

Linear ratings are down everywhere, of course, and as the Times reported, the network late-night shows took in $439 million combined in ad revenue in 2018. By last year, though, that figure had dropped by 50 percent. Measure that against the more than $100 million per season it costs to produce Late Show. By contrast, the CBS primetime and daytime dayparts are still profitable, and that programming is supported by robust license fees for streaming and other off-network viewing. Late Show, with its topical humor and celebrity interviews pegged to specific projects, has struggled on Paramount+. And of the three network late-night shows, Late Show has by far the smallest digital footprint on YouTube and other platforms.

So from a business perspective, the cancellation makes sense, and Cheeks and his underlings said in a carefully worded press release that “it is not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.” But… nothing is just business these days, right? Only three days ago, Colbert unleashed on his parent company for paying a $16 million “big fat bribe” to settle the Trump 60 Minutes litigation. And Colbert, who initially struggled on CBS before rising to first place after he positioned Late Show as a key voice of the Trump 1.0 resistance, regularly attacks the president and often hosts fire-breathing left-wing guests like Sen. Adam Schiff and the Pod Save America guys. If Trump has an enemies list, Colbert is on it.

The president himself has said there are additional conditions attached to the settlement of the 60 Minutes litigation (though Paramount has denied that), and we know Ellison and Trump have spoken privately about the transaction at two separate UFC matches. So it’s beyond fair to ask whether Colbert is simply another slab of sacrificial lamb tossed to Trump and Carr to get this $8 billion deal approved.

[spoiler

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Hi Joe - I always feel like I need to preface things - Joe, I love this site, what you have built here, the people, the community. I came for the football (I read this site and the SP for 2 years before I even joined the forums), stayed for the beer and Q. And I think what you did with the PSF was absolutely the right thing to do.

Ok, my thoughts with total respect and appreciation being stated: you confuse partisanship (& its rancor) with politics. Subjects like the Epstein files, the political assassination in MN, the occasional mass shootings we have in this country, health care, etc etc, end up with discussions here which are basically the meme of the Hot Dog Guy (from Arrested Development?) hands outstretched saying 'We're doing everything we can to find the culprit.'

This particular subject - who can you trust in the press/media? - was long brewing on the internet before yes it was converted into an explicitly political subject. Misinformation, disinformation, & distrust of "the media" is an explicitly political subject today. It's inherently so. As is what is meant by the "the media". If I unpacked that, well (see above) that would be being political.

Much love, admiration, respect. Wishes of health, wealth and time to enjoy them, to you, Joe, and all here. -SID

 

[Joe Bryant]

For the forum here, exactly what is the quote here that you think is me "being political right now"?

Hi Joe - I always feel like I need to preface things - Joe, I love this site, what you have built here, the people, the community. I came for the football (I read this site and the SP for 2 years before I even joined the forums), stayed for the beer and Q. And I think what you did with the PSF was absolutely the right thing to do.

Ok, my thoughts with total respect and appreciation being stated: you confuse partisanship (& its rancor) with politics. Subjects like the Epstein files, the political assassination in MN, the occasional mass shootings we have in this country, health care, etc etc, end up with discussions here which are basically the meme of the Hot Dog Guy (from Arrested Development?) hands outstretched saying 'We're doing everything we can to find the culprit.'

This particular subject - who can you trust in the press/media? - was long brewing on the internet before yes it was converted into an explicitly political subject. Misinformation, disinformation, & distrust of "the media" is an explicitly political subject today. It's inherently so. As is what is meant by the "the media". If I unpacked that, well (see above) that would be being political.

Much love, admiration, respect. Wishes of health, wealth and time to enjoy them, to you, Joe, and all here. -SID

Thank you @SaintsInDome2006 for explaining your opinion more. I don't see it quite that way but I appreciate that you do - thanks for taking the time to explain.

Also, for me on the forums, I have the (what I think is a crappy) job of trying to determine what is political and what's not. I realize some would love us to have everything available including obviously political topics. Some might rather have the forum be only music and book drafts. I've decided to try and keep the political (and partisan, of course there's a difference) things mostly out. But not kill the forum. And I fully accept I don't do either very well. But we try.

Thanks for the insights and all the best to you and everyone here as well.

 

[fatness]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

You folks maybe read more and closer than me but I don't remember that with @IvanKaramazov. He has strong opinions on some things but I found his posts to be thoughtful. Not toward a less rational or extremist side.

I think this thread is a good example.

He bought hook line and sinker into the "the Olympics are an attack on Christianity" narrative that was driven by an intentionally out of context ragebait screengrab that went viral on social media and was then picked up by the "news".

When presented with the full video that clearly shows it was an intentionally misleading screenshot meant only to stir up rage everyone else backed off, while he instead doubled down on the talking head talking points. accusing everyone else of gaslighting and not having an honest discussion for objectively looking at a video that seemed to pretty clearly debunk the ragebait.

There was more and more of that kind of thing in the following months as he bragged that he had found and curated a perfect Twitter news feed of infallible news sources but consistently refused to say who any of them were.

This thread in December 2024 is the one that made it obvious to me that either his views had changed or, more likely, that he just wasn't going to be restrained in posting extreme views any more. He was accusing people in the forum of wanting to shoot him in the back. That, and posting something from from 2017 which he claimed was "receipts" he'd been saving to show how awful some people on the forum were. If someone's saving "receipts" for 7 years they're in what they feel is a war.

 

[rockaction]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

He would “never share,” huh? Oh, you mean never share like this from Nov. 17, 2024?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sure. Here are some folks who I feel fairly comfortable recommending. My criteria for following somebody is they need to post interesting stuff, in good faith, hopefully with a sense of humor. I don't like people who just post on one or two topics incessantly, and I don't like people who are overly negative. For example, I basically agree with @wesyang on the topics he posts about, but it's just too much.

I'll break this down into people who I see as more or less on my side ("red team," very loosely speaking) and bubble-busters ("blue team," very loosely speaking). My "red team" people would have mostly voted for Trump this last time around, but only a handful of them actually belong to team MAGA, and about as many were Harris voters. A few of them are barely even 51% aligned with me but I like them so keep them on the "good guys" list. I put these in alpha order so nobody can nitpick, and there are probably typos:
@asymmetricinfo
@bonchieredstate
@eigenrobot
@fischerking64
@gummibear737
@janecoaston
@neoavatara
@neontaster
@pegobry_en
@pmarca
@politicalmath
@thomaschatwill
@tyler_a_harper
@wanyeburkett
@wil_da_beast630

Here are accounts that I like as bubble-busters. I have lower standards for these accounts. Specifically, I don't mind if they're not funny, and I don't mind a little bit of Yglesias-style bad faith argumentation as long as they aren't pushing outright misinformation in my TL. I'm just looking for high-quality avatars for "the other side."
@armanddoma
@besttrousers
@briannawu (seriously)
@daveweigel
@dilanesper (this is a tiny account, but I highly recommend it)
@jamessurowiecki
@jbarro
@jdcmedlock
@jonathanchait
@mattyglesias
@noahpinion - Ivan Karamazov, “Official Twitter Thread” Nov. 17, 2024, Page 27, forums.footballguys.com
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’d think that when somebody goes to shovel metaphorical dirt on somebody’s metaphorical grave, they’d have a clue about their assertions. I knew to go looking for this because he’d been saying he’d tell people, seemed proud of it, and then told people!!! OMG!!! Extremist!!

Oh, and I’m on Twitter. These guys are almost all center-left fellows. Of the others I know, Gummi Bear, Wanye Burkett, @thomaschatwill, and @eigenrobot are certainly not, but they aren’t extreme. At all. The only one here that I know of that I’d not feel entirely comfortable recommending to my work superiors is @eigenrobot, and his account is probably the most intelligently put-together out of all these “alphas.”

When Ivan describes the ones below the “alphas” as “the other side,” I guess it depends if you’re a progressive that hates the center-left more than the right, but that’s not for IK to account for. That’s for others to account for. They are all left of the center. For sure.

 

[rockaction]

1) @FreeBaGeL

I knew IK specifically listed who he followed. You were just wrong and there’s the proof. What I just looked up took me a search of “Twitter feed” and putting IK’s name into the search function and just clicking a few times and following the argument for a page or two on what the search engine gave me. This was NOT difficult.

Don’t even bother responding to that because I’m not getting sucked into a fight. Just take being utterly wrong and shut up.

2) The other guy I don’t ever want in my feed so I’m not going to tell him why he’s wrong or even rebut it because when you don’t understand hyperbole or what the words mean when they don’t mean what you think they mean when they actually mean something else then there’s no point in any of it, especially when you've tried with the guy in the past, too. It’s just . . . I don’t know. I guess everybody has their lives and reasoning.

I miss IK. Too bad people are just wrong and foolish.

eta* Ignore #2. The mods deleted his post or he did. It's irrelevant now.

 

[rockaction]

Reading this page angers me. The condescension, snark, and error-filled postings are so maddening. To turn someone vibrant and intelligent into an invented caricature is an awful and thoughtless deed, especially when that person isn’t here to defend himself and might come back and have to read this garbage.

I mean, who does this?

eta* I'm glad one of the posts disappeared and the other one that at least attempted to be factual in some (erroneous) way was left up for posterity's sake. I appreciate that and it deserves a thank you and an acknowledgment of what I think is good moderation. Thank you.

 

[MAC_32]

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

I could not disagree more with this statement and don't even know where to start in rebutting.

Thank you for the due diligence @rockaction

I like to think not much gets under my skin, but flagrant and blatantly false character assassination of those that have a view from a different lens are a trigger. They aren't at the top of what is wrong with our society, but it's up there. A part of me wants to scream be better, another part of me knows it's a waste of energy, so channel it on those that are worthwhile and not on those that aren't.

 

[rockaction]

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

I could not disagree more with this statement and don't even know where to start in rebutting.

Thank you for the due diligence @rockaction

I like to think not much gets under my skin, but flagrant and blatantly false character assassination of those that have a view from a different lens are a trigger. They aren't at the top of what is wrong with our society, but it's up there. A part of me wants to scream be better, another part of me knows it's a waste of energy, so channel it on those that are worthwhile and not on those that aren't.

I agree with you. I just think that it's a waste of energy but watching people like this totally avoid (when I've @tted) any sort of responsibility for stuff like this makes me want to shout it from the rooftops and just go into every thread the guy's in and let him know about it in no uncertain terms. And there was another guy who was piling on that took something that was completely potentially either true or, if not, almost certainly hyperbolic (it was either, actually—it was IK saying that faculty at his school would pull the trigger on him if they knew his views, which, if you know faculty members could either be a true assessment or wry irony, but either way I'd give him the benefit of the doubt given that he's been even-keeled for the entire decade I was on the board, often painstakingly explaining to people what was up) and attributing it to some sort of hysteria on the "extremist" IK's part. No wonder he left the board.

Indeed, if you read this thread I'm hopefully about to link below, you'll see who the hysterical declarations are made by, who is correcting them, and who wound up correct in the grand scheme of things. It's pretty easy to see it. I'll post this and true to find the thread. It's perfect. It's IK consistently being calm and correct (and me being calmly correct once). It's bizarre that this is extremism. Anybody reading this with a clear head will tell you differently.

https://forums.footballguys.com/threads/disney-self-government-status.803922/post-23996119

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

He would “never share,” huh? Oh, you mean never share like this from Nov. 17, 2024?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sure. Here are some folks who I feel fairly comfortable recommending. My criteria for following somebody is they need to post interesting stuff, in good faith, hopefully with a sense of humor. I don't like people who just post on one or two topics incessantly, and I don't like people who are overly negative. For example, I basically agree with @wesyang on the topics he posts about, but it's just too much.

I'll break this down into people who I see as more or less on my side ("red team," very loosely speaking) and bubble-busters ("blue team," very loosely speaking). My "red team" people would have mostly voted for Trump this last time around, but only a handful of them actually belong to team MAGA, and about as many were Harris voters. A few of them are barely even 51% aligned with me but I like them so keep them on the "good guys" list. I put these in alpha order so nobody can nitpick, and there are probably typos:
@asymmetricinfo
@bonchieredstate
@eigenrobot
@fischerking64
@gummibear737
@janecoaston
@neoavatara
@neontaster
@pegobry_en
@pmarca
@politicalmath
@thomaschatwill
@tyler_a_harper
@wanyeburkett
@wil_da_beast630

Here are accounts that I like as bubble-busters. I have lower standards for these accounts. Specifically, I don't mind if they're not funny, and I don't mind a little bit of Yglesias-style bad faith argumentation as long as they aren't pushing outright misinformation in my TL. I'm just looking for high-quality avatars for "the other side."
@armanddoma
@besttrousers
@briannawu (seriously)
@daveweigel
@dilanesper (this is a tiny account, but I highly recommend it)
@jamessurowiecki
@jbarro
@jdcmedlock
@jonathanchait
@mattyglesias
@noahpinion - Ivan Karamazov, “Official Twitter Thread” Nov. 17, 2024, Page 27, forums.footballguys.com
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’d think that when somebody goes to shovel metaphorical dirt on somebody’s metaphorical grave, they’d have a clue about their assertions. I knew to go looking for this because he’d been saying he’d tell people, seemed proud of it, and then told people!!! OMG!!! Extremist!!

Oh, and I’m on Twitter. These guys are almost all center-left fellows. Of the others I know, Gummi Bear, Wanye Burkett, @thomaschatwill, and @eigenrobot are certainly not, but they aren’t extreme. At all. The only one here that I know of that I’d not feel entirely comfortable recommending to my work superiors is @eigenrobot, and his account is probably the most intelligently put-together out of all these “alphas.”

When Ivan describes the ones below the “alphas” as “the other side,” I guess it depends if you’re a progressive that hates the center-left more than the right, but that’s not for IK to account for. That’s for others to account for. They are all left of the center. For sure.

Appreciate you posting the list. I honestly never saw that. I had moved on by that point after he was directly asked many times in that thread and the Gaza thread and wouldn't give it up. But he eventually did list them as you've shown, so I will take the L there. My bad.

My intent was not character assassination. I did not mean for it to come off that way. My intent was to illustrate the point of the thread and how it has gotten a piece of all of us. It is a massive problem in society right now and I am no more immune to it than anyone else. When this thread popped up my first thought was IK's out of character responses in that olympics thread, which came not long after he had repeatedly bragged about his new golden alternate news sources, which even at the time to me had me thinking about the subject matter of this thread.

So then when he was name dropped specifically in here I decided to share the connection and how I thought it related. Did not intend to disparage, IK is obviously an all-time great poster here who had usually kept his cool and rationale better than anyone, which makes it all the more relevant because it's hitting all of us.

Not sure if you read the thread I linked and watched the video, but I think it's a strong example of what's being talked about in this thread. In that sense I mean it as a compliment of sorts, that even the historically very rational and even-keeled IK is susceptible to it. By the time the video was posted that shows it was CLEARLY an intentionally out of context screen grab meant to rile people up, he was so far down his news feed of being riled up by it that to him anyone even trying to put it in the proper context was just a gaslighter unwilling to have an honest discussion about what was an obvious afront to Christianity (paraphrased, but mostly his own words there).

He seemed very offput and offended by the whole discussion, which seemed to be happening more often, which is why it didn't seem as surprising when he disappeared. He seemed to more often not be enjoying the discussions like he used to.

Regardless, not really sure what you want here as you told me not to reply so we avoided a back and forth, and then a few days later disparaged me for not replying. I tend to bow out of these kind of threads when they get political or tt-for-tatty in respect to JB's moderation efforts, so I let it drop (as I have with others in the past) until I was called out specifically to reply, so again I'll let it go in respect to JB. But if you want to continue, happy to do it via DM. Apologies if I got anyone riled up.

 

[rockaction]

Yeah I wonder what happened to IK. Wonder what pushed him over the edge to leave... hopefully it's temporary.

He was posting prolifically his last few weeks here, up until January 26 of this year. There was no tapering off of post frequency. There were also no obvious bitter arguments or “take my ball and go home” moments in his last week or so (though such posts could have been deleted). I would say there is some cause for personal concern, though we have little information to go on.

I don't know for sure, but there was quite a bit of frustration on his part with the forum. Some of those frustrations were ones I felt also.

I think IK is kind of the epitome of this thread. A very rational guy for years, he bragged that he found "true" news sources through a finely curated Twitter feed, that he would never share, as his takes continued further and further towards the less rational and more soundbite driven, extremist side of things.

I would imagine he's moved on to somewhere more in line with his new feed-driven view on things.

He would “never share,” huh? Oh, you mean never share like this from Nov. 17, 2024?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sure. Here are some folks who I feel fairly comfortable recommending. My criteria for following somebody is they need to post interesting stuff, in good faith, hopefully with a sense of humor. I don't like people who just post on one or two topics incessantly, and I don't like people who are overly negative. For example, I basically agree with @wesyang on the topics he posts about, but it's just too much.

I'll break this down into people who I see as more or less on my side ("red team," very loosely speaking) and bubble-busters ("blue team," very loosely speaking). My "red team" people would have mostly voted for Trump this last time around, but only a handful of them actually belong to team MAGA, and about as many were Harris voters. A few of them are barely even 51% aligned with me but I like them so keep them on the "good guys" list. I put these in alpha order so nobody can nitpick, and there are probably typos:
@asymmetricinfo
@bonchieredstate
@eigenrobot
@fischerking64
@gummibear737
@janecoaston
@neoavatara
@neontaster
@pegobry_en
@pmarca
@politicalmath
@thomaschatwill
@tyler_a_harper
@wanyeburkett
@wil_da_beast630

Here are accounts that I like as bubble-busters. I have lower standards for these accounts. Specifically, I don't mind if they're not funny, and I don't mind a little bit of Yglesias-style bad faith argumentation as long as they aren't pushing outright misinformation in my TL. I'm just looking for high-quality avatars for "the other side."
@armanddoma
@besttrousers
@briannawu (seriously)
@daveweigel
@dilanesper (this is a tiny account, but I highly recommend it)
@jamessurowiecki
@jbarro
@jdcmedlock
@jonathanchait
@mattyglesias
@noahpinion - Ivan Karamazov, “Official Twitter Thread” Nov. 17, 2024, Page 27, forums.footballguys.com
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You’d think that when somebody goes to shovel metaphorical dirt on somebody’s metaphorical grave, they’d have a clue about their assertions. I knew to go looking for this because he’d been saying he’d tell people, seemed proud of it, and then told people!!! OMG!!! Extremist!!

Oh, and I’m on Twitter. These guys are almost all center-left fellows. Of the others I know, Gummi Bear, Wanye Burkett, @thomaschatwill, and @eigenrobot are certainly not, but they aren’t extreme. At all. The only one here that I know of that I’d not feel entirely comfortable recommending to my work superiors is @eigenrobot, and his account is probably the most intelligently put-together out of all these “alphas.”

When Ivan describes the ones below the “alphas” as “the other side,” I guess it depends if you’re a progressive that hates the center-left more than the right, but that’s not for IK to account for. That’s for others to account for. They are all left of the center. For sure.

Appreciate you posting the list. I honestly never saw that. I had moved on by that point after he was directly asked many times in that thread and the Gaza thread and wouldn't give it up. But he eventually did list them as you've shown, so I will take the L there. My bad.

My intent was not character assassination. I did not mean for it to come off that way. My intent was to illustrate the point of the thread and how it has gotten a piece of all of us. It is a massive problem in society right now and I am no more immune to it than anyone else. When this thread popped up my first thought was IK's out of character responses in that olympics thread, which came not long after he had repeatedly bragged about his new golden alternate news sources, which even at the time to me had me thinking about the subject matter of this thread.

So then when he was name dropped specifically in here I decided to share the connection and how I thought it related. Did not intend to disparage, IK is obviously an all-time great poster here who had usually kept his cool and rationale better than anyone, which makes it all the more relevant because it's hitting all of us.

Not sure if you read the thread I linked and watched the video, but I think it's a strong example of what's being talked about in this thread. In that sense I mean it as a compliment of sorts, that even the historically very rational and even-keeled IK is susceptible to it. By the time the video was posted that shows it was CLEARLY an intentionally out of context screen grab meant to rile people up, he was so far down his news feed of being riled up by it that to him anyone even trying to put it in the proper context was just a gaslighter unwilling to have an honest discussion about what was an obvious afront to Christianity (paraphrased, but mostly his own words there).

He seemed very offput and offended by the whole discussion, which seemed to be happening more often, which is why it didn't seem as surprising when he disappeared. He seemed to more often not be enjoying the discussions like he used to.

Regardless, not really sure what you want here as you told me not to reply so we avoided a back and forth, and then a few days later disparaged me for not replying. I tend to bow out of these kind of threads when they get political or tt-for-tatty in respect to JB's moderation efforts, so I let it drop (as I have with others in the past) until I was called out specifically to reply, so again I'll let it go in respect to JB. But if you want to continue, happy to do it via DM. Apologies if I got anyone riled up.

Hey Free, you’re right. I did say don’t bother. I should read my own stuff. My apologies. I am sorry. I think you coming in here and saying this is plenty, and it shows you’re not acting in any sort of bad faith but maybe made a mistake like any of us could have made (and that I do make at times). I think it takes some wherewithal and guts to apologize, and I appreciate it.

I did see the original thread and wondered about the dinner painting also, but I never really got involved with the thread. I cannot speak for IK, but I note what he said, how it went, and that he didn’t really budge.

I don’t know his reasoning but your description is not inaccurate regarding that particular example. I don’t think it was his Twitter feed radicalizing him, and I think it might have just been a human moment of heels being dug in. I think he might (and I’m still not sure) have thought the artist was doing the pagan dinner precisely to look like The Last Supper, giving himself the benefit of both making a point to piss off Christians while hiding behind plausibly deniable lookalikes. I think that might have been IK’s thinking, but again, he’s not here and I shouldn’t speak for him. But he did not back off his contention even when the painting was a different one than originally thought. That is a true point you raise.

So thank you for addressing this and me. You’ve always been a stand-up guy in the SP and you continue it here, even if we disagree about some political stuff. Best, RA.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks all. I think this one feels complete.

I think the thing that hit me (and @rockaction ) was the revisionist stuff.

Especially when the person isn't in the conversation.

I'm a big fan of the line, "Your real friends are the ones who defend you in rooms you're not in."

I consider @IvanKaramazov , as I do lots of you, to be a friend. So this one angered me too.

Thanks for honest back and forth and I think we're all good.

Let's wrap this one here while it's in a good spot, especially with the previous thoughts that I was being political here. Thanks.