Why support Murdoch? Why support for pay walled garden content? It's like paying for editorialized old media chains - and Murdoch editorialized none the less.
Epic fail.
Why support Murdoch? You can't even evaulate a product simply because you don't like the owner? Talk about epic fail.
I have no problem with paying for "true journalism" but I doubt there is any of that going on in the Daily. It is Fox after all.
It's also trivially true that any web-based or iPad based news is going to be even more to the "info-tainment" end of the spectrum than the "journalism" end of the spectrum. A "multi-media" newspaper is kind of lightweight news by definition, not hard-core journalism.
The interface may be neat, although I see Gruber describes it as not groundbreaking and "laggy" in at least one area. I was already wary of the content, considering it comes from the parent company of Fox News. Then the intro, as the screenshot in the article shows, talks about American exceptionalism and that was it--no thanks.
I guess I can relate. I'd probably ignore anything produced by CNN. Or ABC. Or NBC. Or MSNBC. Or CBS. Or PBS. Or a mess of other propogandists.
Great photography, like the old Life and Look magazines. Nice kerning too. But in general it looks like a really nicely designed web site. The Daily is competing against free. Good luck with that.
Some would prefer "good" to "free," but only if the content is "better." We hope that it is because there is so much "free" content that is just crap.
I think we would all be best served by not watching FoxNews or MSNBC and we all should read more books.
If one has to watch TV...I'd recommend Fareed Zakaria/GPS and Christiana Amanpour on This Week.
Other than that I can't really think of any TV that is worthwhile watching...perhaps Frontline, Nova and FormulaOne.
Best
Agreed. I avoid the extremisms stuff, it is just junk. I watch three or four of Fox's entertainment shows just not the news. Fareed Zakaria/GPS and Christiana Amanpour are very good.
I get a kick out of how upset some people get over FOX news, their reporting, and management. Is FOX biased? Yes. Is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. biased? Yes! They all are. They are run and owned by people that have their own unique world view and because they are human, that world view (bias) comes into play in how they operate their business, what they report, and how they report it.
The simple act of liking or disliking something (red heads, BMWs, FOX) is a personal bias and it is OK. There are studies that have shown that people are "hard wired" to find certain facial features and body types to be attractive. There are studies that show that we are drawn towards people that share similar interest and philosophies as we do. It is only natural that people have a bias for the kind of news, the style of news that they want to consume. It is the task of the organization to give the people what they want - it is a business after all.
Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.
I think the beef with Fox is that they created their news operation with the goal of being biased as the top priority and the main concept for making money. Roger Ailes? Come on the guy was the worst kind of black politico ops man there was. And then you give him a news operation? Of course he is going to purposely, willfully and exuberantly bias every single bit of information they release. The other news operations don't have that predetermined mandate to skew everything a certain way. I have worked in TV news stations and most of the people there aren't smart enough to figure out how to twist a story to a particular leaning. The networks still have enough ghosts of journalist past that they try to just present the facts. Of course they are forced to do this within the framework of the marketing department who is trying to "sell news". Fox and Ailes (and Limbaugh for that matter) figured out a long time ago that there was a sizable market for "news" that leaned a certain way. For information that told viewers what they already (often erroneously) believed. Fox and Murdoch and Ailes don't really believe in the ideology they push and exploit on their air. They believe in making money. End of story.
Oh wait there's more story. It is completely plausible that Murdoch and company won't skew the reporting in the "The Daily" the same way Fox skews things. In fact I doubt they will. This could be the beginning of a new exploitation for them. They see a another market ripe for the picking. It just isn't the Fox market. And besides why would they make "The Daily" like Fox? If they wan to do that they'll make a iPad magazine called "Fox Daily".
It's very easy to imagine Murdoch finding a way to play on both sides of the fence here. And make huge dollars at both.
Oh wait there's more story. It is completely plausible that Murdoch and company won't skew the reporting in the "The Daily" the same way Fox skews things. In fact I doubt they will. This could be the beginning of a new exploitation for them. They see a another market ripe for the picking. It just isn't the Fox market. And beside why would the make "The Daily" like Fox? IF they wan to do that they'll make a iPad magazine called "Fox Daily".
It's very easy to imagine Murdoch finding a way to play on both sides of the fence here. And make huge dollars at both.
What you say regarding broadcasting networks is true to a certain extent. However, foreign news sources like CBC or BBC as organizations tend to present more then one side to a story. CBC is especially good. When america went into Iraq, BBC didn't give people the government line. It made an effort to present the facts.
Where Fox goes wrong is it tries to present editorial shows as News. Other organizations do not do this nearly as much as Fox. Further, its tag line is fair and balanced, which clearly is not the case. A news organization should make every effort to just present the facts, not just the facts that represent it's view point. News programs should leave the opinion making to the viewers.
Fox actively distorts the news. For instance, with Global warming. The powers that be actively told its networks to report only the side that disagrees global warming is an issue. How are viewers who think Fox is providing them the news to form educated opinions based on only half the story? The answer is they can't. Fox doesn't want people to formulate such opinions on their own.
CNN at least tries. None of these organizations like to go after the government in any meaningful fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan_Timek
I get a kick out of how upset some people get over FOX news, their reporting, and management. Is FOX biased? Yes. Is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. biased? Yes! They all are. They are run and owned by people that have their own unique world view and because they are human, that world view (bias) comes into play in how they operate their business, what they report, and how they report it.
The simple act of liking or disliking something (red heads, BMWs, FOX) is a personal bias and it is OK. There are studies that have shown that people are "hard wired" to find certain facial features and body types to be attractive. There are studies that show that we are drawn towards people that share similar interest and philosophies as we do. It is only natural that people have a bias for the kind of news, the style of news that they want to consume. It is the task of the organization to give the people what they want - it is a business after all.
Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.
Been reading comments at Ars, Techcrunch, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc and every thread has got to get polluted by some troll that hates Murdoch and News Corp.
Sadly though, can't say I am surprised.
You can't say you're surprised that educated people can see Murdoch for what he is? Yeah, me neither.
Hey remember when Glenn Beck told everyone net neutrality was the government taking over the internet? CORPORATE SHILL.
The interface may be neat, although I see Gruber describes it as not groundbreaking and "laggy" in at least one area. I was already wary of the content, considering it comes from the parent company of Fox News. Then the intro, as the screenshot in the article shows, talks about American exceptionalism and that was it--no thanks.
Yeah, "exceptionalism" is the new Republican buzzword, as conservatives accuse President Obama of not loving America enough and not believing in "American exceptionalism." (They ususally cite a single out of context quote to support their accusation.) I imagine they want to be on their best behavior for a while, but they just couldn't resist a Republican dog whistle.
Nevertheless, I'll download it and judge for myself.
I read through this first issue with high hopes. They were unfulfilled.
First, I found the app itself glitchy. It crashed twice during 45 minutes of use. The two videos I tried occasionally froze and/or lost picture for a moment. Hot zones take you to "related content" but offer no way to get back to where you jumped from. Page turns were most glitchy of all. Often it took me *minutes* to get the app to go to the next page.
But all of this effort might be worth it if the content were stellar. For me, it wasn't. The tone of the writing was somewhere between People and US Weekly. I've got nothing against People; I'm a regular reader. But that's not the tone I want in my news journalism. I want text that tells me facts, not opinion. Calling someone a "trophy wife" is opinion, not fact.
I was also dismayed at the lack of any line whatsoever between news content and advertising. In fact, a page that is clearly an ad for Verizon service is actually labeled "News" in the header.
I appreciated the photo coverage of the protests in Egypt. But that's literally all that I got out of this issue. (Oh, and the Sports coverage seemed to be at least three times as extensive as the News coverage. Even counting that Verizon ad.)
In the end, I liked the idea of this publication much more than the reality. For solid news reporting, I'll stick with the tried-and-true: NYTimes, BBC, CNN, ESPN, etc., etc. I've already deleted "The Daily" from my iPad.
Comments
Murdoch is a hell of a lot better than ABCNNBCBS.
Don?t worry, The New York Times isn?t publishing this. Misinformation and propaganda will therefore be held to a minimum.
I think we would all be best served by not watching FoxNews or MSNBC and we all should read more books.
If one has to watch TV...I'd recommend Fareed Zakaria/GPS and Christiana Amanpour on This Week.
Other than that I can't really think of any TV that is worthwhile watching...perhaps Frontline, Nova and FormulaOne.
Best
Why support Murdoch? Why support for pay walled garden content? It's like paying for editorialized old media chains - and Murdoch editorialized none the less.
Epic fail.
Why support Murdoch? You can't even evaulate a product simply because you don't like the owner? Talk about epic fail.
Murdoch is a hell of a lot better than ABCNNBCBS.
Don?t worry, The New York Times isn?t publishing this. Misinformation and propaganda will therefore be held to a minimum.
Why support Murdoch? You can't even evaulate a product simply because you don't like the owner? Talk about epic fail.
... true journalists need to get paid.
I have no problem with paying for "true journalism" but I doubt there is any of that going on in the Daily. It is Fox after all.
It's also trivially true that any web-based or iPad based news is going to be even more to the "info-tainment" end of the spectrum than the "journalism" end of the spectrum. A "multi-media" newspaper is kind of lightweight news by definition, not hard-core journalism.
The interface may be neat, although I see Gruber describes it as not groundbreaking and "laggy" in at least one area. I was already wary of the content, considering it comes from the parent company of Fox News. Then the intro, as the screenshot in the article shows, talks about American exceptionalism and that was it--no thanks.
I guess I can relate. I'd probably ignore anything produced by CNN. Or ABC. Or NBC. Or MSNBC. Or CBS. Or PBS. Or a mess of other propogandists.
don't support Murdoch's machine of misinformation and propaganda!
Horse shit.
Great photography, like the old Life and Look magazines. Nice kerning too. But in general it looks like a really nicely designed web site. The Daily is competing against free. Good luck with that.
Some would prefer "good" to "free," but only if the content is "better." We hope that it is because there is so much "free" content that is just crap.
I think we would all be best served by not watching FoxNews or MSNBC and we all should read more books.
If one has to watch TV...I'd recommend Fareed Zakaria/GPS and Christiana Amanpour on This Week.
Other than that I can't really think of any TV that is worthwhile watching...perhaps Frontline, Nova and FormulaOne.
Best
How elitist of you. Oh, I can't be bothered with TV. It's so beneath me.
Again, my apologies.
I think we would all be best served by not watching FoxNews or MSNBC and we all should read more books.
If one has to watch TV...I'd recommend Fareed Zakaria/GPS and Christiana Amanpour on This Week.
Other than that I can't really think of any TV that is worthwhile watching...perhaps Frontline, Nova and FormulaOne.
Best
Agreed. I avoid the extremisms stuff, it is just junk. I watch three or four of Fox's entertainment shows just not the news. Fareed Zakaria/GPS and Christiana Amanpour are very good.
I get a kick out of how upset some people get over FOX news, their reporting, and management. Is FOX biased? Yes. Is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. biased? Yes! They all are. They are run and owned by people that have their own unique world view and because they are human, that world view (bias) comes into play in how they operate their business, what they report, and how they report it.
The simple act of liking or disliking something (red heads, BMWs, FOX) is a personal bias and it is OK. There are studies that have shown that people are "hard wired" to find certain facial features and body types to be attractive. There are studies that show that we are drawn towards people that share similar interest and philosophies as we do. It is only natural that people have a bias for the kind of news, the style of news that they want to consume. It is the task of the organization to give the people what they want - it is a business after all.
Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.
I think the beef with Fox is that they created their news operation with the goal of being biased as the top priority and the main concept for making money. Roger Ailes? Come on the guy was the worst kind of black politico ops man there was. And then you give him a news operation? Of course he is going to purposely, willfully and exuberantly bias every single bit of information they release. The other news operations don't have that predetermined mandate to skew everything a certain way. I have worked in TV news stations and most of the people there aren't smart enough to figure out how to twist a story to a particular leaning. The networks still have enough ghosts of journalist past that they try to just present the facts. Of course they are forced to do this within the framework of the marketing department who is trying to "sell news". Fox and Ailes (and Limbaugh for that matter) figured out a long time ago that there was a sizable market for "news" that leaned a certain way. For information that told viewers what they already (often erroneously) believed. Fox and Murdoch and Ailes don't really believe in the ideology they push and exploit on their air. They believe in making money. End of story.
Oh wait there's more story. It is completely plausible that Murdoch and company won't skew the reporting in the "The Daily" the same way Fox skews things. In fact I doubt they will. This could be the beginning of a new exploitation for them. They see a another market ripe for the picking. It just isn't the Fox market. And besides why would they make "The Daily" like Fox? If they wan to do that they'll make a iPad magazine called "Fox Daily".
It's very easy to imagine Murdoch finding a way to play on both sides of the fence here. And make huge dollars at both.
Sorry about all the stupid posts I've made. Guess I'm as big an asshole as the people I'm replying to.
Again, my apologies.
Your handle is kind of a warning
Oh wait there's more story. It is completely plausible that Murdoch and company won't skew the reporting in the "The Daily" the same way Fox skews things. In fact I doubt they will. This could be the beginning of a new exploitation for them. They see a another market ripe for the picking. It just isn't the Fox market. And beside why would the make "The Daily" like Fox? IF they wan to do that they'll make a iPad magazine called "Fox Daily".
It's very easy to imagine Murdoch finding a way to play on both sides of the fence here. And make huge dollars at both.
I am sure you are correct.
Where Fox goes wrong is it tries to present editorial shows as News. Other organizations do not do this nearly as much as Fox. Further, its tag line is fair and balanced, which clearly is not the case. A news organization should make every effort to just present the facts, not just the facts that represent it's view point. News programs should leave the opinion making to the viewers.
Fox actively distorts the news. For instance, with Global warming. The powers that be actively told its networks to report only the side that disagrees global warming is an issue. How are viewers who think Fox is providing them the news to form educated opinions based on only half the story? The answer is they can't. Fox doesn't want people to formulate such opinions on their own.
CNN at least tries. None of these organizations like to go after the government in any meaningful fashion.
I get a kick out of how upset some people get over FOX news, their reporting, and management. Is FOX biased? Yes. Is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. biased? Yes! They all are. They are run and owned by people that have their own unique world view and because they are human, that world view (bias) comes into play in how they operate their business, what they report, and how they report it.
The simple act of liking or disliking something (red heads, BMWs, FOX) is a personal bias and it is OK. There are studies that have shown that people are "hard wired" to find certain facial features and body types to be attractive. There are studies that show that we are drawn towards people that share similar interest and philosophies as we do. It is only natural that people have a bias for the kind of news, the style of news that they want to consume. It is the task of the organization to give the people what they want - it is a business after all.
Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.
And you know that The Daily is misinformation and propaganda, how exactly?
Murdoch has proven himself and his goals through Fox News.
Horse shit.
Thank you! It really IS horseshit that they pedal out.
Man.
Been reading comments at Ars, Techcrunch, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc and every thread has got to get polluted by some troll that hates Murdoch and News Corp.
Sadly though, can't say I am surprised.
You can't say you're surprised that educated people can see Murdoch for what he is? Yeah, me neither.
Hey remember when Glenn Beck told everyone net neutrality was the government taking over the internet?
The interface may be neat, although I see Gruber describes it as not groundbreaking and "laggy" in at least one area. I was already wary of the content, considering it comes from the parent company of Fox News. Then the intro, as the screenshot in the article shows, talks about American exceptionalism and that was it--no thanks.
Yeah, "exceptionalism" is the new Republican buzzword, as conservatives accuse President Obama of not loving America enough and not believing in "American exceptionalism." (They ususally cite a single out of context quote to support their accusation.) I imagine they want to be on their best behavior for a while, but they just couldn't resist a Republican dog whistle.
Nevertheless, I'll download it and judge for myself.
First, I found the app itself glitchy. It crashed twice during 45 minutes of use. The two videos I tried occasionally froze and/or lost picture for a moment. Hot zones take you to "related content" but offer no way to get back to where you jumped from. Page turns were most glitchy of all. Often it took me *minutes* to get the app to go to the next page.
But all of this effort might be worth it if the content were stellar. For me, it wasn't. The tone of the writing was somewhere between People and US Weekly. I've got nothing against People; I'm a regular reader. But that's not the tone I want in my news journalism. I want text that tells me facts, not opinion. Calling someone a "trophy wife" is opinion, not fact.
I was also dismayed at the lack of any line whatsoever between news content and advertising. In fact, a page that is clearly an ad for Verizon service is actually labeled "News" in the header.
I appreciated the photo coverage of the protests in Egypt. But that's literally all that I got out of this issue. (Oh, and the Sports coverage seemed to be at least three times as extensive as the News coverage. Even counting that Verizon ad.)
In the end, I liked the idea of this publication much more than the reality. For solid news reporting, I'll stick with the tried-and-true: NYTimes, BBC, CNN, ESPN, etc., etc. I've already deleted "The Daily" from my iPad.
Bob