Tag: media

The more things change….

It’s interesting to see how the new media, particularly Twitter, Wikipedia, and Facebook, are blithely walking in the footsteps of the old media:

When Bill Kovach decided circa 1987 that the Atlanta papers needed a bureau in Nairobi, he could afford to do it, because the paper was making a handsome profit from advertising revenue. The fact that advertising ultimately paid the bills — the source of revenue, whereas the salaries of the newsroom staff were an expense — was an aspect of journalism that a lot of Good for Democracy types never really figured out. Bottom-line considerations were far from the minds of most people in our nation’s newsrooms 25 years ago, before Al Gore invented the Internet, and then some guy named Matt Drudge became America’s Editor-in-Chief.

Oh, the pages and pages of classified ads — help wanted, real estate,
used cars, whatever — that were once such a magnificent revenue
generator for newspaper publishers. Oh, the display ads from department
stores, and the full-color advertising inserts stuffed inside that thick
Sunday paper. Nearly all gone now — gone with the wind, along with the
fat profit margins that allowed Bill Kovach the luxury of force-feeding
readers in Atlanta their journalistic broccoli about the famine in
Sudan. Gone, those glory days when newsrooms were so crowded, and every
major metropolitan paper had an “investigative journalism” team of a
half-dozen hotshots whose bylines rarely appeared in print except on
those tedious five-part series written for the eyes of the Pulitzer
Prize judges.

Yeah, once upon a time, every newspaper in every state capital in
America — from Tallahassee to Juneau, from Augusta, Maine, to Honolulu,
Hawaii — had its own local crew of would-be Woodward and Bernsteins who
believed they were producing journalism that was Good for Democracy.

Gone! All gone now!

In the same way the old media chased off its readers with what McCain calls “broccoli journalism”, the new media is chasing off its readers by telling them what they can and cannot say. In both cases, it is because the media wrongly believes it, and not its readers, are in control.

And that is only going to be of benefit to what we might call the next media, or if you prefer, the Alt Right media.

Well done, Dread Ilk

Mike Cernovich provides an analysis of his Kickstarter’s exceptional performance:

Traffic sources to Silenced:

  • Twitter – 57%
  • Direct via D&P – 24%
  • Vox Day – 5%

Kickstarter traffic twitter.25 PM

As you can see, having a large website and social media is important.
This is sort of a duh point, but seeing data put everything into
context. It also helps to have friends who help you. This is also duh,
although you guys wouldn’t believe how people try using me every day
while offering me nothing.

I have no doubt that more than a few Ilk found their way to the Kickstarter by way of Twitter and Danger & Play, mostly because I initially went there via Twitter myself. But no matter how you got there, I’m very pleased to see how many of you have been willing to support the man who has become one of my closest social media allies.

It’s that combination of selflessness and enthusiasm that sets the Dread Ilk apart; I can’t tell you how many public figures, some of them names much better known than mine, ask me how I do it and why I have such phenomenal “followers”.

To which my response is always the same. I don’t do anything. The Dread Ilk do. I don’t have followers. I’m not a leader. I don’t lead anyone anywhere. I simply go and people decide to accompany me or not. One of the primary problems that those who consider themselves leaders have is that they delude themselves into thinking that they somehow control their supporters and followers. But they don’t, not even when they police them with fear and violence.

I never take anyone’s support for granted, not Mike’s and not yours. All of us are free and independent individuals. All of us have our own agendas, our own interests, and our own free will. And that is why I am so appreciative of the fact that many of you are willing to walk alongside me.

Except, of course, for the VFM. Them, we have to keep chained, leashed, and kenneled, lest they inadvertently lay waste to the countryside. I may be the Supreme Dark Lord, but I’m not irresponsible.

Ignoring the message

David Brooks promises newfound respect for the people whose message he is refusing to receive:

The question is: Should deference be paid to this victor? Should we bow down to the judgment of these voters?

Well, some respect is in order. Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else.

Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country….

Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all.

As the founders would have understood, he is a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government. He is precisely the kind of scapegoating, promise-making, fear-driving and deceiving demagogue they feared.

Trump’s supporters deserve respect. They are left out of this economy. But Trump himself? No, not Trump, not ever.

It’s amusing to Brooks declare, in the same column, that he is concerned about “a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government” while wondering “should we bow down to the judgment of these voters” and ultimately concluding, no, he will not.

Brooks is an anti-democratic elitist who thinks, wrongly, that his opinion is still relevant. And, sooner or later, he will go the way of all those who set themselves in the path of a popular uprising against a corrupt and enervated elite.

Trump’s supporters don’t want David Brooks’s respect. They want his scalp.

Adios Gawker

This should bring the Denton empire to an end sooner rather than later:

Hulk Hogan Gets $115M Verdict Against Gawker at Sex Tape Trial. Weighing free speech against privacy, a Florida jury has decided to uphold the sanctity of the latter by turning in a $115 million verdict against Gawker over its 2012 posting of a Hulk Hogan sex tap.

Showing someone else’s video isn’t free speech. But regardless, it’s good to see the one of GG’s most egregious enemies going down.

Cernovich’s video analysis summarized:

  •     Gawker had excellent legal counsel, this was simply a case no one could win.
  •     New York snark does not translate well to judges and juries.
  •     Gawker will need to post an appeal bond of 10% of the damages verdict.
  •     The jury may award up to 3 times the $115 million in punitive damages, for a total award of hundreds of millions of dollars.
  •     Gawker’s revenue last year were around $44 million. There’s no way Gawker can afford to pay this verdict.
  •     Gawker owns several websites like Jezebel and Kotaku. Those sites may be sold off to the (lowest) bidder.
  •     In order to appeal the verdict, Gawker must put up the full verdict amount, or pay 10% (non-refundable) to a company. Bottom line: Gawker will need to pay millions of dollars out of pocket to appeal the Hulk Hogan verdict.

The rise of Channel Alt Right

First, the Kickstarter for Silenced is winding down. You only have four more hours to back it. Back Silenced here. I did. And I suspect that you’re going to want to be able to say you did too.

Second,  Mike Cernovich explains why the media is losing its undeclared, but vicious war on the Alt Right:

Why has the mainstream media and especially conservative pundits
projected their rage onto Donald Trump and his supporters? Pundits are
fighting hard because there’s a war going on. No one saw this war. Well,
almost no one…

This election has been about more than Trump.
This is a war over the future of the media.

Pundits are poor in money and rich and status. Most of them live off
of sugar daddies to pay their bills, and money does not drive pundits.

Pundits are status obsessed. Being seen as the right kind of person
is their only goal in life. They live and die on shame…the feeling that
they do or do not belong to the proper social class.

Supposed journalists and pundits have accumulated considerable social
status and power. With the power of an article, journalists have forced
the most powerful politicians and richest chief executives to quit
their jobs.

One does not lose power without a fight.

Third, on the basis of the new polls that show Trump +52 in New York, +12 in Arizona, and +16 in California (the latter is less credible since Rubio is included, but he’s only got 10 points), it is safe to conclude that Donald Trump has effectively won the Republican nomination.

He’s still got to close it out, but at this point, it would be a major surprise if he didn’t. He’s clearly increasing his lead over Cruz at this point.

UPDATE: Holy cats, nice work, everyone. It was at 58K when I last noticed. It finished with 838 backers pledging $71,060 to bring SILENCED to life. Well done.

I’ve spoken to Mike about this, and I don’t think he’d mind me telling you that the seeds being planted here are going to result in a lot more than just a single documentary film. The man has a vision and it is one worth supporting.

The Reddit AMA

Apparently I was supposed to create a new thread, which is here. A sample:

3rdNipp1e 107 points
You’ve quite been an outspoken critic of free trade theory, remarking that it impoverishes wealthy nation’s standards of living down to third-world levels, and I must admit I’ve been persuaded to mostly agree with your point of view over time. However, do you believe there is a nationalist case to be made for only allowing free trade policies with first-world countries that have higher standards of living than the U.S., while rejecting free trade with countries with lower standards of living? I don’t see how Americans lose in that situation as industries in free trade countries would be more incentivized to outsource their jobs to America than vice versa due to our lower wages, which would in turn raise the standard of living for Americans. This also limits the incentive for domestic employers to hire foreign replacements, except in cases where sufficiently qualified laborers can only be found abroad. Due to the trading partner having the higher standard of living (at least for the time being), emigration becomes more of an issue than immigration for the U.S., while the opposite occurs for the country with which we are trading freely. Thoughts?

On a related note, will you ever present a positive case for protectionism or tariffs in the near future? Thanks.

[–]voxday[S] 111 points
Yes, in fact, that is precisely the strategy that has been ruthlessly pursued by the Asian “tigers” to develop their economies. “Free Trade up” is also the method historically used by the United States.

And I do plan to write more on free trade and protectionism in the future, but not any time soon. I have three other books in the works.

 [–]bestinlife 30 points
As it seems this year is going to see many vicious battles, I’m sure many of us are wondering this: how do you sanitize the skulls of your enemies to ensure there are no diseases before using them to build your throne or to drink from?


[–]voxday[S] 35 points
Malwyn urinates in them, then gives them to the dwarrow for silvering.

I conceded defeat to Milo, as he managed 1,634 comments and 1,797 points to my 628 and 1,123, but he was gracious in victory and wrote to say that he was “proud of you anyway”. Despite my being late, the AMA was high energy throughout, thanks to the credible showing of the VFM and assorted Dread Ilk.

Making Reddit Great Again

Just a reminder of the FABulously GOLDen OPportunity to make Reddit great again at The Donald, where I will be doing an Ask Me Anything. Spacebunny has even threatened to make an appearance and ask “the questions you don’t want asked” if I am insufficiently nice to her today.

Vox Day, Trump supporter and author of Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America will be doing an AMA today 3/17 @ 2:30PM EST

The moderator reports that there has already been an amount of troll activity from Sanderson supporters, so it could get even more interesting than one would normally anticipate.

A+ ad and the linguistic killshot

Scott Adams explains how Trump is cutting out Hillary’s legs already:

On a related topic, many of you asked my opinion on Trump’s anti-Clinton ad that shows Hillary Clinton barking like a dog and Putin laughing. I give the ad an A+ for persuasion. It was funny and doesn’t take itself too seriously, but at the same time it appealed to our irrational minds just as Trump intends. Your rational mind knows that Clinton’s “barking” has nothing to do with anything. But your irrational mind sees Putin and ISIS looking powerful on the video while Clinton barks like a chihuahua.

The humor in the ad is what makes it work. Without the humor it would look like a lame comparison. And people equate a good sense of humor with high intelligence, whether or not that is true. The ad leaves us feeling that Trump is funny-smart and Clinton is ridiculous.

You know who wasn’t funny? Hitler, that’s who. Every time Trump makes us laugh he chips away at the Hitler meme that has been dogging him. So it works on a branding level too.

I also see the ad as Trump’s way of assuring everyone who has, over the years, seen one Republican after another refuse to put up a real fight, especially when a woman is on the other side: “Don’t worry, I got this.”

Making Reddit Great tomorrow

I’ll be stopping by The Donald subreddit for an Ask Me Anything session tomorrow:

Vox Day, Trump supporter and author of Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America will be doing an AMA TOMORROW 3/17 @ 2:30PM ESTt

Many of you are already familiar with Vox as he is a major figure in the “alt-right” movement, as it is sometimes called, and a pro-nationalist. He’s an American currently living in Europe and he is insightful and well-versed in numerous topics, including (but not limited to): politics, economics, immigration/refugee crisis, gamergate, and publishing.

Some more info about Vox. He is:

  • A professional game designer who teaches the DEVGAME online game development course
  • A former nationally syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate and WorldNet Daily
  • Creator of a personal blog with 2.2 million monthly views
  • Creator of one of the top game theory/men’s issues blogs on the web
  • The top critic of SJWism in the Science Fiction/Fantasy community
  • The best-selling political philosopher on Amazon
  • According to one Hugo award-winning author, “the Donald Trump of Science Fiction”

I hope you’ll show up as well. It is a moral imperative that we top Milo’s performance of 1637 comments, 1791 points, 68% upvoted, because you know it would drive him crazy and inspire him to new heights of fabulosity.

The past as prediction

For those of you who are disappointed by Ben Shapiro’s recent behavior vis-a-vis Breitbart and Donald Trump, don’t be. That’s always who he has been. Notice the date on this WND column, published on August 29, 2005.

The Chickenhawk Clucks

It is entirely possible that my WND colleague has a perfectly good
reason for not serving his country in its moment of need. For all I
know, he may have a weak heart, a wooden leg, a predilection for San
Francisco bathhouse sex, or some other condition that prevents him from
joining the military. But devoting two columns to criticizing a single word strikes me as a lady protesting a bit too much.

Mr. Shapiro’s first argument against the appellation is that it
is nothing more than a leftist attempt to silence debate. This is
partially true, but the argument is deceptive because it is incomplete.
It is not leftists, but the military, who have long despised the civilians
who clamor for war from the safety of their homes. In 1879, Gen.
William Sherman said: “It is only those who have neither fired a shot
nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood,
more vengeance, more desolation.”

His second and third arguments are that the insult is dishonest
and “explicitly rejects the Constitution.” But there is nothing
dishonest about calling into question the credibility of one who does
not practice what he preaches. If a CNBC analyst urges viewers to buy a
stock he is secretly shorting, he will rightly be dismissed as a
hypocrite unworthy of further regard. The unconstitutional argument is
spectacularly silly, since no one in Congress has proposed a federal law
barring such hypocrites from office. One can only assume that Mr.
Shapiro’s first Constitutional Law class lies ahead of him.

His fourth argument, which asserts that use of the term is
somehow “un-American,” reveals a similar failure to understand the First
Amendment and American history. Mr. Shapiro might wish the Constitution
prevented people from calling him names, but it actually protects their
right to do so and American political history is littered with an
abundance of inventive insults. As for the reference to the Bush
daughters, hiding behind the skirts of young women is no way to prove
you’re not a coward.

His fifth and final argument – that use of the term “chickenhawk”
is an attempt to avoid substantive debate – is easily disproved. I
have repeatedly criticized numerous aspects of this global struggle,
have openly opposed both the Iraqi and Afghani occupations, and am quite
willing to debate Mr. Shapiro or anyone else on the issue in the forum
of their preference. Yet I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and
veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive
– am in accord with the notion that “chickenhawk” is an appropriate
label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make
sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made
… But taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that
we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.

– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, July 28, 2005

I would be remiss if I did not note that many of these military men
and women favored a different 11-letter word that also begins with
“chicken.”

The genuine flaw in the use of the “chickenhawk” label is that in
most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and
inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations.
However, due to Mr. Shapiro’s precocious position in the national media,
this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper
bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging
them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire
from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But
toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future
ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The
same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt,
Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire.
No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for
Americans and for the world.

– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005

The America Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers,
America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the
other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I
am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe
that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004.
“Now’s the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up.”