waxy.org— Yesterday, I discovered that The Times (UK), a well-respected newspaper owned by News Corp., is involved in an extensive campaign to spam social media websites
Jan 31, 2008View in Crawl 4
It does seem like they are just exchanging the cost of good investigative reporting, with the expense of spamming social media.But really, Rupert Murdoch makes his money selling politicians to the people. He trades the influence of ratings for what he can do for people like Guilliani -- and what they can do for him. At the high realms of business, there is no better investment than in buying a politician -- it seems to me that it can give you 100 to 1, to 1,000 to 1 for your investment.So entertaining or informing the masses is a loss-leader. You need enough so that you can get the eyeballs to sell the government as a product. You get the politicians on your side because you promote them -- it makes them feel safe. You will notice a lot of companies, like Archer Daniels Midland, or some defense contractor, advertising on these news shows -- you should ask yourself, why would they need to advertise to me? No, they are just "paying their dues" for the actual content of the program. It's just a thinly veiled disguise of "paying the house." The mob loved the casinos back in the day, because money could be "lost" to the casino and become legitimate currency. CNN and Fox promote a war, and GM advertises on those shows. If they get people to watch -- all the better. Are Nielsen ratings even accurate? Probably not. More Likely, only TiVo is getting accurate data. But you and I don't really know anything beyond what we are told. It's a system that is in transition from an advertising to propaganda capitalization.If Rupert were spending money on quality content, he would be getting eyeballs based upon useful and accurate content. In his market, he can get a profit from adds, or get that 100 to 1 investment return of favors to specific people of power -- probably recouped by the benefits of the propaganda to other companies/concerns like GM, or groups like Blackwater that increased more than 1,000% since the war started. Ad fees are just a conduit to pay the house.If he can keep enough people reading his paper, and making up the rest with spam, he can make a lot more money than he could we a few more readers and telling the truth. Does Coke really want a news show telling you the "truth about soda?" No. The companies advertising only care about access. So do the politicians. So, there is only an incentive to keep it truthful seeming enough so that you won't just reject it.
It does target a very different demographic (generally well off businessmen) with a right leaning tilt. It's generally well written and at least superficially neutral in most matters, and if you read it with the sceptical mind with which you should approach any media it's (in my experience) a very worth while news source. It also has the kind of demographic that would respond very badly to the sort of scandal and ridiculous reporting that Fox News, for example, seems to get away with. Essentially, I don't think being part of News Corp really makes them less well respected than many other UK (ex-)broadsheets.
Actually, since their Communities Editor has also been spamming social networking sites for a year, I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say that The Times has done this.
High quality editorial content will keep them where they are....no need to hire spam posters...this is simply just getting to aggressive, and getting caught red handed. Just so silly, when it was never necessary at all!
unicronbandJan 31, 2008
They do a pretty good job of frequently spamming digg.
whistlerproJan 31, 2008
I dunno, Murdoch can flip flop.
vitriolandangstJan 31, 2008
It does seem like they are just exchanging the cost of good investigative reporting, with the expense of spamming social media.But really, Rupert Murdoch makes his money selling politicians to the people. He trades the influence of ratings for what he can do for people like Guilliani -- and what they can do for him. At the high realms of business, there is no better investment than in buying a politician -- it seems to me that it can give you 100 to 1, to 1,000 to 1 for your investment.So entertaining or informing the masses is a loss-leader. You need enough so that you can get the eyeballs to sell the government as a product. You get the politicians on your side because you promote them -- it makes them feel safe. You will notice a lot of companies, like Archer Daniels Midland, or some defense contractor, advertising on these news shows -- you should ask yourself, why would they need to advertise to me? No, they are just "paying their dues" for the actual content of the program. It's just a thinly veiled disguise of "paying the house." The mob loved the casinos back in the day, because money could be "lost" to the casino and become legitimate currency. CNN and Fox promote a war, and GM advertises on those shows. If they get people to watch -- all the better. Are Nielsen ratings even accurate? Probably not. More Likely, only TiVo is getting accurate data. But you and I don't really know anything beyond what we are told. It's a system that is in transition from an advertising to propaganda capitalization.If Rupert were spending money on quality content, he would be getting eyeballs based upon useful and accurate content. In his market, he can get a profit from adds, or get that 100 to 1 investment return of favors to specific people of power -- probably recouped by the benefits of the propaganda to other companies/concerns like GM, or groups like Blackwater that increased more than 1,000% since the war started. Ad fees are just a conduit to pay the house.If he can keep enough people reading his paper, and making up the rest with spam, he can make a lot more money than he could we a few more readers and telling the truth. Does Coke really want a news show telling you the "truth about soda?" No. The companies advertising only care about access. So do the politicians. So, there is only an incentive to keep it truthful seeming enough so that you won't just reject it.
mejogidJan 31, 2008
It does target a very different demographic (generally well off businessmen) with a right leaning tilt. It's generally well written and at least superficially neutral in most matters, and if you read it with the sceptical mind with which you should approach any media it's (in my experience) a very worth while news source. It also has the kind of demographic that would respond very badly to the sort of scandal and ridiculous reporting that Fox News, for example, seems to get away with. Essentially, I don't think being part of News Corp really makes them less well respected than many other UK (ex-)broadsheets.
richardiscoolJan 31, 2008
So why do they have opposing political views?
gropoJan 31, 2008
What do MacGyver and Journalistic Integrity have in common? Both have a nemesis named Murdoch.
mmhoffmanJan 31, 2008
Actually, since their Communities Editor has also been spamming social networking sites for a year, I don't think it's inaccurate at all to say that The Times has done this.
foomandoonianFeb 1, 2008
This is only going to become more of a problem over time, sadly. Anyone else remember when the internet had no ads?
ncifuentesFeb 9, 2008
High quality editorial content will keep them where they are....no need to hire spam posters...this is simply just getting to aggressive, and getting caught red handed. Just so silly, when it was never necessary at all!
Closed AccountFeb 18, 2008
Nobody actually READ the article, did they?