Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[sbr]

A reasonable point.

I subscribe to The Economist.

I am not familiar with The Economist, outside of random links here I don't click on.

[alfred russel]

Sbr, well said. That was what I was driving at.

Although, I don't have a newspaper subscription anymore either, so I'm part of the problem too.

[Valmy]

The Economist is, in my opinion, the best publication in the world. That probably says something about me

[CountDeMoney]

The Economist is, in my opinion, the best publication in the world. That probably says something about me

That you're snooty and, while relatively progressive when it comes to things like human rights and collective security, you're still not ashamed to gut a motherfucker like a fish if you thought he swallowed a quarter.

[CountDeMoney]

I won't try and speak for Alfred, but I have some thoughts.

I bought a 12 month subscription to the Washington Post the night Flynn resigned, and it was specifically because of the reporting the Post did related to that.

I don't think TV news has ever done much in regards to investigative reporting and uncovering federal government shenanigans and it is very clear that they will continue on that path.

Print journalism, that dying dinosaur, however has once again been the outlet that has had the balls to do the digging, opining and reporting on the true nonsense that is going on in the current administration.  Whether it is the NYT, the WP or even Teen Vogue (yeah haha stick to shoes) they have been one of the very few to shine a light on what is really going on, and trying to keep the darkness (ignorance) away.

The shitty thing is is that even people who are interested in the journalism these publications are doing are not willing to pony up and pay them to continue their work.

Thus someone who agrees with the idea that "Democracy dies in darkness" but is not willing to step up and contribute to those few who are doing everything they can to fight off that darkness may not be taken very seriously by those that do.

EDIT: Hmm drunker than I thought when I started this.  The main points still stand but I may not have been as eloquent as I thought I might be when I started off.

Thanks to the Donald.

From December.

America
Big Newspapers Are Booming: 'Washington Post' To Add 60 Newsroom Jobs
December 27, 2016

The Washington Post expects to hire more than 60 journalists in the coming months — a sign of remarkable growth for a newspaper in the digital age.

After a year of record traffic and digital advertising revenue, the Post newsroom will grow by more than 8 percent, to more than 750 people. The extent of the newsroom expansion was first reported by Politico. The Post will add a "rapid-response" investigative team, expand its video journalism and breaking news staff, and make additional investments in podcasts and photography.

Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos bought the Post in October 2013 and reportedly invested $50 million in the company last year. That investment is paying off, according to a memo from publisher Fred Ryan that said the Post is now "a profitable and growing company." Ryan said the Post's online traffic had increased by nearly 50 percent in the past year, and new subscriptions have grown by 75 percent, more than doubling digital subscription revenue.

Meanwhile, subscriptions at The New York Times have also surged. Times CEO Mark Thompson said on CNBC that the paper added 132,000 new subscribers in the 18 days after the election, a tenfold increase over the same period a year ago. The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal also reported record growth in subscriptions.

In June, Donald Trump revoked the Post's press credentials at his campaign events, before lifting the ban on the Post and other news organizations two months later.

It may not be The Boys on the Bus or All The President's Men, or even fucking Newsies, but print is still far from dead.

[Admiral Yi]

I am not familiar with The Economist, outside of random links here I don't click on.

Pick up a newsstand copy some time.  I particularly like the US coverage because they don't play any bias tricks, just tell you up front what they like or don't like and why.  And it's always fun to hear what furriners say about the US.

[katmai]

Ank just linked a article this afternoon.

A PRESIDENT is swept into office after whipping up a wave of grievance and resentment. He claims to represent "the people" against internal exploiters and external threats. He purports to "refound" the nation, and damns those who preceded him. He governs though confrontation and polarisation. His language is aggressive—opponents are branded as enemies or traitors. He uses the media to cement his connection with the masses, while bridling at critical journalism and at rebuffs to executive power. His policies focus on bringing short-term benefits to his political base—hang the long-term cost to the country's economic stability.

Donald Trump? Yes, but these traits come straight from the manual of Latin American populist nationalism, a tradition that stretches from Argentina's Juan Perón to Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and beyond. Yes, Mr Trump is a billionaire capitalist whereas Chávez was an anti-capitalist army officer. But populism is not synonymous with the left: conservatives such as Peru's Alberto Fujimori used its techniques, too. "Post-truth" politics and "alternative facts" have long been deployed in Latin America, from Mr Fujimori's use of tabloid newspapers to smear opponents, to Chávez's imaginary coups and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's fake inflation statistics in Argentina.

So when they contemplate Mr Trump's first few weeks in the White House, many Latin American liberal democrats think they've seen this movie before. And they know it usually ends badly. Some of the continent's own populists, by contrast, recognise Mr Trump as a kindred spirit. Nicolás Maduro, Chávez's dictatorial successor, criticised a "hate campaign" against Mr Trump—though that was before the United States this week blacklisted Venezuela's vice-president as a drug kingpin (an allegation Mr Maduro called "baseless"). Guillermo Moreno, the former official entrusted by Ms Fernández with producing Argentina's statistics, has identified "a Peronist" in Mr Trump, "who is trying to do what we did".

It is not just Mr Trump's assault on Mexico's economy and national dignity, with his threats to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement and to build a border wall, that Latin Americans have to deal with. The bigger question for the region is what Mr Trump represents in the battle of political ideas. The risk is that he may re-legitimise populist nationalism just when it was waning south of the border. That is especially so in Mexico, where Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who heads opinion polls for the 2018 presidential election, now talks of "the fatherland first". Even Chile may not be immune: Alejandro Guillier, a former television presenter who boasts of a special bond with "the people", has a chance in an election in November.

Mr Trump is helping to make life more difficult for those in Latin America who have argued, in the face of the region's instinctive nationalism and anti-Americanism, that its best interests are served by co-operation with the United States and a liberal world order. "We could all hang our hats on free trade, free markets and macroeconomic stability in part because the United States believed in it, both the Democrats and Republicans," says Luis Alberto Moreno, the president of the Inter-American Development Bank. "Now there are protectionist forces in the world, and that resonates in the region."

One response is for Latin America to seek other partners. Though interest in deeper ties with Europe (both the European Union and Brexit Britain) is reviving, China is the main hope. It is already a big trade partner and is investing in infrastructure in the region. But Latin America exports raw materials to China and imports its cheap manufactures. That does less for its economic development than does its more diversified trade with the United States, according to research by the World Bank.

The best response to Mr Trump would be for Latin American liberals to have the courage of their convictions. They should keep their economies open and carry out several tasks they have neglected. These include building more infrastructure and fostering more regional integration, which the populists undermined by turning it into a political slogan rather than a business reality.

Latin American experience teaches that populists are easily underestimated and can stay in power for a long time. But not forever. Populist regimes are often corrupt and spendthrift, and usually fail to make people better off. Whatever the example from the White House, Latin American history shows that populist nationalism is a recipe for national decline. That is the message liberals need to hammer home.

[Admiral Yi]

Oye Frijole Grande, why are you posting that in this thread?

[katmai]

Because we were speaking of the economist.

[Admiral Yi]

D'oh!

[viper37]

Thus someone who agrees with the idea that "Democracy dies in darkness" but is not willing to step up and contribute to those few who are doing everything they can to fight off that darkness may not be taken very seriously by those that do.

the problem, is costs a lot of money when it adds up.  The Economist, the Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, The Washington Post, La Presse/Le Soleil, Le Devoir (I like to read leftist propaganda so I can be better prepared), LA Times, Boston Globe, Les Affaires, it gets very, very expensive in the long run.  So far, I subscribe to the electronic edition of the NYT and Les Affaires, but I haven't ponyed up the money for the others.

[Valmy]

Oh is le Devoir leftwing propaganda? That's funny. They were always trying to get me to read it when I was a French student but I was too busy reading the collected speeches of Maximillien Robespierre.

[celedhring]

I pay 4 bucks a month for my NYT subscription. Granted I got education rates but it's not too expensive otherwise.

[Grey Fox]

Oh is le Devoir leftwing propaganda? That's funny. They were always trying to get me to read it when I was a French student but I was too busy reading the collected speeches of Maximillien Robespierre.

It is mostly left, yes. A little too pro-business for it to being propaganda.

I'm thinking I need a NYT subs but it's cost prohibitive for Canadians.

[Berkut]

I won't try and speak for Alfred, but I have some thoughts.

I bought a 12 month subscription to the Washington Post the night Flynn resigned, and it was specifically because of the reporting the Post did related to that.

I don't think TV news has ever done much in regards to investigative reporting and uncovering federal government shenanigans and it is very clear that they will continue on that path.

Print journalism, that dying dinosaur, however has once again been the outlet that has had the balls to do the digging, opining and reporting on the true nonsense that is going on in the current administration.  Whether it is the NYT, the WP or even Teen Vogue (yeah haha stick to shoes) they have been one of the very few to shine a light on what is really going on, and trying to keep the darkness (ignorance) away.

The shitty thing is is that even people who are interested in the journalism these publications are doing are not willing to pony up and pay them to continue their work.

Thus someone who agrees with the idea that "Democracy dies in darkness" but is not willing to step up and contribute to those few who are doing everything they can to fight off that darkness may not be taken very seriously by those that do.

EDIT: Hmm drunker than I thought when I started this.  The main points still stand but I may not have been as eloquent as I thought I might be when I started off.

According to David Frum, print media is seeing a huge revival. It is the one possible silver lining.

And the more willing they are to stand up to Trump, the more their subscription numbers have grown.