Because 'NEWSPAPERS' are in BUSINESS to sell their product ~~~

Jason Small
September 2 near Los Angeles, CA  ·
So this happened - check out the difference in the titles of the article - same newspaper, same date but for different markets - one to try and sway the liberals and one for the conservative market. I don't believe much of anything in the news anywhere anymore. It's all propaganda. Think outside - no box required.... Have a great holiday weekend!  #WakeUpAmerica

While 'WE', the adult thinking here in America understand this concept of publication=free press and use all of our primary 5 senses to put our news through the 'SNIFF' test for validity and biased.
But it pays to know that even the infamous WALL STREET JOURNAL is trying to garner their market share of the newspaper trade.  {ergo=$$$}
But the 'Wall Street Journal' had it correct on both front pages; 'Cheeto-Jesus' has flipped flopped that fast on his position that they were just covering their own arses when he flipped back again ...      

But when this popped up on my FB page I nearly spewed my morning coffee at my monitor ...I knew that Eddie would enjoy this article and probably do a

Remember that the Wall Street Journal is owned by the same Rupert Murdoch that owns Faux News.  This is precisely the kind of thing we would expect from Fox, so it's not surprising when we find it in the WSJ.

That said, the point is still valid.  While rarely does one see such startling duplicity in a newspaper as you point out here, every one of them do it to a lesser degree.

The same is done with The Daily Mail and the edition in Scotland, it's sick making and idiots fall for it.

I think the Express is slightly worse....but only slightly. Don't know how it gets away with the stuff it prints.

4EVER2 wrote: ---

There's a touch of genius in the way those two diametrically opposed messages were lined up side by side.

No caption was even necessary.

This goes beyond 'forked tongue syndrome', imo it's two separate tongues side by side, flapping independently of each other.
Great find, 4Ever. Well done!   .

Oops, it turns out one of these was the morning edition and the other the evening edition, both in the same market:

This image was passed around on the Internet accompanied by the claim that the Wall Street Journal had deliberately published one headline, "Trump Softens His Tone," in a pro-Trump market area in an attempt to sway readers away from the the GOP nominee, and the other headline, "Trump Talks Tough on Wall," in a non-Trump market area to bolster support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

However, these opposing headline editions were not distributed to different political or geographic markets, nor were they intended to influence voters.

This picture shows two editions of the Wall Street Journal published at different times of the day. The paper on the left came off the press early in the day, while the paper on the right was produced later in the day. Print newspapers sometimes undergo revisions throughout their daily runs and typically employ marks to distinguish the various editions — in this case the differing WSJ editions are distinguishable by the number of stars displayed in the masthead(.)

http://www.snopes.com/wsj-different-trump-headlines/

And I wrap up this post with the most perfect quote I could think of:

"Some people never let the facts get in the way of a good story." - Mark Twain

APPARENTLY the Sydney Daily Telegraph down here, has four daily editions (i.e. three revisions..) for the print version, with the first ("early") edition hitting the streets and railway stations before midnight...

And now, with their 24/7 online presence, with important stories you can see constant updates during the day..

I'm getting a woodburning stove soon so I can't wait to use this. It's all newspapers are really good for.

Ben Reilly wrote: ---

Print newspapers sometimes undergo revisions throughout their daily runs and typically employ marks to distinguish the various editions — in this case the differing WSJ editions are distinguishable by the number of stars displayed in the masthead(.)

Not so much a revision more a complete overhaul.
Not so much tweaked, more turned on its head
Not so much amended, more upended.

Ben Reilly wrote:And I wrap up this post with the most perfect quote I could think of:
"Some people never let the facts get in the way of a good story." - Mark Twain

Actually Ben,  people apply that quote ^^ far more often to journalists than to readers. It's journo's who print the "story" not the reader,  and we've all seen fake journo stories (though this one has a genuine explanation)


Still though .... I see two polar opposite messages right next to each other and that makes a great visual image which fits in with my personal collection of newspaper cartoons, sensationalist headlines etc and I will be eagerly adding 4EVER's contribution to my collection which already includes images like these. ...

HoratioTarr wrote:I'm getting a woodburning stove soon so I can't wait to use this.  It's all newspapers are really good for.

I like most political journos and commentators (the liberal ones), most have integrity and they know their stuff.  
But I've no time for downmarket RW newspapers, they twist the truth to boost sales.

Just can't drop this chew-toy ...

Because 'NEWSPAPERS' are in BUSINESS to sell their product ~~~ most of them do NOT have a political bias, since it makes no business sense to alienate half the market!

Journalists suck.

eddie wrote:Journalists suck.

... down beers and then do awesome work that everybody can't stop talking about.

Ben Reilly wrote:Just can't drop this chew-toy ...

Because 'NEWSPAPERS' are in BUSINESS to sell their product ~~~ most of them do NOT have a political bias, since it makes no business sense to alienate half the market!

But, remember de Toqueville's admonition about the tyranny of the majority.  The established opinion gets all the attention, making it that much more difficult for the new thought or story to be accepted.

Look at all the momentum that Hillary's alleged email dishonesty gets in the press...all because it's talked about every day.  t's all fabricated, and has no foundation in fact, but talk begets talk, and that's where the press is to be faulted.  Donald Trump is caught paying off Florida's attorney general with a $25,000 payment, or Texas' attorney general receives payment of a $35, 000 pay-off for not bringing charges against Trump University, and what do we get: more Hillary's emails.  The proof is in the pudding.

Newspapers don't have a political bias? they do over here mate.

The Sun, Tory supporters,
The Mirror, Labour supporters,


Just goes to show that you and others know fcuk all about British way of life.

Of course you pretend to know it all, in fact you know fuck all,
so stop pretending you do!

I have to agree with the old geranium papers here definite bias
herald or telegraph, it basically says which way you vote (if you are major party voter)

nicko wrote:Newspapers don't have a political bias?     they do over here mate.

The Sun, Tory supporters,
The Mirror,  Labour supporters,


Just goes to show that you and others know fcuk all about British way of life.

Of course you pretend to know it all,  in fact you know fuck all,
so stop pretending you do!

The Wall Street Journal is an American paper, fuckwit.

WHO the fuck is talking about THE WALL ST JOURNAL? FUCKWIT!

nicko wrote:WHO the fuck is talking about THE WALL ST JOURNAL?     FUCKWIT!

Uh, buddy? Did you read the OP?

The Sun and the Mirror are not even Newpapers, they're toilet paper. As is the express and that other shitrag.

The sun and the Daily Mail are the top selling papers in Britain,

ALL PAPERS print bullshit from time to time.

We had to use newspapers for bog paper at one time

Could not afford Toilet paper!

nicko wrote:Newspapers don't have a political bias?     they do over here mate.

The Sun, Tory supporters,
The Mirror,  Labour supporters,


Just goes to show that you and others know fcuk all about British way of life.

Of course you pretend to know it all,  in fact you know fuck all,
so stop pretending you do!

SAME down here,  nicko...

Murdoch's rags ==  Sydney Daily Telegraph, Mebourne's Herald Sun, Qld's Courier Mail, The Australian  -- are all Tory/conservative rag's;   while centrists, lefties and non-political types prefer the Fairfax media's efforts  (Sydney Morning Herald, Melbourne Age, Canberra Times, Australian Financial Review, The Land, Newcastle Herald..).

Intelligent commentators and savvy politicians here will look at what all sides of the media are printing and posting. whether they believe it, or agree with it, or not..    

nicko wrote:The sun and the Daily Mail are the top selling papers in Britain,

ALL PAPERS print bullshit from time to time.

We had to use newspapers for bog paper at one time

Could not afford Toilet paper!

I don't care that they're the top selling papers Nicko, they print rubbish and the Sun, Express and Mail are as racist as they come. They stir up propaganda about everything to sell their paper!

Sorry Eddie, but I have to say, without causing offence to you. That's Bollocks.

nicko wrote:Sorry Eddie,    but I have to say, without causing offence to you.  That's Bollocks.

You haven't caused offence to me by saying I'm talking bollocks.
But they are racist papers. The print lies and propaganda to sell their papers.

I guess different people have different ideas about what constitutes a proper news organization*.

From someone with a degree in journalism and 20 years experience in the field, this is what makes a proper news organization:

1. The target audience is everyone within a geographic area, or it's geared toward a particular interest (like WIRED magazine or Sports Illustrated)

2. The editorial staff is operated independently of the advertising and marketing departments. (Many news orgs go to great lengths to keep editorial staff sequestered from ad folks, such as having them in different buildings or on different floors)

3. The editorial staff has no political agenda. The business function of being unbiased is that it will attract more readership than a product that appeals to conservatives or liberals or whatever. The value to the reader is that they can generally trust the editorial staff not to spin stories.

4. The primary objective of the editorial staff is to inform its audience.

Now, a lot of things called "newspapers" (or news websites, broadcasts, etc.) don't adhere to these standards. Their business model is to try to capture an under-served market, which is why Fox News et. al. came along with a right-wing bias -- because there was a large market of conservatives, who were convinced that the media was biased toward liberals, that the right-wing media felt it could attract for its advertisers.





* We really need to get away from differentiating between newspapers, news websites and news broadcasts. The medium isn't the message.

I think media organistions and newspapers should stay neutral. I wouldn't think I was getting the whole of a story if I read about Muslims in the Express or the Mail.

Don't think there is such a thing as neutrality. It's all relative. Not just politics, but someone is making choices about what is interesting to the reading public. That's got to have a built in bias to it...if only toward what 'established' opinion is extant at any given time.

Original Quill wrote:Don't think there is such a thing as neutrality.  It's all relative.  Not just politics, but someone is making choices about what is interesting to the reading public.  That's got to have a built in bias to it...if only toward what 'established' opinion is extant at any given time.

It's why I avoid reading the main tabloids.

Original Quill wrote:Don't think there is such a thing as neutrality.  It's all relative.  Not just politics, but someone is making choices about what is interesting to the reading public.  That's got to have a built in bias to it...if only toward what 'established' opinion is extant at any given time.

Newsrooms take these issues very seriously -- that's why you see newsrooms at good papers that are as diverse as the communities they serve. It also helps that journalists find lots of things interesting, so they tend not to ignore important issue.

At the end of the day, it's more of an art than a science, though, and every new org's product is a reflection of the people who make it happen. Then again, so is every other company and organization.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Don't think there is such a thing as neutrality.  It's all relative.  Not just politics, but someone is making choices about what is interesting to the reading public.  That's got to have a built in bias to it...if only toward what 'established' opinion is extant at any given time.

Newsrooms take these issues very seriously -- that's why you see newsrooms at good papers that are as diverse as the communities they serve. It also helps that journalists find lots of things interesting, so they tend not to ignore important issue.

At the end of the day, it's more of an art than a science, though, and every new org's product is a reflection of the people who make it happen. Then again, so is every other company and organization.

It's definitely an art. I just wish our tabloids would take their art more fucking seriously.

I would agree that it's an art.  Always in the background is lurking the Toqueville criticism of the tyranny of the majority, as picked up in the 20th-century by Herbert Marcuse and his Critique of Pure Tolerance.  Ben, if you are a journalist, and I believe you are, I would be disappointed if you are not well-versed in this discussion.

This brings up the issue of why the RW always criticizes the press.  It's because if the press adopts the 'get along, go along' attitude, it is already leaning to the right.  So when the press tries to counter the Toqueville/Marcuse bias, it looks to the RW as if it is biased.

Original Quill wrote:I would agree that it's an art.  Always in the background is lurking the Toqueville criticism of the tyranny of the majority, as picked up in the 20th-century by Herbert Marcuse and his Critique of Pure Tolerance.  Ben, if you are a journalist, and I believe you are, I would be disappointed if you are not well-versed in this discussion.

This brings up the issue of why the RW always criticizes the press.  It's because if the press adopts the 'get along, go along' attitude, it is already leaning to the right.  So when the press tries to counter the Toqueville/Marcuse bias, it looks to the RW as if it is biased.

Well, as a sports journalist, I feel like I get to use about half my ability to earn my paycheck But your point goes to an idea we try to keep in mind even in sports -- one of our goals is to tell our readers about things that might defy their expectations.

To a true conservative, anything that challenges their preconceived notions about something important to them is an attack on their beliefs, and so they attribute that to their enemies, the liberals. For example, I believe that's why they get so pissed off at the occasional "Muslims -- they're just like us" article.

Does politics enter into sports much?

eddie wrote:Does politics enter into sports much?

Don't ask.

The Oakland Raiders have been the brunt of the Tagliabue gang since the 1970's.  The owner of the Raiders, Al Davis, took Tagliabue, who was then the antitrust lawyer for the League, to court twice on anti-trust claims, and won both times.  Tagliabue was then appointed to the $32-million a year job as Commissioner.  The present Commissioner is his hand-picked assistant, Roger Goodell.

Ever since Davis won the last suit, the Oakland Raiders have been the most penalized team in professional football.  Tagliabue has died, yet Goodell keeps the policy in place: if there's any question, rule against the Raiders.  Players come and go; coaches come and go; hell, Davis has died and passed ownership on to his nephew...and still the officials pick on the Oakland Raiders constantly.  Its not just bad calls, but no-calls when the flag should come out.  And Google something called The Tuck Rule (inventing rules on the spot, at the moment, against the Raiders).  It's like the mafia...they have to die before it changes.

Politics in sports?  It's an infection.

Wow! Who'd have thought it? Jeez. Do people have to make everything about power and money? What happened to a fair old game of ball?