The Media Industry

[Seattle Husker]

The thing is, I consider both of them to be on Mt Rushmore of musical art. They are singer songwriters who managed great commercial success without compromise. I thought Madonna was a bit in that category if you can believe that but not quite enough to make the chisel.

As for the two others on Mt Rushmore I'd nominate Bob Dylan and Prince...

I was also thinking of David Bowie...

To be sure, these artists can afford to be principled. I don't have any issue with Neil Young wanting the companies that profit off his music to share his values. In traditional music sales models artist often would choose to avoid retailers, venues or even cities as a "protest". It's up to Spotify to determine what values are core to their business and shareholders. If Joe Rogan and his 10M+ monthly listeners are more important than Neil Young to them, that's their decision to make.

 

[bystander]

You're gonna think I'm nuts but that danged Taylor Swift is an amazing writer. More of a poet really. Some of her lyrics are so good. I'm not a huge fan but went down a rabbit hole last week and was impressed.

I think your musical information may be stronger than mine.

I try very hard not to be my parents; you know, modern music is not music etc. I'm willing to listen to today's music but must admit I thought Swift was shallow but not because of a true investigation of her music.

If you have a moment, I'd be interested in reading some of her lyrics if you'd point me in the right direction. I'm a big lyric guy and fancy myself as a bit of a poet.

 

[bystander]

To be sure, these artists can afford to be principled. I

Absolutely...

I remember Rush used that Pretenders song for his theme music. I thought Crissie Hynde's tried to get him to stop but I'm not sure she was able to.

 

[mchammer]

Absolutely...

I remember Rush used that Pretenders song for his theme music. I thought Crissie Hynde's tried to get him to stop but I'm not sure she was able to.

She relented because her father was a big fan of Rush.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's the goal of some on the right (and quietly some on the left), myself included. I haven't heard Palin say that, but I wasn't aware that Thiel was funding her case. I'm not too shocked. Probably not many lawyers would have taken her case on a contingent fee.

From a facts standpoint, it's not a bad case to use except for the fact that it involves someone as polarizing as Palin.

The jury came back with a "not guilty" verdict for the NYT. So Palin (and Peter Thiel) now have the judge and jury's verdict working against them on appeal.

New York Times found not liable in Palin defamation case

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

To be sure, these artists can afford to be principled. I don't have any issue with Neil Young wanting the companies that profit off his music to share his values. In traditional music sales models artist often would choose to avoid retailers, venues or even cities as a "protest". It's up to Spotify to determine what values are core to their business and shareholders. If Joe Rogan and his 10M+ monthly listeners are more important than Neil Young to them, that's their decision to make.

Spotify was happy having both. Neil Young was the one making unreasonable demands. Spotify simply agreed to his demands. It wasn't really much of a decision.

 

[OUBubba]

Spotify was happy having both. Neil Young was the one making unreasonable demands. Spotify simply agreed to his demands. It wasn't really much of a decision.

They're demands that he thinks reasonable and he's willing to live with the results. Freedom and all.

 

[iatrogenic]

They're demands that he thinks reasonable and he's willing to live with the results. Freedom and all.

Freedom for Neil but not for Joe.

 

[nashhorn]

My way or I take my ball and go home……bye.

 

[OUBubba]

I try very hard not to be my parents; you know, modern music is not music etc. I'm willing to listen to today's music but must admit I thought Swift was shallow but not because of a true investigation of her music.

If you have a moment, I'd be interested in reading some of her lyrics if you'd point me in the right direction. I'm a big lyric guy and fancy myself as a bit of a poet.

Her music is not typically my bag. I've always liked her persona. She didn't care much what people thought of her. Kanye showed his arse with her. I perked up when she took ownership of her digital music by re-doing it all and releasing it as "taylor's version". That was a baller move. I've not really sought out and listened to a full song until this year. I like her county/folk/country sounds and not the pure pop stuff. I think I just appreciate her as a writer as much as anything.

This six verse one is all the rage these days. I listened to it and read along with the lyrics. Taylor Swift – All Too Well (10 Minute Version) (Taylor's Version) [Live Acoustic] Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

Now, my go-to spotify playlist goes from Kathy Matttea to Kid Rock to The Turnpike Troubadors to Jason Boland to all of the classic country/rock. One day at my business it went CDB>Poison>Marty Robbins and I laughed audibly. I'm not a musician or an aficionado.

 

[Seattle Husker]

My way or I take my ball and go home……bye.

His music his choice.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The jury came back with a "not guilty" verdict for the NYT. So Palin (and Peter Thiel) now have the judge and jury's verdict working against them on appeal.

New York Times found not liable in Palin defamation case

If that's the case, then I would expect them to take the legal questions (actual malice and clear and convincing evidence) up on appeal, which is obviously what I want. However, the Supreme Court would have to get involved, and I'm not overly confident that they'll do it. I think we know that based on previous comments that Gorsuch and Thomas would vote to reverse New York Times v. Sullivan. Because his philosophy is so close to theirs, I presume that Alito would join them.

None of the liberal justices will consider overturning it. In fact, they would likely broaden it. Roberts wouldn't broaden it, but I don't think he'd narrow it much either and certainly wouldn't overturn it. That would mean that both Kavanaugh and Barrett would have to go along to make it happen. Very hard to imagine that happening.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If that's the case, then I would expect them to take the legal questions (actual malice and clear and convincing evidence) up on appeal, which is obviously what I want. However, the Supreme Court would have to get involved, and I'm not overly confident that they'll do it. I think we know that based on previous comments that Gorsuch and Thomas would vote to reverse New York Times v. Sullivan. Because his philosophy is so close to theirs, I presume that Alito would join them.

None of the liberal justices will consider overturning it. In fact, they would likely broaden it. Roberts wouldn't broaden it, but I don't think he'd narrow it much either and certainly wouldn't overturn it. That would mean that both Kavanaugh and Barrett would have to go along to make it happen. Very hard to imagine that happening.

I don't know their judicial philosophies well enough but ABC seems to be reliably aligned with her more conservative justices. Kavanaugh shocked me recently (can't remember the case) where he aligned with the liberals, albeit for different reasons. Roberts seems destined for spending his career preserving the status quo. So, that makes Kavanaugh the wildcard for me.

 

[iatrogenic]

His music his choice.

Self-cancellation. You go Dems!

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know their judicial philosophies well enough but ABC seems to be reliably aligned with her more conservative justices. Kavanaugh shocked me recently (can't remember the case) where he aligned with the liberals, albeit for different reasons. Roberts seems destined for spending his career preserving the status quo. So, that makes Kavanaugh the wildcard for me.

Both Kavanaugh and Barrett declined efforts to revisit Obamacare and rejected the more rigid approach of the other three conservative justices on a religious liberty/gay adoption case. Obviously it's early to tell, but at least so far, they're looking a little closer to Roberts than to the other three conservatives though still to Roberts' right. They're not conservative firebrands.

Another problem is that the Right isn't unified on NYT v. Sullivan. They may detest the Times pretty uniformly, but do you think Fox News and Newsmax want NYT v. Sullivan overturned? Hell no. It would force the mainstream media to be far more careful about printing ugly things that they don't know to be true, but that same restraint would hit Fox News and Newsmax too.

Reversing NYT would destroy the screaming opinion host model. Do I think Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity would lose their jobs? No. All three of them obviously have a talent as talkshow hosts, but they'd have to greatly tone it down. Could far more reserved versions of them keep their audiences in whole? Probably not.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Reversing NYT would destroy the screaming opinion host model. Do I think Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity would lose their jobs? No. All three of them obviously have a talent as talkshow hosts, but they'd have to greatly tone it down. Could far more reserved versions of them keep their audiences in whole? Probably not.

You keep talking like that and I'll jump in your boat. The flamethrowing political commentary shows are abhorrent and do more to divide is simply for ratings than any "biased news department". The blurring of lines between news and commentary need to be clarified but we now know the average news consumer is too dense.

 

[nashhorn]

The flamethrowing political commentary shows are abhorrent and do more to divide is simply for ratings than any "biased news department".

Could agree on most of your post but not to this one, just by numbers alone.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

It would force the mainstream media to be far more careful about printing ugly things that they don't know to be true, but that same restraint would hit Fox News and Newsmax too.

To the benefit of all readers/consumers of news of any stripe. Who gives a crap what the right or left ****-flinging media types want?

 

[Mr. Deez]

You keep talking like that and I'll jump in your boat. The flamethrowing political commentary shows are abhorrent and do more to divide is simply for ratings than any "biased news department". The blurring of lines between news and commentary need to be clarified but we now know the average news consumer is too dense.

To the benefit of all readers/consumers of news of any stripe. Who gives a crap what the right or left ****-flinging media types want?

You could still have opinion shows. The hosts could even be vitriolic about their beliefs. The big difference is that they'd have to be a lot more careful about being accurate in their vitriol. They couldn't just make up a controversy or wildly distort one and start flinging **** about it. That would get them sued.

NYT v. Sullivan doesn't require them to be accurate. It only requires them not to knowingly be inaccurate or essentially not to care if they're inaccurate. That virtually gives them an "I'm stupid" defense. Furthermore, the evidentiary burden is much higher than it is in normal civil cases. To win, you need a smoking gun that's very, very seldom found.

Would Palin had won without New York Times v. Sullivan? It depends on what New York state defamation law says. If they go with strict liability (which I wouldn't advocate), she almost surely would have won. If they go with a negligence standard and a preponderance of evidence burden (which is what I'd advocate), her chances certainly would have been much better.

 

[Statalyzer]

Just saw the latest stats on Asian Hate Crimes in New York City:
2020: +900%
2021: +4,333%

Un-freakin'-believable. But let's not cover it, right MSM? Doesn't fit the narrative. "Nothing to see here, move on" - MSM

Same reason they aren't talking about "kids in cages" any more.

Except I really liked Rush Limbaugh and miss him on the radio. There will never be another Rush! But you are right about talk radio and late night comics. Some of these comics are getting really good too, Jon Stewart is really funny. I can appreciate their humor

My problem with both of them is similar to my problem with most modern left-leaning comedians - they always go in step with their team's position and only ever mock the other side. I prefer those who can laugh at themselves equally well.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

How come media stopped reporting this? Anyone? Bueller?

First, I'm very dubious about the large increase. Either the original number was crazy low or the bar for "hate crime" has shifted way down in a lot of people's minds. I think really it is that bar has shifted and "micro-aggressions" are now enough to qualify as a hate crime for some.

Second, it doesn't get much play because it seems that much of the Asian hate crime is committed by black people. That's certainly not a thing that MSM ever wants to amplify.

Third, everybody knows Asians are actually white (when it is convenient for MSM) and they are only minorities when it is useful (for MSM media)

 

[bystander]

A series on Netflix is not necessarily "The Media" but in this case it's all the same to me.

My wife and I are watching Inventing Anna. It's about an imposter who fooled much of the self-important elites in New York City.

During the show (up to episode 6; I believe there are 9 in total), the media characters (who are investigating the story on the show) took shots at Trump. There was ZERO NEED FOR THIS as Trump had nothing to do with the woman. Yet they just blatantly drop it in on occasion just to keep us brainwashed.

This is what is happening. It also happened in the show, The Good Fight (a spin-off of The Good Wife which starred Julianna Margulies). My wife and I enjoyed The Good Wife (though she was not a fan of the actor who played Julianna's husband and Mr. Big on SITC and declared scoreboard when he was cancelled due to Me Too situations) so we thought to watch the spin-off. We quit after two episodes due to the open and blatant shots at Trump; again, in situations that were totally unnecessary for plot development.

That's what is happening folks. That is the corruption. I've said it time and time again; I'm not assuming the election was stolen at the voting booth. It instead was stolen by the years of complete media and entertainment industry collusion against Trump.

It's real.

 

[Horn6721]

By
You are right. The last 6 years have been savage.
Until Trump announced run in 16 the media was generally positive wuth coverage.
Since then it has been non stop brutal

 

[OUBubba]

A series on Netflix is not necessarily "The Media" but in this case it's all the same to me.

My wife and I are watching Inventing Anna. It's about an imposter who fooled much of the self-important elites in New York City.

During the show (up to episode 6; I believe there are 9 in total), the media characters (who are investigating the story on the show) took shots at Trump. There was ZERO NEED FOR THIS as Trump had nothing to do with the woman. Yet they just blatantly drop it in on occasion just to keep us brainwashed.

This is what is happening. It also happened in the show, The Good Fight (a spin-off of The Good Wife which starred Julianna Margulies) did the same thing. My wife and I enjoyed The Good Wife (though she was not a fan of the actor who played Julianna's husband and Mr. Big on SITC and declared scoreboard when he was cancelled due to Me Too situations) so we thought to watch the spin-off. We quit after two episodes due to the open and blatant shots at Trump; again, in situations that were totally unnecessary for plot development.

That's what is happening folks. That is the corruption. I've said it time and time again; I'm not assuming the election was stolen at the voting booth. It instead was stolen by the years of complete media and entertainment industry collusion against Trump.

It's real.

The entertainment industry will lean left. Sure. But to say that is akin to "stealing an election" is a little inaccurate. And, given the fact that there was a popular vote margin of more than 7,000,000 votes, it rises to disingenuous.

 

[bystander]

The entertainment industry will lean left. Sure. But to say that is akin to "stealing an election" is a little inaccurate. And, given the fact that there was a popular vote margin of more than 7,000,000 votes, it rises to disingenuous.

Not if you have four solid years of a coordinated attack on the senses of human beings listening to all of this.

 

[bystander]

Check this:

'He's Just A Bad Guy': Judge Slams Claim That Trump Is Unfairly Singled Out In AG Probe

“If Ms. James has a thing against him, OK, that’s not in my understanding [of] unlawful discrimination. He’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”

The hatred against Trump is so pronounced that a judge (a registered Democrat; see source below) openly slams him based upon his personal opinion.

https://trellis.law/judge/arthur.f.engoron

The clear bias and political corruption from the left is AT LEAST as bad as anything you believe Trump to have done.

 

[Garmel]

Check this:

'He's Just A Bad Guy': Judge Slams Claim That Trump Is Unfairly Singled Out In AG Probe

“If Ms. James has a thing against him, OK, that’s not in my understanding [of] unlawful discrimination. He’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”

The hatred against Trump is so pronounced that a judge (a registered Democrat; see source below) openly slams him based upon his personal opinion.

https://trellis.law/judge/arthur.f.engoron

The clear bias and political corruption from the left is AT LEAST as bad as anything you believe Trump to have done.

While the Mazars situation might give some credence that there could be something there, the fact is that Trump will not get anything resembling a fair trial. This is heavily politically motivated. I've shown this video of the AG before. How is this okay?

 

[Seattle Husker]

While the Mazars situation might give some credence that there could be something there

Might??????????

Most President's haven't had the need to pardon 10's of their own political consultants, business partners and family members. The sheer scale is mind boggling. It used to be that a POTUS would get critisised for sneaking 1-2 friends into the pardon mix. Bill Clinton deserved the ridicule he got for pardoning Marc Rich at the end of his final term. That was just a Tuesday for Trump.

I'm not even saying the AG doesn't have an agenda against Trump but the evidence of corruption is rampant. If Trump gets nabbed on an Elliot Ness style tax evasion then so be it. He's made a career out of payoffs to settle litigation due to shady business practices.

 

[Garmel]

Might??????????

Most President's haven't had the need to pardon 10's of their own political consultants, business partners and family members. The sheer scale is mind boggling. It used to be that a POTUS would get critisised for sneaking 1-2 friends into the pardon mix. Bill Clinton deserved the ridicule he got for pardoning Marc Rich at the end of his final term. That was just a Tuesday for Trump.

I'm not even saying the AG doesn't have an agenda against Trump but the evidence of corruption is rampant. If Trump gets nabbed on an Elliot Ness style tax evasion then so be it. He's made a career out of payoffs to settle litigation due to shady business practices.

Yes, it could be a "might". Mazar could very well have been pressured into saying that. The timing was strange coming shortly after the Durham announcement. Also, the weasel words Mazar was using was strange too as if they were not committed completely into what they were implying.

Not every president had to deal with the modern left going after their people like this either and many of those cases were simply eye-rolling. As bystander said "The clear bias and political corruption from the left is AT LEAST as bad as anything you believe Trump to have done." is absolutely true.

 

[Garmel]

I'm still curious to how Trump was supposedly cooking the books in regards to the value of his properties. I'm not Trump but I do have a considerable amount of property and I have little say so in regards to their value. The county does that. How does New York do theirs?