mmmmmmaybe a flashback from the hectic seventies with good old dr. hofmann?
edit- on a more serious note, this certainly is an interesting move into electronic? publishing and, certainly whether you like the iPad or not, it is rocking the world....
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'The Daily' News Service for iPad Set for December Media Event Launch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
mmmmmmaybe a flashback from the hectic seventies with good old dr. hofmann?
edit- on a more serious note, this certainly is an interesting move into electronic? publishing and, certainly whether you like the iPad or not, it is rocking the world....
Amazing. One side smearing FOX, the other smearing the White House. What a productive conversation.
You have to have something sane to compare it to. I don't watch any news besides The News Hour. When you get your news from an institution that's sane, you speak out against the insane.
Also, insane news? It's a fairly new phenom. However, was clearly mapped out by George Orwell.
I strongly suggest you extract yourself from it.
Regarding the first point, perhaps his subscription predates the ruination of the WSJ? The WSJ used to be an excellent paper. The editorial page was very conservative, but the news section held to extremely high journalistic standards. No one objects to opinion in a news vehicle, as long as it is confined to the "opinion section."
Regarding the issue of doing business with Murdoch: in all of his businesses, Murdoch is all about the money, at all costs. On the entertainment side of his business, it's all good. On the news side, however, we used to have this thing called "journalism": an ethic dedicated to informing the public, and an independent voice to balance the other powers in society. Today, Murdoch's "news" operations seem to believe they can make more money by dropping any semblance of journalistic integrity, confusing the public, and shoring up one specific arm of the vested political establishment. And they may be correct in that this is a great formula for profit; but at what cost to society? No one cares whether Murdoch makes money, but a lot of people are upset at his mercenary efforts to drive legitimate journalism out of the marketplace.
This is understandable but very flawed logic. The argument here is that technology that reduces the need for certain jobs is bad. If that's the case then the development of faster and more automated printing presses was also bad. Perhaps all modern manufacturing processes that have reduced the number of workers needed to produce goods are bad. But then, how would you like to pay £5000 for that iPad?
There is always a bias towards making more jobs because no one likes to be out of a job or forced to change industry or to re-skill. But this is damaging. At what point do you stop the progress of technology in order to ensure higher levels of employment?
If you want to understand this far better than I could ever explain it, read Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations'. Increased productivity trumps increased employment every time because it frees up resources to be used elsewhere.
This is absolutely nothing new. I was publishing mags in the early 90s and saw the Repro industry decimated as cheap scanning then digital cameras and digital printing came in. Industries wax and wane, it's a natural cycle, some are longer than others.
Why don't you complain about Murdock instead? It's his content, not Steve's.
Please stay on topic instead of posting this drivel.
Thank you.
If you think Steve's primary motivation is money, then you have no idea how he works.
Correct.
Steve doesn't need more money. He gets $1 salary a year from Aple and turned down non-executive board compensation from Disney. That's right, Disney needed to amend their board policy so that they do not pay Steve a stipend for being a board member.
Note that Steve probably rakes in $30 million a year in Disney stock dividends. Steve is a minimalist, doesn't need much in the way of personal possessions.
Haha! I see you had to repost after your first nasty little post was spiked by the mods. You must be a Fox news fan.
I'm genuinely dismayed that Steve may share this stage with this filth peddler. By all means, let Rupert flog his wares on the iPad but for God's sake why give him the oxygen of publicity? Is it always about money with Steve?
And by the way, being told to stay on topic by you, Lil Rockefeller is hilarious. You're forever crowbarring the fact that you have 4 shares in AAPL into any thread you possibly can. Now run along lil money grabber.
Fox News is still confused about its News and Opinion Programming
http://www.thefoldblog.com/2010/04/fox-news-still-confused-about-its-news.html
But seriously, no one with a right mind watches Fox News. Rather FX Network or Fox Pictures
Just watch the Daily Show. They catch Fox News in a gross distortion of the facts at least once a week. It's practically a regularly scheduled skit for them.
The fact the pay wall existed before Murdoch doesn't change the fact that it's STILL profitable. And, in fact, WSJ circulation is up.
I read the WSJ daily (the paper version b/c the iPad version is weak sauce and incomplete). It's just as solid as ever. Most of the non-editorial page writers, like Kelly Evans, politically tilt to the left. Editorial page has always been center right even when the Bancofts owned it. Murdoch has made it less staid, more accessible, even relevant beyond the biz world. I hardly see it as the rag some say it now is -- only because Murdoch owns it.
I agree the concept of "journalism" has changed -- but it's not just Fox. It use to be the reporter or anchor did not insert themselves in the story. That is now par for the course. But to Fox News specifically, I've never seen them do a story when there wasn't a spokesperson for both sides of the argument unless one side decided not to show. I don't get where the intentional bias come in unless people are talking about the evening block of opinion shows ( of which all the other news channel offer as well). But those are not news program and most people know the difference between the 5pm news and Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow.
That's a highly debatable assertion, and one that has practically nothing to do with the topic at hand.
So, the public will be confused by hearing one side? The other side is the only one they should hear?
Every discussion of human politics always becomes:
Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Kettle.
Not sure I like the company that owns Fox News. Kinda surprised to see Apple doing this with News Corp.
Once upon a time, journalists didn't report their OPINIONS, they reported events and kept their opinions out of the report. Presently, cable "news" consists of pundits who have about as much knowledge in politics as a dry cleaner does in prostitution (there's a tongue in cheek joke there).
The only political anchors I watch in the USA are Rachel Maddow (who has a PhD from Oxford and whether you agree with her or not, she and her staff examine all possible aspects of the news and research reports supported via video/past articles and such to support bad policy, hypocrisy and negligence in our government) and the other anchor being Anderson Cooper.
Truthfully, politicians and cable networks have agendas, Democrat and Republican alike (News Corp owns Fox News which is extremely conservative, right based and generally panders to the common demonator). Since the Nixon administration, it has became less FOR the people and more FROM the people.
Interesting fact, Ronald Reagen had the most deficit in US history to date, who had the least? Press Bill Clinton. Just sayin'.
(and God do I miss the 90's, everything seemed to be getting better, peoples spirits, much less political discourse, and anything seemed possible, then came 2000 - and oddly I don't even associate 9/11 with the change in the world, it seemed the new millenium marched in a negative world tone).
Last edited by a moderator:
Post of the year. I'm glad we have a go-to guy to tell us what's going on in Steve's mind. Truth is that you know as little as I do about the motivation of Minimalist Steve who collects millions of dollars a year, lives in a mansion, and drives around in a top of the range Merc.
Might have had something to do with that imbecile Bush and his puppetmaster Cheney getting in to power.
Edit. Wow this is getting deep for a tech thread. Think I'll bow out on this note.
Last edited:
How does it have nothing to do w/ the topic at hand -- at least the one people seem to want to gravitate on that Fox News is biased. People who make this argument point to Beck/OReilly/Hannity which are not news shows and do not claim to be.
As to people not being able to tell the difference between news and opinion - if it's highly debatable it goes both ways, but people have been able to shift mental gears from the front page to the back of the front section for a century. It's not a new concept.
This will be only marginally successful, if that. Most people are simply not interested in paying $50/year for general news that you can find for free on the Internet. Paywalls have only worked in a handful of cases, and only then when the content is not generally available - with the best examples being the wsj (for their good financial stuff) and consumer reports.
While the iPad's success had demonstrated a market for a new type of computing device, I don't think it has demonstrated that these people are any more willing to pay for news content than anyone else is.
While the iPad's success had demonstrated a market for a new type of computing device, I don't think it has demonstrated that these people are any more willing to pay for news content than anyone else is.
The topic at hand is the development of a new model for digital distribution of news based periodicals.
FOX News is biased. All news is biased. That's beside the point. The point is whether an alliance between Apple and News Corps can point the way toward a new mode in content distribution for a withering industry.
No, it's not a new concept. However, it's clear that a large percentage of people have a very hard time figuring out what's opinion and what's news. This should be abundantly clear from even a cursory examination of how options and baseless accusations originating from both sides of the political divide gain traction in the 24 hour news cycle.
Sorry, but you're on thin ground here.