Part of it is probably related to the idea that as each generation gets further removed from it, it sort of goes away from our minds through attrition. For example, my grandfather fought in WWII. My father learned about that era directly from him and probably read more WWII-era history books than 99.9% of the population. Me? I come out of the "right" side of these questions (e.g., I know what Auschwitz is) but I am not nearly the student of the era my parents were. Growing up with them (my dad in particular) gave me that base...it was second-nature to him. But if I were to have kids (I'm not gonna), I'd probably have to make a specific effort to make sure they get that base...and I should...but human nature probably shows that the understanding of this period is going to dissipate in most households.
Regarding school, I don't remember learning about the Holocaust at school. I probably did, but I picked up most of my knowledge at home.
Two other thoughts: 1) Parents do need to expose their kids to important history like this but how many adults even now have a lot of interested? 2) There probably is no more important part of history to learn from and to make sure to avoid repeating.
That definitely will play a part. But not enough to explain why 22% haven't even heard of it. I mean, how long ago was the civil war, and yet we know a lot about it. Again, I learned a little from school, then even more talking about it. Probably spend a few days in school talking about it, then I go home and I even remember asking my parents about it during dinner 30 years ago. I asked did brothers really fight against brothers, and did kids really fight in this war? And we talked about it, how I was about 12 at the time and there were plenty of boys age 12 fighting, and plenty of families split and fought each other. I remember talking about that at dinner with my family, but I don't even remember what teacher I had that year.
I blame Texas as the largest purchaser of school text books, they get a disproportionate edit right and thus influence content across the country. I was exposed to the holocaust in junior high and studied it extensively in high school. More importantly, after reading the Diary of Anne Frank I went to my junior high library and followed up with every book I could get my hands on regarding 1939-1945. We also watched black and white film of the liberation of the camps and I remember kids leaving the room in tears. It certainly made me aware that the world is a cruel place due to humankind.
The TX issue is real, but not the cause here. Students take a year of world history in high school and unless they have a specific interest, that's pretty much it. They take a poli sci/gov't, and an American History too. Everything else is optional and therefore most will bypass history. So if you think about take a world history survey course, you will spend a decent amount of time on WWII, and you will study the Holocaust for a segment, but how much will you spend on Auschwitz itself? Not much. And then they ask Millenials in a survey something that is probably 10 to 15 years about one death camp that they may have learned in one or two classes during a WH survey course likely in 9th or 10th grade. It's no wonder.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The TX issue is real, but not the cause here. Students take a year of world history in high school and unless they have a specific interest, that's pretty much it. They take a poli sci/gov't, and an American History too. Everything else is optional and therefore most will bypass history. So if you think about take a world history survey course, you will spend a decent amount of time on WWII, and you will study the Holocaust for a segment, but how much will you spend on Auschwitz itself? Not much. And then they ask Millenials in a survey something that is probably 10 to 15 years about one death camp that they may have learned in one or two classes during a WH survey course likely in 9th or 10th grade. It's no wonder.
What about before high school, though? That’s a time when everyone takes “social studies” (at least in Canada), wirh a big focus on European history.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The TX issue is real, but not the cause here. Students take a year of world history in high school and unless they have a specific interest, that's pretty much it. They take a poli sci/gov't, and an American History too. Everything else is optional and therefore most will bypass history. So if you think about take a world history survey course, you will spend a decent amount of time on WWII, and you will study the Holocaust for a segment, but how much will you spend on Auschwitz itself? Not much. And then they ask Millenials in a survey something that is probably 10 to 15 years about one death camp that they may have learned in one or two classes during a WH survey course likely in 9th or 10th grade. It's no wonder.
What about before high school, though? That’s a time when everyone takes “social studies” (at least in Canada), wirh a big focus on European history.
Geography and american history. Maybe civilization. But WWII is really only taught in the one course. As someone with a history degree, it's fairly appalling but true.
The TX issue is real, but not the cause here. Students take a year of world history in high school and unless they have a specific interest, that's pretty much it. They take a poli sci/gov't, and an American History too. Everything else is optional and therefore most will bypass history. So if you think about take a world history survey course, you will spend a decent amount of time on WWII, and you will study the Holocaust for a segment, but how much will you spend on Auschwitz itself? Not much. And then they ask Millenials in a survey something that is probably 10 to 15 years about one death camp that they may have learned in one or two classes during a WH survey course likely in 9th or 10th grade. It's no wonder.
What about before high school, though? That’s a time when everyone takes “social studies” (at least in Canada), wirh a big focus on European history.
Geography and american history. Maybe civilization. But WWII is really only taught in the one course. As someone with a history degree, it's fairly appalling but true.
Urgh.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Part of it is probably related to the idea that as each generation gets further removed from it, it sort of goes away from our minds through attrition. For example, my grandfather fought in WWII. My father learned about that era directly from him and probably read more WWII-era history books than 99.9% of the population. Me? I come out of the "right" side of these questions (e.g., I know what Auschwitz is) but I am not nearly the student of the era my parents were. Growing up with them (my dad in particular) gave me that base...it was second-nature to him. But if I were to have kids (I'm not gonna), I'd probably have to make a specific effort to make sure they get that base...and I should...but human nature probably shows that the understanding of this period is going to dissipate in most households.
Regarding school, I don't remember learning about the Holocaust at school. I probably did, but I picked up most of my knowledge at home.
Two other thoughts: 1) Parents do need to expose their kids to important history like this but how many adults even now have a lot of interested? 2) There probably is no more important part of history to learn from and to make sure to avoid repeating.
That definitely will play a part. But not enough to explain why 22% haven't even heard of it. I mean, how long ago was the civil war, and yet we know a lot about it. Again, I learned a little from school, then even more talking about it. Probably spend a few days in school talking about it, then I go home and I even remember asking my parents about it during dinner 30 years ago. I asked did brothers really fight against brothers, and did kids really fight in this war? And we talked about it, how I was about 12 at the time and there were plenty of boys age 12 fighting, and plenty of families split and fought each other. I remember talking about that at dinner with my family, but I don't even remember what teacher I had that year.
I blame Texas as the largest purchaser of school text books, they get a disproportionate edit right and thus influence content across the country. I was exposed to the holocaust in junior high and studied it extensively in high school. More importantly, after reading the Diary of Anne Frank I went to my junior high library and followed up with every book I could get my hands on regarding 1939-1945. We also watched black and white film of the liberation of the camps and I remember kids leaving the room in tears. It certainly made me aware that the world is a cruel place due to humankind.
I grew up in TX and remember reading the Diary of Anne Frank in middle school and doing a research paper on the Holocaust in high school...Do they honestly not teach that anymore? My grandfather actually almost got blown to bits in WW2, so my generation has a pretty close relationship with that time period. Newer Millennials, that becomes the case less and less(relationship with time period)...
If kids don’t know about the holocaust...we should start by looking at the parents. No idea why the rush to judge the schools always happens, so they have to teach everything? Parents have given up responsibility to the school and then blame them when their kids don’t know shit
If kids don’t know about the holocaust...we should start by looking at the parents. No idea why the rush to judge the schools always happens, so they have to teach everything? Parents have given up responsibility to the school and then blame them when their kids don’t know shit
It’s reasonable to expect the schools to teach important events in world history. There has been a lot added to the curriculum that could justifiably be said to more properly be within the realm of parenting, except that many parents drop the ball on it, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask for schools to teach the basic academic subjects.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
If kids don’t know about the holocaust...we should start by looking at the parents. No idea why the rush to judge the schools always happens, so they have to teach everything? Parents have given up responsibility to the school and then blame them when their kids don’t know shit
everything? haha, no. i'm not judging the schools. i'm actually judging society, parents and the school system as a whole, for forcing schools to become these havens for kids to never fail and to always be allowed to pass no matter what.
generally academics gets taught in school, yes. my kid doesn't learn geometry from me first. they learn it at school and i help if they need it, and if i can fucking remember it, haha.
obviously we are supposed to teach our kids outside of school, that's a no brainer, but that doesn't absolve the education system from their responsibility in this partnership.
It's not the parents, the teachers, the schools, the curriculum, or any of that. It's because close to half the population is fucking dumb. It's easy to think "kids these days", but a survey of boomers on other topics, evolution or geography, for instance, produces similarly horrifying results.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
No doubt, I would guess that if you googled “Barbara Bush fake nude”, you would probably get results, frankly just because some weirdos get off on creating those. The internet is vile and some people love pushing that vileness to new levels.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
Gee I don't know.....maybe because it was The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website, that ran a story about it and promoted it on twitter? They obviously didn't make the fake picture but they had no problems running with the story. Hardly believe they'd have done the same with Sarah Palin pics....
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
Gee I don't know.....maybe because it was The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website, that ran a story about it and promoted it on twitter? They obviously didn't make the fake picture but they had no problems running with the story. Hardly believe they'd have done the same with Sarah Palin pics....
The only story I saw in the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Unless there was another story where they were actually promoting it then that that doesn't saying anything about it being some part right taking her down. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
Gee I don't know.....maybe because it was The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website, that ran a story about it and promoted it on twitter? They obviously didn't make the fake picture but they had no problems running with the story. Hardly believe they'd have done the same with Sarah Palin pics....
The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?
The Caller amended their site and changed it after they discovered they were fake. They were promoting it when they thought they were real.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
Gee I don't know.....maybe because it was The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website, that ran a story about it and promoted it on twitter? They obviously didn't make the fake picture but they had no problems running with the story. Hardly believe they'd have done the same with Sarah Palin pics....
The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?
The Caller amended their site and changed it after they discovered they were fake. They were promoting it when they thought they were real.
Are there copies of the original floating around? I'd be interested in seeing how they wrote about it and what was said.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
Gee I don't know.....maybe because it was The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website, that ran a story about it and promoted it on twitter? They obviously didn't make the fake picture but they had no problems running with the story. Hardly believe they'd have done the same with Sarah Palin pics....
The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?
The Caller amended their site and changed it after they discovered they were fake. They were promoting it when they thought they were real.
Are there copies of the original floating around? I'd be interested in seeing how they wrote about it and what was said.
See the twitter feed. Notice the way they worded it to protect themselves. Curious if they posted the same about Scarlett Johansson or any of the other 'celebrities' who have been victimized by fake nudes.
I agree here. Yes she has made a splash and yes, she uses social media effectively, but she has been outflanked by Pelosi twice. She needs to be more strategic if she wants to make a difference. But that takes time and experience, ironically.
I don't think she should be blamed for getting airtime and attention.
exactly. but the trolls on the right sharing the video and fake nudes trying to shame her are only making her more legitimate. plus, her twitter game is on point. she gives it right back to the people attacking her.
Thats what I still dont get, and I havent seen an answer yet. What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
Gee I don't know.....maybe because it was The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website, that ran a story about it and promoted it on twitter? They obviously didn't make the fake picture but they had no problems running with the story. Hardly believe they'd have done the same with Sarah Palin pics....
The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?
The Caller amended their site and changed it after they discovered they were fake. They were promoting it when they thought they were real.
Are there copies of the original floating around? I'd be interested in seeing how they wrote about it and what was said.
I’m not aware of how to find a “copy”. Someone more savvy with the internet might tell us how to find them, because there must be a way.
My understanding is that the DC published the photos with a deliberately misleading headline. They knew the photos weren’t OC but the headline suggested they were. The text of the article confirmed that it had been debunked, but you know that not everyone reads the full text.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see. Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea. Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow. This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
You're putting forth quite a bit of effort to defend Tucker Carlson's website....
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see. Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea. Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow. This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
You must not remember Newt Gringrich and the faxed talking points sent to every right wing media outlet? They all sounded the same, had the same talking points with answers! Do you think that doesn't continue today? Faux News, Rushbo, Hannity, etc. they all parrot the same shit. What other sources do you think the average "righty" also might tap for information?
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see. Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea. Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow. This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
Seriously? You don't think the "echo chamber" of right wing news exists? What center to left source do you think right wingers are using? Fox, Breitbart, Trump, Rush, Hannity have done quite the number over the past 25 years to de-legitimize the 'lamestream' media. It's been genius, I have to say. But it creates a feedback loop where they are disconnected from reality. You need to spend more time in the echo chamber, poking around, to understand the pervasiveness of it.
Oh and yes.. it is a business. You are right. And they've built the business by destroying their competitors reputation among their targets. It's worked perfectly.
NEW YORK—As part of its effort to provide the most comprehensive reporting possible on the freshman congresswoman, Fox News announced Wednesday the debut of a new premium television channel that will offer continuous, around-the-clock updates on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). “For an extra $8.99 per month, you’ll have an all-access pass to the AOC Zone, which features wall-to-wall coverage of every word Ocasio-Cortez utters, as well as in-depth analysis of her wardrobe and any videos we’re able to dig up from her college days,” said Fox spokesperson Avery Mattison, adding that the new channel will include uninterrupted live footage of the 29-year-old representative every time she appears in public, along with nonstop commentary from a 12-person panel of experts. “We know our viewers will come to depend on this outlet for 24-hour coverage of AOC, which is why her tweets, Instagram posts, and her latest wacky policy proposals will appear in a ticker at the bottom of the screen. We’re particularly excited for the premiere of the channel’s flagship program, AOC Tonight With Tucker Carlson.” Minutes after AOC Zone began broadcasting, sources confirmed its ratings had already surpassed those of Fox News.
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see. Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea. Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow. This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
Seriously? You don't think the "echo chamber" of right wing news exists? What center to left source do you think right wingers are using? Fox, Breitbart, Trump, Rush, Hannity have done quite the number over the past 25 years to de-legitimize the 'lamestream' media. It's been genius, I have to say. But it creates a feedback loop where they are disconnected from reality. You need to spend more time in the echo chamber, poking around, to understand the pervasiveness of it.
I never said it doesn't. I've said this many times, but when a small percentage of a group is referred to as the whole it is wrong. And that is usually the case when the left talks about the right (and probably reverse too). Scroll through any of these threads, you will see many posts where many different users describe all republicans as hillbillies, or that their only source of news is Fox and so on. I'm just saying the number of republicans that actually fit into that box are very small. And for the comment that I am working pretty hard to defend Tucker's website, I don't see how me saying I view The Daily Caller more as a business than a proper journalist site is a defense or compliment at all. Its stating my opinion on his website, but how is that a defense to it? Clearly a lot of people here read and watch fox news because it is talked about ALL the time. So why assume the right/republicans only watch Fox and nothing else? Many will refer to republicans as brainwashed fox viewers, but in all reality I hear more people frmo the left talk about fox than from the right.
Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is. I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see. Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea. Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow. This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
Seriously? You don't think the "echo chamber" of right wing news exists? What center to left source do you think right wingers are using? Fox, Breitbart, Trump, Rush, Hannity have done quite the number over the past 25 years to de-legitimize the 'lamestream' media. It's been genius, I have to say. But it creates a feedback loop where they are disconnected from reality. You need to spend more time in the echo chamber, poking around, to understand the pervasiveness of it.
I never said it doesn't. I've said this many times, but when a small percentage of a group is referred to as the whole it is wrong. And that is usually the case when the left talks about the right (and probably reverse too). Scroll through any of these threads, you will see many posts where many different users describe all republicans as hillbillies, or that their only source of news is Fox and so on. I'm just saying the number of republicans that actually fit into that box are very small. And for the comment that I am working pretty hard to defend Tucker's website, I don't see how me saying I view The Daily Caller more as a business than a proper journalist site is a defense or compliment at all. Its stating my opinion on his website, but how is that a defense to it? Clearly a lot of people here read and watch fox news because it is talked about ALL the time. So why assume the right/republicans only watch Fox and nothing else? Many will refer to republicans as brainwashed fox viewers, but in all reality I hear more people frmo the left talk about fox than from the right.
actually, I find it worse on the right. I see people referring to the GOP a lot, but mostly, when it's something being generalized, I see the words "left" way more than I see "right".
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
generally academics gets taught in school, yes. my kid doesn't learn geometry from me first. they learn it at school and i help if they need it, and if i can fucking remember it, haha.
obviously we are supposed to teach our kids outside of school, that's a no brainer, but that doesn't absolve the education system from their responsibility in this partnership.
anyway, BACK TO THE DANCING CONGRESSPERSON!!!
www.headstonesband.com
It's because close to half the population is fucking dumb.
It's easy to think "kids these days", but a survey of boomers on other topics, evolution or geography, for instance, produces similarly horrifying results.
What makes it the right that is doing it? Pretty much every female her age and is well known has fake nudes (unfortunately). What makes you think this one incident is somehow a conspiracy on the right to keep her down and not some creepy guy like thousands of other cases? I see no connection here, as this happens to just about everyone who is well known, even ones who aren't even attractive. This was bound to happen, and it will happen to the next republican young female too.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ocasio-cortez-drags-the-daily-caller-for-misleading-fake-nude-headline-2019-01-10
My understanding is that the DC published the photos with a deliberately misleading headline. They knew the photos weren’t OC but the headline suggested they were. The text of the article confirmed that it had been debunked, but you know that not everyone reads the full text.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see.
Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea.
Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow.
This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Fox News Debuts Premium Channel For 24-Hour Coverage Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
NEW YORK—As part of its effort to provide the most comprehensive reporting possible on the freshman congresswoman, Fox News announced Wednesday the debut of a new premium television channel that will offer continuous, around-the-clock updates on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). “For an extra $8.99 per month, you’ll have an all-access pass to the AOC Zone, which features wall-to-wall coverage of every word Ocasio-Cortez utters, as well as in-depth analysis of her wardrobe and any videos we’re able to dig up from her college days,” said Fox spokesperson Avery Mattison, adding that the new channel will include uninterrupted live footage of the 29-year-old representative every time she appears in public, along with nonstop commentary from a 12-person panel of experts. “We know our viewers will come to depend on this outlet for 24-hour coverage of AOC, which is why her tweets, Instagram posts, and her latest wacky policy proposals will appear in a ticker at the bottom of the screen. We’re particularly excited for the premiere of the channel’s flagship program, AOC Tonight With Tucker Carlson.” Minutes after AOC Zone began broadcasting, sources confirmed its ratings had already surpassed those of Fox News.
I'm just saying the number of republicans that actually fit into that box are very small.
And for the comment that I am working pretty hard to defend Tucker's website, I don't see how me saying I view The Daily Caller more as a business than a proper journalist site is a defense or compliment at all. Its stating my opinion on his website, but how is that a defense to it?
Clearly a lot of people here read and watch fox news because it is talked about ALL the time. So why assume the right/republicans only watch Fox and nothing else? Many will refer to republicans as brainwashed fox viewers, but in all reality I hear more people frmo the left talk about fox than from the right.
www.headstonesband.com