Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 172: The Cohen Bothers

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dancedreamer posted...

https://s14.postimg.cc/kwn1etwpt/cnn.png

Posted it on postimage since imgur is messing up apparently?

Not mobile.

I am on mobile. See how it is buried?

I have a photo if you want to give me an email to show you.
---

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.

Any time I refer to Fox news or CNN I am referring to their mobile sites. I don't really watch them ever or ever go to them on a computer.
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.

Any time I refer to Fox news or CNN I am referring to their mobile sites. I don't really watch them ever or ever go to them on a computer.

You can view a desktop site on your phone too ya know.
---

Yeah, it's not that way on Mobile. But when you look on a laptop or pc you see the story right at the top.
---

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.

Any time I refer to Fox news or CNN I am referring to their mobile sites. I don't really watch them ever or ever go to them on a computer.

You can view a desktop site on your phone too ya know.

I am aware. It would just be idiotic to do so.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Yeah, it's not that way on Mobile. But when you look on a laptop or pc you see the story right at the top.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that CNN is mostly viewed via mobile platforms on their mobile site.

Their mobile ordering of articles clearly shows how they rank what is on their site in importance.

Yes, an Ironman suit being stolen or when will F150s run out was more important in their scheme of things right now.
---

Corrik posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.

Any time I refer to Fox news or CNN I am referring to their mobile sites. I don't really watch them ever or ever go to them on a computer.

You can view a desktop site on your phone too ya know.

I am aware. It would just be idiotic to do so.

You would get more headlines per page and you wouldn't be as ignorant about what they cover so not really?
---

Corrik posted...

Their mobile ordering of articles clearly shows how they rank what is on their site in importance.

Nah, they rank based on what gets the most hits and always will do.

Perception of importance is irrelevant to all news agencies, just what people want to click on/read/watch.
---

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.

Any time I refer to Fox news or CNN I am referring to their mobile sites. I don't really watch them ever or ever go to them on a computer.

You can view a desktop site on your phone too ya know.

I am aware. It would just be idiotic to do so.

You would get more headlines per page and you wouldn't be as ignorant about what they cover so not really?

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/10/01/cnn-takes-top-spot-in-multi-platform-views-desktop-uniques-and-page-views/

In August of 2015 CNN had 893 million desktop views and approximately 807 million mobile views in the month.

In 3 years which do you think leads which now?

Maybe you are ignorant of what they are peddling to the masses?
---

GildedFool posted...

Corrik posted...

Their mobile ordering of articles clearly shows how they rank what is on their site in importance.

Nah, they rank based on what gets the most hits and always will do.

Perception of importance is irrelevant to all news agencies, just what people want to click on/read/watch.

This is literally impossible. A brand new article with zero hits (as of posting) is number 1 on their mobile.

In fact, the entire premise makes no sense. Unless you are talking about what they THINK will get more hits. Which tells you a lot right there.

A lot of these articles in the ones I posted are even regurgitated articles from.before that relate to their new storyline.
---

Algorithms can probably predict what will get hits
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

CNNs website is actually miles better than their tv station imho.

ditto for fox.

Honestly, ditto for MSNBC as well.

What I'm gathering: TV sucks.
---

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2018/02/16/cnn-digital-ratings-traffic-january-2018-number-one/

122 million unique multiplatform visitors for CNN

97 million unique visitors were on mobile.
---

Corrik posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.

Any time I refer to Fox news or CNN I am referring to their mobile sites. I don't really watch them ever or ever go to them on a computer.

You can view a desktop site on your phone too ya know.

I am aware. It would just be idiotic to do so.

You would get more headlines per page and you wouldn't be as ignorant about what they cover so not really?

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/10/01/cnn-takes-top-spot-in-multi-platform-views-desktop-uniques-and-page-views/

In August of 2015 CNN had 893 million desktop views and approximately 807 million mobile views in the month.

In 3 years which do you think leads which now?

Maybe you are ignorant of what they are peddling to the masses?

Did the people making those 807 mobile views claim cnn wasnt covering something again only to be shown screenshots of them covering it again? This isnt the first time this has happened to you Corrik and when given the solution you refuse and call it idiotic.
---

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Huh.

I just checked both ways and both of you are correct. WEIRD

FWIW I was viewing their home page on my laptop yesterday so I dunno how their mobile looked.

Any time I refer to Fox news or CNN I am referring to their mobile sites. I don't really watch them ever or ever go to them on a computer.

You can view a desktop site on your phone too ya know.

I am aware. It would just be idiotic to do so.

You would get more headlines per page and you wouldn't be as ignorant about what they cover so not really?

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/10/01/cnn-takes-top-spot-in-multi-platform-views-desktop-uniques-and-page-views/

In August of 2015 CNN had 893 million desktop views and approximately 807 million mobile views in the month.

In 3 years which do you think leads which now?

Maybe you are ignorant of what they are peddling to the masses?

Did the people making those 807 mobile views claim cnn wasnt covering something again only to be shown screenshots of them covering it again? This isnt the first time this has happened to you Corrik and when given the solution you refuse and call it idiotic.

Holy fuck you people are something else.
---

MSNBC (and Fox) do a better job of reporting the facts, regarding important issues. I don't really mind bias as long as it's obvious what the bias is and enough facts are reported for me to gain some info from reading/watching the coverage. CNN has this faux centrist position which is really annoying.
---

red sox 777 posted...

MSNBC (and Fox) do a better job of reporting the facts, regarding important issues.

wrong.

i'll give you MSNBC but fox? lolno.
---

Pandering to what gets the most hits isn't an excuse. That pretty much perfectly reflects people's problem with the media.
---

Corrik posted...

Holy fuck you people are something else.

I know right, how dare we try to help you.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Pandering to what gets the most hits isn't an excuse. That pretty much perfectly reflects people's problem with the media.

Thats the only way media can work in a free market though
---

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

Holy fuck you people are something else.

I know right, how dare we try to help you.

No. You literally just act like you can't grasp simple concepts.

I already showed you mobile is more viewed than desktop. First of all.

Second of all.

Corrik posted...

Btw CNN does have the Israel stuff on their front page. It is just down there with Ford F150s.

Like, can you fail anymore in your purposely trying to talk shit on someone. Just because you view it on desktop, doesn't mean it is the number 1 way people view it. Maybe you should be taking notes into how CNN is presenting their information because more are getting it this way then the way you are getting it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Pandering to what gets the most hits isn't an excuse. That pretty much perfectly reflects people's problem with the media.

However, it also shows you what CNN thinks will generate more hits. Look at the things they have way over Iran Israel.

"Being Black in America"
"Schumer trolls Melania"
Iron Man suit stolen
Ford suspending F150s.

Those are all things they think would generate more hits, I guess.

Foxnews. Top article is all Israel Iran. Which it should be.

Fox definitely has its moments when it buries things, but I mean, come on common sense this should be the top article right now.
---

Corrik posted...

GildedFool posted...

Corrik posted...

Their mobile ordering of articles clearly shows how they rank what is on their site in importance.

Nah, they rank based on what gets the most hits and always will do.

Perception of importance is irrelevant to all news agencies, just what people want to click on/read/watch.

This is literally impossible. A brand new article with zero hits (as of posting) is number 1 on their mobile.

In fact, the entire premise makes no sense. Unless you are talking about what they THINK will get more hits. Which tells you a lot right there.

A lot of these articles in the ones I posted are even regurgitated articles from.before that relate to their new storyline.

...of course I'm talking about what they think will get more hits. And that information is incredibly easy to calculate and predict with the years of user data at CNN's hands. And what it tells me is that... users (people) are dumb and click on clickbaity rubbish, which again... everyone fucking knows.

And yes... every single news site, sports news, celebrity news, politics news all recycle and update news articles because it's a lot easier and cheaper than writing a new article.

And the position of articles on mobile and desktop will be an editor decision, not an algorithmic one.
---

Fox's second article is "The Hillary Fix"
---

Also, please don't consider anything I say as any sort of attack or defence on any news company in the States, I have 0 stake in the value of any of them.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Fox's second article is "The Hillary Fix"

Sure is. It is an electoral college article though.
---

Corrik posted...

Sure is. It is an electoral college article though.

makes it all the more funny that they mention hillary in the title.
---

Also, Fox viewers and CNN viewers will have different usage rates - it's very possible that Fox readers will click on Iran in higher ratios than CNN. I don't have access to those numbers, but I guarantee, all of the articles are sorted the same way - by predicted hits. It's just that the audiences are different and therefore the predicted hits are different too.
---

It's also a positive feedback loop. I remember I stopped reading CNN when they had minimal coverage of Russia's invasion of Crimea. Probably, others did the same. By now, most of CNN's readers probably aren't interested by war between Israel and Iran because those readers have moved on already.
---

I consider everything above the paid content and health and wellness section front page CNN. Otherwise you are Including like 600 articles as frontpage CNN. While Foxnews currently has less than half of what I am even giving CNN credit for as front page.
---

Corrik posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

Holy fuck you people are something else.

I know right, how dare we try to help you.

No. You literally just act like you can't grasp simple concepts.

I already showed you mobile is more viewed than desktop. First of all.

Second of all.

Corrik posted...

Btw CNN does have the Israel stuff on their front page. It is just down there with Ford F150s.

Like, can you fail anymore in your purposely trying to talk shit on someone. Just because you view it on desktop, doesn't mean it is the number 1 way people view it. Maybe you should be taking notes into how CNN is presenting their information because more are getting it this way then the way you are getting it.

The amount of people who view it on mobile is irrelevant to your view that something doesnt exist if you have to scroll down. Again not the first time you have done this and when given a solution you chose to lash out instead of adapting.
---

Okay, I know Corrik's wildly off-base a lot of the time, but his argument here is logically solid. If the majority of CNN readers see the mobile site, talking about the mobile site's front page is relevant to a comparison of news outlets.

Now you can disagree with his assessment of Fox vs CNN (which I do, Fox is rubbish), but don't call his argument nonsense.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Fox) do a better job of reporting the facts

Alternative facts, perhaps.
---

I want to see both versions of the facts.
---

There's really only one version of facts. You can see different interpretations and prioritizations, but if two news outlets have different versions of a fact, something is very wrong.
---

Its amusing to me that only Fox News advocates want to advance the agenda that they are better news than CNN.

Everyone acknowledges CNN as crap news. They just aren't a blatant propaganda machine either like the other two *sigh* "major" news networks.

But i think youll still be hard pressed to have someone say "I think CNN is good"
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

There's really only one version of facts. You can see different interpretations and prioritizations, but if two news outlets have different versions of a fact, something is very wrong.

Ah this is your problem.

Fox isnt a news outlet, its the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Fox's second article is "The Hillary Fix"

Every single time I've been to the FOX News website, Hillary is somewhere on the front page. It's comical.
---

The 2018 GOP platform is largely that they aren't Hillary, after all. Makes sense she should be talked about a lot on Fox.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The 2018 GOP platform is largely that they aren't Hillary, after all. Makes sense she should be talked about a lot on Fox.

like i said, she's actually hardly talked about at all in the article that includes her name in the title.
---

I think it is hilarious now that an article came out that said 91% of media coverage is negative and Trump is gaining in approval that CNN now has a positive Trump headline first and 4 other relatively positive Trump articles to go with it.

Being really slick there!
---

Trump and his cult think anything negative about him is fake. Trump doesn't want a free press. He wants a state mandated propaganda machine. Which is precisely why he likes Fox News so much.
---

Speaking of fox news, Jr. is reportedly now dating one of them. His wife filed for divorce a couple months ago.

I'm sure he won't let any juicy information slip.
---

More than 91% of news about Trump should be negative given the underlying facts about who Trump is and what he does
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Okay, I know Corrik's wildly off-base a lot of the time, but his argument here is logically solid. If the majority of CNN readers see the mobile site, talking about the mobile site's front page is relevant to a comparison of news outlets.

Now you can disagree with his assessment of Fox vs CNN (which I do, Fox is rubbish), but don't call his argument nonsense.

If this was his first time doing this I would probably be on board with that but it isnt. The last time this happened he claimed they werent covering something because he hadnt scrolled down at all. He wasnt claiming it was buried he was claiming they flat out werent covering it. To him the front page on a mobile site which is designed to be navigated vertically was that only the links that show up on the initial load count. But he at least learned a little from that and this time he tossed out the line about having to scroll down 500 articles to find it. This isnt just Corrik trying to compare news organizations this is him not knowing something can exist if he hasnt personally seen it. This shapes so many of his arguments and its why he has trouble with any viewpoint that requires empathy, estimates, or statistics. If he doesnt see it with his own two eyes it didnt happen and its why Iran being the top story last night must not have happened. The mobile site has moved on and when told the desktop site would give him exactly what he wants he deems it idiotic.
---

Corrik posted...

I think it is hilarious now that an article came out that said 91% of media coverage is negative and Trump is gaining in approval that CNN now has a positive Trump headline first and 4 other relatively positive Trump articles to go with it.

Being really slick there!

Thats likely because this is one of the few times an objectively great thing has happened under his tenure (release of Americans from N Korea).
---

lordloki12 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

Okay, I know Corrik's wildly off-base a lot of the time, but his argument here is logically solid. If the majority of CNN readers see the mobile site, talking about the mobile site's front page is relevant to a comparison of news outlets.

Now you can disagree with his assessment of Fox vs CNN (which I do, Fox is rubbish), but don't call his argument nonsense.

If this was his first time doing this I would probably be on board with that but it isnt. The last time this happened he claimed they werent covering something because he hadnt scrolled down at all. He wasnt claiming it was buried he was claiming they flat out werent covering it. To him the front page on a mobile site which is designed to be navigated vertically was that only the links that show up on the initial load count. But he at least learned a little from that and this time he tossed out the line about having to scroll down 500 articles to find it. This isnt just Corrik trying to compare news organizations this is him not knowing something can exist if he hasnt personally seen it. This shapes so many of his arguments and its why he has trouble with any viewpoint that requires empathy, estimates, or statistics. If he doesnt see it with his own two eyes it didnt happen and its why Iran being the top story last night must not have happened. The mobile site has moved on and when told the desktop site would give him exactly what he wants he deems it idiotic.

You seriously make zero sense.
---

Corrik posted...

You seriously make zero sense.

To you perhaps.
---

lordloki12 posted...

Corrik posted...

You seriously make zero sense.

To you perhaps.

Surely don't. Continue your supposed crusade despite being utterly wrong.
---