It might suffice as a definition for philosophy: sometimes the truth is not what persons want to hear or can accept. We have interconnected matters that are both dynamic and complicated though. A better notion of the way that things are, rather than dwelling on what is easier to countenance, should be constructive.
Firstly is a notion of how media works, which can be gained by following financial markets; Michael Bloomberg’s business empire is largely a media entity and not necessarily known for investments in other companies. Second is an understanding of how skilled journalism actually is needed to help with societal topics and ills, not limited to abuses of power or corruption. Concurrently, there are ever-changing processes, sometimes categorized by innovation and associated disruption of existing practices.
There is a well-known economist associated with a concept of “Creative destruction,” an Austrian named Josef Schumpeter. No expertise on his work or writings is claimed here, only second-hand familiarity. The Economist magazine, to which a subscription is not recommended, has had a recurring section on Schumpeter. By nature, some persons have trouble when his notions are applied to contemporary industries.
Forty years ago, and for at least a decade thereafter, there were vital newspaper businesses that conveyed local coverage. Papers made money through advertising and, for the most part, met costs through subscription sales. With the advent of the internet, print publications incurred difficulty as customers were not as likely to obtain a broadsheet or tabloid to dispose of each day. Advertisers recognized that digital options could work better for them. Firms placing recruitment ads to hire employees put their budgets toward web sites such as Monster or Career Builder, and marketers used Yahoo! and Google before turning to Facebook–we’ll see what happens with Twitter (TWTR) after November 2020 elections (President Trump relies upon it while Jill Biden is an English teacher who may not support a character restriction).
Personal computing devices have been shaped, or even wrecked, by similar forces. Dell was a huge, seething business, as was Hewlett-Packard. Motorola had a premium handheld device in the Razor, which preceded several winners produced by Blackberry, which was favored by President Obama in 2008.
Through all of the changes described, we have fields such as political science, which studies powers and how we live with each other. Whether or not instructors of the discipline teach job skills may be debatable (3:50 of clip). With the high financial price of post-secondary schooling, leaving out costs such as dedication of one’s energies toward its pursuit, it may be better to assume that they do not.
It can seem that economists are taking up any slack, or should. Web sites such as Bloomberg’s tend to promote them. Their commentary can be helpful; however, they may be off target with regularity when there is little other reason to pay attention to them. Further, their mantras on the need for job and skills (re)training is largely self-affirmation–that could be empty–as it implies that there should be demand for persons who pursue their discipline and opportunities for those who teach it. Perhaps they are similar to mutual fund management firms that continue to charge fees to workers whenever they can amid the advent of index funds: these people and their cottage industries fervently support and hype each other.
There are others who continue to look to the media amidst its drive toward orientation on hand-held devices and new platforms. Professional politicians and teachers of political science can be among those slower to adjust to disruption. On the other hand, President Trump has been all over the industry’s struggles with rhetoric about “The failing New York Times,” the press as the “Enemy of the people,” and the category of “Fake news.” (Confidence of his defeat in the upcoming election maybe should be higher than he indicates below).
So, what of the media? We still have governments that are national and local. We still have scandals. We still have sports columns that can appeal to home audiences but not those that are far away. There are still businesses and firms that employ persons and offer needed products. So it should help to know media’s present-day traits.
As described in a link above, it can be hierarchical and exclude. There can be further problems though. As with the economists who are consistently wrong about financial markets (reference stocks after the 2016 election), news coverage of other matters can work very similarly.
With the 2020 primary election process in full swing, there are all sorts of headlines being published. In order to produce stories, such as after a debate, journalists turn to experts for commentary. Such authority figures are people with credentials.
Incidentally, it may be claimed that much of the news industry has egg on its face after hyping a recent Elizabeth Warren debate performance during which other Democratic candidates fared as well or better. National media ran with the story, polls and voters did not. Local publishing in Massachusetts could have emphasized the event as Warren serves as senior senator.
A broadcast audio program with an interview of a professor of political science is available. During the 5:29 clip, the professor made at least two clear predictions or inferences that were questionable. He claimed that (1) Joe Biden “does not appear to have what it takes to be president of the United States in this day and age,” and (2) that either Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar “is probably going to run fifth” in the ensuing Nevada caucus.
Here is another story.
The following could be wrong, but probably gets at truths that are not popular and outside how the media works. Steyer did in fact finish fifth, ahead of Amy Klobuchar, in the February 22, 2020 caucus. It seems that the expert who the radio program turned to for its analysis simply was unaware of Question 6. Additionally, one might contend that, in the context of that particular event, he wrote off the Biden campaign, when the former vice president’s performance, and also Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s, were better than the hyped Warren effort.
The professor and media personality did not take what might be described as the interviewer’s bait pertaining to Warren’s interaction with Buttigieg, who previously outclassed her on an issue pertaining to fundraising and wine. Indeed, the mayor’s remark, on issuing “tests that you cannot pass,” may have effectively thwarted adverse commentary from professional academics. If an objective was home-town color, the available route remaining might have been a tenuous portrayal of Buttigieg as a future fifth-place finisher.
Google shows how Nevada’s voters assessed it.
After a fourth place finish in Iowa and a fifth place finish in New Hampshire, Joe Biden’s campaign did better.
He is now essentially the front-runner of a two-person nominating contest. Arguably, the subsequent debate in South Carolina on February 27th made some difference–his campaign flagged since he led in New Hampshire polling late in 2019.
There no doubt are a great many persons who universities do not ultimately hire for teaching positions. That said, the amount that schools charge in tuition and fees keeps going up. Is what students get in exchange rising at the same rate?
Technological change continues to render better things available to persons who recognize issues surrounding where to dedicate work and money. It can raise our standard of living. However media businesses need experts, and whether they are correct or wrong, offer exciting solutions or purvey lingering problems, it frequently is not what matters in the struggling industry.
Perhaps the epitome of this is Michael Bloomberg, who isn’t known for stock picking, or perpetually broadcasting it on-air, but has good paying jobs for journalists who cover financial markets. Whether or not Joe Biden succeeds in his campaign for president, documentation of questionable media coverage remains available. In this day and age, and even if it is part of the problem, an exclusion of the audience must continue to be an industry method.
Firstly is a notion of how media works, which can be gained by following financial markets; Michael Bloomberg’s business empire is largely a media entity and not necessarily known for investments in other companies. Second is an understanding of how skilled journalism actually is needed to help with societal topics and ills, not limited to abuses of power or corruption. Concurrently, there are ever-changing processes, sometimes categorized by innovation and associated disruption of existing practices.
There is a well-known economist associated with a concept of “Creative destruction,” an Austrian named Josef Schumpeter. No expertise on his work or writings is claimed here, only second-hand familiarity. The Economist magazine, to which a subscription is not recommended, has had a recurring section on Schumpeter. By nature, some persons have trouble when his notions are applied to contemporary industries.
Forty years ago, and for at least a decade thereafter, there were vital newspaper businesses that conveyed local coverage. Papers made money through advertising and, for the most part, met costs through subscription sales. With the advent of the internet, print publications incurred difficulty as customers were not as likely to obtain a broadsheet or tabloid to dispose of each day. Advertisers recognized that digital options could work better for them. Firms placing recruitment ads to hire employees put their budgets toward web sites such as Monster or Career Builder, and marketers used Yahoo! and Google before turning to Facebook–we’ll see what happens with Twitter (TWTR) after November 2020 elections (President Trump relies upon it while Jill Biden is an English teacher who may not support a character restriction).
Personal computing devices have been shaped, or even wrecked, by similar forces. Dell was a huge, seething business, as was Hewlett-Packard. Motorola had a premium handheld device in the Razor, which preceded several winners produced by Blackberry, which was favored by President Obama in 2008.
 |
| President Obama with Blackberry Device |
It can seem that economists are taking up any slack, or should. Web sites such as Bloomberg’s tend to promote them. Their commentary can be helpful; however, they may be off target with regularity when there is little other reason to pay attention to them. Further, their mantras on the need for job and skills (re)training is largely self-affirmation–that could be empty–as it implies that there should be demand for persons who pursue their discipline and opportunities for those who teach it. Perhaps they are similar to mutual fund management firms that continue to charge fees to workers whenever they can amid the advent of index funds: these people and their cottage industries fervently support and hype each other.
There are others who continue to look to the media amidst its drive toward orientation on hand-held devices and new platforms. Professional politicians and teachers of political science can be among those slower to adjust to disruption. On the other hand, President Trump has been all over the industry’s struggles with rhetoric about “The failing New York Times,” the press as the “Enemy of the people,” and the category of “Fake news.” (Confidence of his defeat in the upcoming election maybe should be higher than he indicates below).
The New York Times is an embarrassment to journalism. They were a dead paper before I went into politics, and they will be a dead paper after I leave, which will be in 5 years. Fake News is the Enemy of the people!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2020
So, what of the media? We still have governments that are national and local. We still have scandals. We still have sports columns that can appeal to home audiences but not those that are far away. There are still businesses and firms that employ persons and offer needed products. So it should help to know media’s present-day traits.
As described in a link above, it can be hierarchical and exclude. There can be further problems though. As with the economists who are consistently wrong about financial markets (reference stocks after the 2016 election), news coverage of other matters can work very similarly.
With the 2020 primary election process in full swing, there are all sorts of headlines being published. In order to produce stories, such as after a debate, journalists turn to experts for commentary. Such authority figures are people with credentials.
Incidentally, it may be claimed that much of the news industry has egg on its face after hyping a recent Elizabeth Warren debate performance during which other Democratic candidates fared as well or better. National media ran with the story, polls and voters did not. Local publishing in Massachusetts could have emphasized the event as Warren serves as senior senator.
A broadcast audio program with an interview of a professor of political science is available. During the 5:29 clip, the professor made at least two clear predictions or inferences that were questionable. He claimed that (1) Joe Biden “does not appear to have what it takes to be president of the United States in this day and age,” and (2) that either Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar “is probably going to run fifth” in the ensuing Nevada caucus.
Amid perpetual questions about money in politics, the matter of Nevada’s Question 6 is interesting and probably relevant. It is a ballot question that succeeded in November, 2018. The measure requires that Nevada move toward the implementation of renewable energy, which should be required by an amendment to its constitution. Question 6 gained the affirmation of voters pursuant to the financial backing of billionaire Tom Steyer (who was in favor of impeaching President Trump long before the publicized phone call with Ukraine’s current president). Steyer maintained his campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination through the time of the above clip. There also was an abundance of money in opposition to a different 2018 matter, Nevada’s Question 3, which did not pass.In this interview with @WBUR “Morning Edition,” I describe how Elizabeth Warren set a trap for Michael Bloomberg https://t.co/0ydkVtONZZ #Bloomberg2020 #debates #Democrats #Warren2020— Jeffrey M. Berry (@JeffreyMBerry) February 20, 2020
Here is another story.
The following could be wrong, but probably gets at truths that are not popular and outside how the media works. Steyer did in fact finish fifth, ahead of Amy Klobuchar, in the February 22, 2020 caucus. It seems that the expert who the radio program turned to for its analysis simply was unaware of Question 6. Additionally, one might contend that, in the context of that particular event, he wrote off the Biden campaign, when the former vice president’s performance, and also Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s, were better than the hyped Warren effort.
The professor and media personality did not take what might be described as the interviewer’s bait pertaining to Warren’s interaction with Buttigieg, who previously outclassed her on an issue pertaining to fundraising and wine. Indeed, the mayor’s remark, on issuing “tests that you cannot pass,” may have effectively thwarted adverse commentary from professional academics. If an objective was home-town color, the available route remaining might have been a tenuous portrayal of Buttigieg as a future fifth-place finisher.
Google shows how Nevada’s voters assessed it.
 |
| NV Caucus Results, 2020 |
He is now essentially the front-runner of a two-person nominating contest. Arguably, the subsequent debate in South Carolina on February 27th made some difference–his campaign flagged since he led in New Hampshire polling late in 2019.
There no doubt are a great many persons who universities do not ultimately hire for teaching positions. That said, the amount that schools charge in tuition and fees keeps going up. Is what students get in exchange rising at the same rate?
Technological change continues to render better things available to persons who recognize issues surrounding where to dedicate work and money. It can raise our standard of living. However media businesses need experts, and whether they are correct or wrong, offer exciting solutions or purvey lingering problems, it frequently is not what matters in the struggling industry.
Perhaps the epitome of this is Michael Bloomberg, who isn’t known for stock picking, or perpetually broadcasting it on-air, but has good paying jobs for journalists who cover financial markets. Whether or not Joe Biden succeeds in his campaign for president, documentation of questionable media coverage remains available. In this day and age, and even if it is part of the problem, an exclusion of the audience must continue to be an industry method.