Jump to content

Bluey's Dad

Life Member
  • Posts

    2,819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Bluey's Dad

  1. I was implying the opposite - that I am disappointed that a major Australian newspaper would make such an error.
  2. Please tell me that elementary school grammatical error isn't copied directly from the Herald Sun. His quote brings to mind our JLT match against North when Petracca gave a little nudge to Majak Daw, who's much much larger, to take an easy mark and goal. My brother's a North supporter and I was watching with him. Good times.
  3. Not necessarily. The post themselves yes are often held on servers owned/leased by the social media company. However an external link posted to their site takes the user to that external site. To what extent a social media company should be responsible for a user posting a link to an external site which contains false information is a significant question society and the law need to answer. Would love for any lawyers out there to weigh in on this.
  4. Hilarious because according to Oxford, it is the exact opposite: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/sharing-fake-news-us-rightwing-study-trump-university-of-oxford “On Twitter, a network of Trump supporters consumes the largest volume of junk news, and junk news is the largest proportion of news links they share,” the researchers concluded. On Facebook, the skew was even greater. There, “extreme hard right pages – distinct from Republican pages – share more junk news than all the other audiences put together.” Left wing media outlets are certainly guilty of the same sort of sensationalised click-baity partisan journalism that the right wing outlets are. However as indicated by the Oxford study, fake news is shared on social media by the right more than the left. There are two separate issues here The first is reputable media outlets sensationalising and intentionally mislabelling headlines in order to drive web traffic and ad revenue. They report quickly to compete to get that traffic and often the truth gets put second. This is a huge issue, and as has been posted previously if someone like an AFL player can stand up to misrepresented facts and maybe change this trend then all the better. This sensationalism of stories is something found across the spectrum of media organisations (left, right, and those who claim to be unbiased). This sort of journalism has been called 'fake news', but it isn't. It's simply a lower quality of news that we are used to and as a society deserve. It can contain factual inaccuracies but at its heart is not meant to be fake. It is fake by virtue of lower journalistic standards and the speed at which it moves. The second is the intentional construction of patently false stories, deliberately written and created to spread misinformation. They're written by trolls in impoverished nations who are paid simply to create something that will be shareable on social media or achieve a political aim. This is true 'fake news'. Deliberate deception masquerading as journalism. This is also a huge problem, and this is the sort of news that is overwhelmingly shared by the right on social media, as indicated by the Oxford study. The two issues were conflated after Trump's election. The term 'fake news' started to trend, so Trump appropriated the label (which formerly applied only to the second form) to include the first. Now we think of both of these types of news as 'fake'. It's a sneaky trick of language, because including them both under the one umbrella conflates the issue. It puts CNN and MSNBC (who sensationalise and obfuscate) on par with a Romanian troll farm which outright deceives. They are clearly different, although the actions of both are deeply troubling. I'm aware the general board may be bleeding into this post. If the mods see fit to delete my post I understand. I just wanted to add a little clarity to the debate here, given the AFL players are concerned with misrepresentations in the media. Also faultydet's post was patently untrue and so I felt it needed to be corrected. Edit: corrected typo "faultydiet" to "faultydet". My apologies.
  5. Yep it's huge. I assume forums like BF and Demonland have different publishing rules that apply to them given the content is posted by a community. Again, not a lawyer, but it will be interesting to see how it all develops. Also don't know how it applies to FB and Twitter. They also aren't really responsible for constructing content, but they are responsible for its distribution.
  6. (•_•) Doesn't seem very ( •_•)>⌐■-■ JADED of you (⌐■_■)
  7. Interestingly, this is starting in the US. Fox News is being sued for publishing a story they knew to be false: https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/fox-news-alex-jones-both-sued-for-conspiracy-mongering.html "But the premise of the article soon fell apart after the primary source, who is also suing Fox News, said he was falsely quoted. After leaving the article online for several days, Fox News issued a retraction, but no apology for the story" It's happening, but I guess change is slow. So yeah, maybe footy journalists will calm down on the false statements if they start getting sued by players. You'd need to prove reputational damage though, which I assume would be difficult to do (I'm no lawyer).
  8. It's clearly an issue with journalism in general. Stories are pushed to one extreme or the other, to elicit the maximum amount of outrage or partisan support. Stories are headlined to generate web traffic, not to reflect the contents of the story or the actual issue in order to get clicks for ads. News and journalism have been chasing their tail since the internet became a thing. They missed the boat and are now trying to stuff an outdated business model onto a computer screen. But for that model to work, they need ads and a huge volume of traffic. So they sensationalise to an extent we haven't seen before to get the traffic and the ad revenue that comes with it. If the AFL players can counter or affect this to even a small extent then that's a win. But I feel like it's an uphill battle we're all fighting. Anything that forces journalists to get all (or at least more of) the facts is a win. Right now, being first with a story is the priority for this type of journalism. It doesn't matter if the facts are wrong. It matters that you get the story first and the web traffic that goes with it. Maybe if they're called on their factual inaccuracies often enough, they'll start to prioritise accuracy over speed. I am doubtful this will happen though.
  9. My kids got scared of the Max Gawn height chart that came last year, which has now been banished to the wardrobe. This club has challenges everywhere. A decade of mediocrity and now our most marketable player is Lurch.
  10. lol yep. I heard my son ask my wife last year, "why is daddy so loud when he's watching the footy?" It's tough trying to turn all the [censored] and [censored] into sugars and frigs. Little ears hear everything.
  11. Respectfully, Obama did plenty. Here's a humorous review In particular, the Affordable Care Act was monumental. Worth noting that Americans overwhelmingly support the ACA, but don't like Obamacare. Apparently education is so bad in the states that they don't know it's the same thing. Just the Obama label is enough to turn people against something they like. I understand the attraction of someone like Trump, especially given his position as an 'outsider' who can take on the elites. The issue for me is that this I think this is deceptive. He's a political outsider, but he's also a billionaire who's just as conflicted (if not more so) than the Democrats he sought to replace. He's an 'elite' too. Sure, he's a bomb that the electorate threw at a political system that wasn't working and I get how that feel satisfying - but TBH I don't think a bomb was the best solution. He gets away with so much more than a Democrat President could. I'd ask all Trump supporters, in all honesty, to think about what their reaction would be if: - Obama appointed his son-in-law to a senior WH advisory role and had him read the President's daily intelligence briefing (because they're too long), only for his temporary clearance to be revokes. - Obama said the government should take people's guns away without due process. - Obama refused to impose sanctions on a foreign power despite congress passing laws to do so with a veto-proof majority. - Obama played golf every weekend, despite specifically saying he wouldn't have time. - Obama charged the government millions of dollars to stay at his own resort. - Obama failed to even nominate enough candidates for open white house and cabinet positions, and most of those he did appoint he either fired or left. - Obama appointed a woman who destroyed evidence of torture to be head of the CIA (Trump did this this morning). - Obama said he'd fix healthcare and when he couldn't said "who knew healthcare was so complicated?" - Obama's lawyer paid off a porn star to keep quiet about an affair he had while his wife was pregnant with his son. That's just off the top of my head. I purposefully have left out the 'Russia stuff' as he calls it, because it's so complex I don't have time to discuss it. I'd really love for Trump supporters to look at that list and really truly consider what their reaction to those actions would be if it was Obama and not Trump. Especially the guns one. If Obama said what Trump said, there would be talks of revolution from the South. Just because jobs are up doesn't make all of this ok. As a side note - I am also male and white. I'm not sure why you feel ashamed of it? I don't. I don't feel like I censor myself. I don't feel like I have to modify my behaviour. I don't feel that pressure that my father says he feels to constantly monitor what I say or do. I imagine that would be very uncomfortable and sometimes wonder what thoughts he is having that he cannot voice for fear he will be called racist. If that was the case then I can certainly see the appeal of Trump. But without being able to identify with him or his politics, I look at him with a colder eye and find him sorely wanting both as a human being and as a President.
  12. lol. Seems like anyone could just create a non-profit sporting organisation and simply pay themselves a massive salary to run it. Surely not Gil though. He probably works for the love of the game. Thanks for the post, very informative.
  13. I am flabbergasted. The AFL is as business-like as they come. So that $400m broadcast deal is just tax-free income? I think my head just exploded.
  14. Wait the AFL doesn't pay tax? Seriously? How does that work, are they classified as a religion or something?
  15. Just a quick look from our own list over the years, we had Sylvia, Godfrey, Bate & Grimes who played over 100 games. I'm sure there are a few more 100 game gems on other club lists over the years as well. Whitecross and Scheonmakers from Hawthorn spring to mind. Edit: not sure why I quoted myself instead of just editing my post. Brain work good today.
  16. Anyone have the time or ability to put together a worst ever team with every player over 100 games? I'm sure there'd be enough crap players to make 100 games to make a full team. Just curious (and also I think it'd be a laugh).
  17. But they'll have to balance that with all the players looking silly and therefore reducing the marketability of their product. And then they'll probably start selling the helmets as advertising space to offset those concerns. Then we can all recognise our favourite players not by their number or face but by their highly visible (and lucrative) helmet sponsor. Then the commentators will start making up ludicrous player nick-names based on those sponsors. "Subway kicks to BMW, but his kick is cut off by Dominos! He should have put a bit more sauce on that kick eh?" We'll never get rid of BT. He'll be hailed as a comedic genius. I'll see myself out.
  18. Pretty sure they had the internet in 2004. But I suppose I would have struggled to explain to my parents how to rip a DVDR and upload it too. Might have been worth the $70 per game in shipping just to avoid having to walk them through it. Actually now that I think about it, I KNOW they would have stuffed it up. Snail mail probably the only legit option then.
  19. Here ya go nut, some genuine comedy for ya: The White House chief calligrapher has a higher clearance than Jared Kushner I lol'd.
  20. From the article: Key defender? Small defender? Rebounding defender? Inside midfielder? Outside midfielder? Ruckman? Key forward? Small forward? There isn’t an area on the ground where the Demons don’t have a player that is either already elite, or has the talent to get there. That right there is amazing to read.
  21. Why is it that hair seems to correlate with marketability anyhow? It's like if you have different hair you're a 'cult figure' all of a sudden.
  22. You're probably right about the AFL signups. Unfortunately we have no figures to work with and we're forced to make assumptions. I'm also coming from the assumption that the AFL package is the only worthwhile thing on Foxtel's offering - which is true for me but unlikely to be true for lots of other people. There's just so much garbage on Foxtel, I don't see the point and frankly I resent being forced to pay for content I don't need. If there's some crap on Netflix, I don't really care at $18 per month. I'm getting value. There is no value in Foxtel for me because the only content I want is so limited. This is what I feel is unfair. Actually I've just gone to Foxtel's website for the first time in ages, they have some special for 12 months at $39 per month. Starting to get reasonable. Rough maths says $40 per month, 4 MFC games a month, $10 per game. I think I can handle that. I've got some examining to do now.
×
×
  • Create New...