• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Breitbart loses 72% of viewers and 90% of ad revenue

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,729
2,247
136

But they are still doing well and hiring people to post more articles because of right wing donors.

That's something we often don't understand where the fake news comes from. If someone who is a billionaire or a corporation paying 0 taxes and would end up paying billions even at a measly 15% tax rate what's a few million dollars to fund some fake news propaganda sites like Breitbart and others to make sure you get to keep your government based socialism for the ultra rich.

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: amenx

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,026
10,809
146
Umm, good? I mean, is it in lieu of some other fake news outlet that block heads are watching? Meh...we'll see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,233
14,090
136
People are self-censoring by not visiting Breitbart. Self-censorship is the death of free speech.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
20,020
11,352
136
People are self-censoring by not visiting Breitbart. Self-censorship is the death of free speech.
Not consuming specific media always happened before but because of the internet we should be very concerned about this and really talk about it. Because internet.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,140
5,185
136
This is another reason why you just don't read Breitbart.

I mean, you already shouldn't read it because it's a hyper-partisan site that will knowingly publish false or misleading stories, but you also shouldn't read it knowing that it's operating at the behest of donors who expect it to push a specific agenda, not the truth.

Look for more neutral outlets (not that any site is perfectly so) that are either self-funded or have donors who purposefully avoid dictating a site's content (say, donors who just want more news choices).
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,547
1,520
136
what's a few million dollars to fund some fake news propaganda sites like Breitbart and others to make sure you get to keep your government based socialism for the ultra rich.
It's called Wingnut Welfare. Conservatives who want to support the cause and have a rich sugar Daddy pay their way so they don't have to go out into the real world and get a real job. All they have to do is set up a system to sucker people in to believing that low taxes on the wealthy will lead to more money in their own pocket. Breitbart is one such system. National review is another. Conservative media outlets, fake grassroots groups like the plethora of that the Koch brothers fund, and on and on. You're right, it is cheaper for them to pay a bunch of P.T. Barnum-types to sell conservative suckers their bullshit. The wealthy fund the conservative circus, sit back, watch the show and rake in the $$$$ while laughing their asses off at us.

The Republican party of today is proof that the phrase that P.T. Barnum is associated with rings true: "There's a sucker born every minute"
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,807
4,714
126
Why don't they train a neural network to generate articles instead. I don't think their readers would notice.
 

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,783
539
126
People have simply discovered that its embarrassing to be known for getting your news/views from Brietbart.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,233
14,090
136
Bannon was Trump's SA, useful for getting Trump into office. Once Trump was in office, having big boy toys to play with (a Justice Dept. and military) was much more fun so, "good bye Steve." At least Trump just drops his old toys and doesn't do the Night of Long Knives thing, except for Epstein.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY