#1 – Remember all the hoopla about the “Twitter revolutions”? You know, that without Twitter the people of Iran would not have stood up for democracy? Which was bullshit. None of that is popular now that the “revolution” went Trump’s way.
#2 – Blue America being more refined, they need their bullshit — you know, that Sanders didn’t stand a chance or that yes, of course Hillary would win, how could she not? — fed to them by important and respected newspapers and highbrow TV shows.
#3 – Red America being less spiffy, they’re perfectly ok with bullshit made up by teens from a rural town not in Ohio, which would be bad enough, but in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with the sole goal to profit from Google Adsense.
#4 – But the bullshit du jour comes from Mark Zuckerberg. He tells companies that “native advertising” on Facebook is so powerful, and yet that it’s “a pretty crazy idea” to think that fake news had a role in determining how the election went.
We have a problem. I’m talking to you, people who work in the media.
If even the BBC — what happened, Auntie? — deems it worthy of their time and of their readers’ time and attention to write an article comparing Trump to Berlusconi over looks, sex lives and gaffes, I think we have a problem.
We expect better of you. We need you to inform us, not to entertain us.
We have Netflix for that. And Fox News.
Not to mention: those are not gaffes.
Those are premeditated offences artfully created to get free media attention.
And they work.
They work every time newspapers start a race to who comments Der Great Leader‘s latest bullshit remarks first, so they can get indexed by Google and shared on Facebook by bored or well meaning people, be they angry at Trump or interested in looking more liberal than thou or in blending in with their friends’ opinions.
They work every time people in the media are more interested in looking smart and witty, or politically correct, rather than trying to inform and educate their readers.
The next time you people in the media ask if the media — you know, the other guys — are responsible for Donald Trump, it’s time somebody answers: Fucking yes.
Last year, Mitt Romney, also known as the Mormon Stallion, punched off against five-time world heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield.
Who should have dressed up as Apollo Creed. Just to keep it real.
In 1989, Back to the Future predicted Biff Tannen would be President in 2016.
Remember Trading Places?
Mortimer and Randolph Duke own a successful commodities brokerage in Philadelphia. Randolph is convinced nurture is more importante than nature. He thinks he can make a street hustler into a successful businessman, while ruining the life of a loyal employee of theirs with false accusations. Mortimer disagrees.
They bet a dollar.
This is what happened. Trump was playing golf with a billionaire friend.
(yeah, on one of his golf courses, which are the best in the world…)
He said: I am sure I can get elected.
His friend was unimpressed.
Yeah, I bet I can get elected President in 2016, like in Back to the Future.
They bet a dollar.
Too much Hollywood for your own good, America.
I like neither you, nor Bill.
But here’s one thing you should do.
You should ask women to donate to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence’s name.
Two great progressive magazines are backing this battle: Cosmopolitan and Glamour.
Oh, no, that’s “divisive”.
More than wearing purple for your concession speech?
And my corporate overlords… I mean, masters… I mean, sponsors.
My corporate sponsors would be unhappy. See, that’s why you lost.
How would you define social media?
If we consider that even a site like Vimeo is considered social media, I think that the definition of social media should be: a single-column website, content being presented to users in (apparent) reverse-chronological order.
Kind of like blogs, but with content coming from more than a single user, from people you either know or follow, and with algorithms in the background altering what is in fact an only apparent reverse-chronological order.
Branded content has been heralded as the future and the saviour of online media for some time now, and yet apparently 50% of publishers have a renewal rate of only 50%. Worse, another 39% have a renewal rate of 25% or less.
Not great, but I love how John Schneider puts it:
Brands are having a lot of one night stands, creating meaningful connections and then abandoning them.
Meaningful connections? No, those are called shags. Paid shags, to be more precise.