Showing posts with label social media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social media. Show all posts

Sunday, November 4, 2018

Whatever Happened to Aleppo?

“Follow the money.”


It’s a short phrase with a lot of impact. If you keep it in the back of your mind, it will help answer a lot of questions.


Why does healthcare cost so much? Follow the money.


Who benefits from this particular legislation? Follow the money.


Why all the vitriol over this person or issue? Follow the money.


I’m hearing a lot of conversation over free speech, hate speech, social media, fake news, and election impact. How many times is Mark Zuckerberg going to stand before a government to explain what he is doing in these areas? And, to be honest, why should he?


Follow the money.


This goes back many, many years, but for the sake of this post, let’s keep it to the more recent past.


In 2016, Donald Trump beat the “favorite”, Hillary Clinton, in the race for President. According to the talking heads of the “major” media outlets, this should NOT have happened. And since it did, there MUST have been some kind of interference in the election process. We’ve blamed the Russians for meddling. We’ve blamed “fake news” for meddling. And we’ve blamed social media for allowing all of this meddling to take place.


And it’s bullsh*t. Follow the money.


The Clinton campaign spent about $72 million on television ads and about $16 million on digital ads. The Trump campaign spent about $39 million on television ads and about $29 million on digital ads. Oh, and according to talking heads, the Russians spent about $100,000 (that’s thousand - not million) on Facebook ads.


Now, let’s look at the impact. Apparently, $100,000 of Russian ads had MORE impact on the election than the Clinton $16 million and the Trump $29 million. Does that make sense to you? And since Facebook “allowed” those ads, it must be Zuckerberg’s fault. Thus his CSPAN performances.


So, if the impact of Russia was, in reality, NOT the impact the Democrats (and some Republicans) are saying, what’s all the crying about?


Follow the money.


Who traditionally benefits the most from political advertising dollars? The “mainstream” media: newspapers, television, and direct mail. Who has the potential to LOSE the most IF social media proves to have the most impact over elections? The same “mainstream” media. So, who do you think are holding the Democrat and Republican parties feet to the flames? You guessed it: the “mainstream” media.

There is a reciprocal relationship here. The Democrats and Republicans spend MILLIONS on advertising and the same outlets provide untold HOURS of FREE advertising by talking incessantly about them on their "news" shows. (Which is another reason third-party candidates are shut out. More on that later.)


Here’s a question: Why the concern over “fake news” being spread on social media, when traditional campaign advertising is FULL of lies, slander, and false statements (which, conveniently, is considered “protected speech” for politicians)?


The answer is simple. If more impact can be had via social media without the spend (only $45 million for digital vs. $111 million for televised), why would anybody spend so much over the “mainstream” media outlets? Thus the “war” on free speech, and the rise of what is considered “hate speech”.


The Bird loves political ads as much as we do!

There will come a time when the traditional media outlets will find themselves with a voice and no ears listening to it. It’s already happening. Back during the campaign, there was a third-party candidate that was taking a major chunk of the voting block by the ear. That was Libertarian Party member Gary Johnson. Now, as we know, there can only be two parties that you can vote between: Democrat and Republican. They not only get your tax dollars to run their campaigns, but they also control who can be in the televised debates, who shows up in polls (and what is reported by the “mainstream” media about those poll results), and who ultimately can show up on the ballot.



During a “mainstream” media interview, Gary Johnson was asked about what he thought about Aleppo. He famously responded, “What’s Aleppo?”


He quickly became a laughing stock - with that response being played over and over and over again. Now, when the interviewer clarified that it was a city in Syria, Johnson replied with a well-thought out and intelligent response. Didn’t matter. They got him.


What that little slice of baloney showed was Johnson had a good grasp on the goings on in the Middle East, but did NOT look to the “mainstream” media for his briefings. Shame on him! You know what? Until that interview, I had never heard of Aleppo either. Thus the reason the game is called “TriviaL Pursuit”.


Whatever happened to Aleppo? I don’t remember really hearing much about it after that. Syria, yes. The Middle East, yes. But Aleppo? Nada.


You have to understand, the Democrats, Republicans, and the “Fourth Estate” believe that YOU, the general populous, are nothing more than slow-minded children that need to be told what to think, how to think, and what is important. You need to be protected from yourself. You can’t make decisions on your own. The great trio will guide you to Nirvana (the transcendent state, not the rock band). They can’t have you making decisions, or worse yet, having intelligent conversations, over the major issues (in other words, “candidates”) on your own.


So, follow the money. As Tony Montana said, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.” (“Scarface”)


Or the votes.


© Emittravel 2018

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Stuff My Brain Says #77

I've been seeing quite a bit of Donald Trump Hate on social media.

First off, I'm no Trump supporter, so those anti-Trump protesters can keep their violence to themselves (Funny, but you never hear in the news which candidate those morons DO support!).

Much of the Trump hate I've read is pretty well deserved. He's made an awful lot of "enemies" during the primaries. Now he's trying to show himself as the joiner of the party. I guess he's the oil to the watered-down GOP (get it?)

I do want to remind those spewing the hate one thing: You do realize that your only other option is Hillary Clinton, right?

Make sure you think long and hard about that.

©Emittravel 2016

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Nothing Compares 2 U

There has been a lot of love for Prince of late, due to his recent passing. I don't want to be crass, but how many people giving all the "Prince was the soundtrack of my life" comments on social media sought out his music prior to the announcement? To be honest, I really can't remember the last time I looked at my music collection and thought, "Man, I can really use me some Prince."

(Note: We DO have some Prince in our music collection.)

2016 has been pretty awful when looking at celebrity deaths, and it's not even half over. Yet, though the deaths have been tragic (come on, Prince at 57?!?), the outpouring on social media seems way out of balance compared to the impact of the person when they were alive. Yes, David Bowie passed before his "golden years", Natalie Cole sang an "unforgettable" tune with her late father, and Alan Rickman truly "snaped" us with his every performance. But honestly, until the announcements, did you even think of these people?

Like I had written previously: "during such tragedies we are faced with our OWN mortality. And coming face-to-face with finitude has a way of bringing out compassion - for those we haven't seen, or even consciously thought of, for a long time."

And perhaps that is the reason we DO reach out via social media - to find comfort and compassion with our fellow mortals. And upon reflection, that is really okay.

R.I.P. Prince

©Emittravel 2016