Let's go to war or not: Iran Edition

[JonA]

Is it bad when Israel comes out saying that they had nothing to do with this and leave them alone? Because it seems bad to me.

When it's Netanyahu giving you the back-off boogaloo? Uh, yeah, that's not a good sign..

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu ... nds-by-us/

[JonA]

Fox News has decided to focus on AOC because they are scared of her.

I think they focus on her because what she says makes excellent click bait. Just like CNN and Trump.

[aurelius]

I think they focus on her because what she says makes excellent click bait. Just like CNN and Trump.

Maybe. All I know is this last tweet which seems to be pretty standard anti-war stuff. Don't know why anyone would get riled up about that.

Still doesn't explain the level of coverage she gets from Conservative News media. If you ask me, they are doing her a HUGE favor. AOC is a national brand because of the coverage. Just like Trump benefits from the coverage from Liberal News media. I don't get it.

[JonA]

Still doesn't explain the level of coverage she gets from Conservative News media. If you ask me, they are doing her a HUGE favor. AOC is a national brand because of the coverage. Just like Trump benefits from the coverage from Liberal News media. I don't get it.

Because it's about money, not "news".

The 1900s were a pretty unique period in time in which "news" was expected to objective or about the common good; use of the public frequencies for radio and TV kinda made it necessary. Before that it was just a free-for-all, with multiple newspapers per city, all trying to spin things to cater to their audiences to sell more copy. Nobody expected any objectivity to it. We are simply returning to that time. What makes it terrible, is that people are still stuck in the mindset that "news" is some how objective, and not simply about selling advertisments to make money.

Media orgs like Fox News or CNN are not endorsing a political philosophy. They've simply identified markets and doing whatever they can to sell advertising to them.

[Bcharles123]

I think they focus on her because what she says makes excellent click bait. Just like CNN and Trump.

Maybe. All I know is this last tweet which seems to be pretty standard anti-war stuff. Don't know why anyone would get riled up about that.

Still doesn't explain the level of coverage she gets from Conservative News media. If you ask me, they are doing her a HUGE favor. AOC is a national brand because of the coverage. Just like Trump benefits from the coverage from Liberal News media. I don't get it.

@JonA @aurelius

I said it first

[JonA]

Here's something to think about:

AOC has something like 6M followers. Google Adsense revenue is about $1 per 1000 views. AOC says something like "Trump is a monster for targeting families, women and children" to trigger outrage. Fox, MSN, MSNBC, CNN, HuffPost, etc all follow up with articles on the story. How many people do you think view those news pages and how much revenue is generated from that one tweet? How much revenue do you think Twitter gets from that tweet?

[mbasic]

Is it bad when Israel comes out saying that they had nothing to do with this and leave them alone? Because it seems bad to me.

When it's Netanyahu giving you the back-off boogaloo? Uh, yeah, that's not a good sign..

yeah, i was going to post something like:

netanyahu says: "not our deal"

netanyahu *figuratively high fives trump via phone call*

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu ... nds-by-us/

[Hanley]

No one has thrown this out yet: Is this a Wag the Dog tactic by Team Trump?

Have Iran's unrelenting provocations over the past few month's all been staged?

[Mkgillman]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-gener ... c-comment/

The high five was three days ago. Sure looks like all the “planning” that has come out over the weekend didn’t reassure the IDF.

[aurelius]

Here's something to think about:

AOC has something like 6M followers. Google Adsense revenue is about $1 per 1000 views. AOC says something like "Trump is a monster for targeting families, women and children" to trigger outrage. Fox, MSN, MSNBC, CNN, HuffPost, etc all follow up with articles on the story. How many people do you think view those news pages and how much revenue is generated from that one tweet? How much revenue do you think Twitter gets from that tweet?

I'm not convinced that this is a lucrative as you make it out to be. If X generated 100,000 impressions per day (which would be A LOT) that would be 36,500,000 views per year. Which would be $36,000 dollars per year. And I bet even the most prolific politicians average less than 100,000 impressions per day. A Congress Critter's salary is greater than $500,000 per year. I just don't see that added revenue as a significant factor in why Congress Critter's say stupid things.

I do think you are onto something with the outrage politics of our day. That Congress Critters say dumb things to keep their name in the papers so to speak. Is AOC doing that? I have no idea.

[DanCR]

@aurelius @Hanley

Each of you is ascribing a (different) rational motive to an irrational actor.

[Bcharles123]

Because it's about money, not "news".

The 1900s were a pretty unique period in time in which "news" was expected to objective or about the common good; use of the public frequencies for radio and TV kinda made it necessary. Before that it was just a free-for-all, with multiple newspapers per city, all trying to spin things to cater to their audiences to sell more copy. Nobody expected any objectivity to it. We are simply returning to that time. What makes it terrible, is that people are still stuck in the mindset that "news" is some how objective, and not simply about selling advertisments to make money.

Media orgs like Fox News or CNN are not endorsing a political philosophy. They've simply identified markets and doing whatever they can to sell advertising to them.

I did not know about the “eras” of media. Interesting. But for sure, it’s all about money.

I’ve had a subscription (more or less) to the NYTs for 40yrs. It is still, I think, a solid source of information. However, it is biased left. The studies show that it is biased left about as much as Fox is biased right.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

Other studies show differently (NYTs closer to center) and I agree. NYTs is certainly higher quality. But they are different formats originating from different eras and probably can’t be accurately compared for bias. on the other hand, people asserting that one is neutral and the other biased are foolish. Just different markets.

[aurelius]

Have Iran's unrelenting provocations over the past few month's all been staged?

No. That is an interesting leap. I believe the provocations you are referring to are fairly normal and the response was grossly an overreaction. I believe Trump thinks he can bully ANYONE. That is essentially his approach to anyone he views as an enemy. Won't work domestically. Won't work against China. And bullying Iran has not worked since the 1970's so I'm thinking it won't work here.

Are you referring to the protests outside the US Embassy in Iraq?
-Protests, and even outright attacks, outside of US Embassies are nothing new. And dates back decades. Trump has yet to produce any Intel suggesting that the US Embassy was under a serious threat of being overrun. Even you simply label it as provocations. Okay. Trump was provoked. And?
+Instead, if military action was deemed necessary, there are plenty of actions the US could have made that would not violate international law (on its face). Like 'give' the Saudis some missiles to take out a few Iranian oil production centers. Plausible deniability is the name of the game. Iran would know we did it. We, through back channels, would let them know we did it and to knock off their bullshit. Because hurting the Iranian economy would do more to turn the people of Iran against Tehran than making a martyr out of one of their top government officials.

If referring to the various military engagements Iran is involved in all over the Middle East the past decade plus:
-If Trump wished to best negate Iranian aggression in the Middle East, Trump should not have unconditionally surrendered and withdrawn troops from Syria. Especially considering this action. If all out war with Iran was on the table, why in the world would we withdraw troops from the region? Puzzling.
+Instead, the US should have at a minimum stayed the course and supported the Kurds. Who we have made made alliances (and abandoned them when convenient)with since the early 1990's. They have paid a high price for standing with the US the past 3 decades. It would have been nice to stand with them and help them carve out a Kurdish State in Northern Iraq (Iraq now hates us, Iran hates us, Syria hates us, and Turkey is no longer our friend so why not the Kurds?).

And to be fair to myself: I did say conspiracy. Personally, I don't think Trump has any plan. He just wings it and can't be bothered with the details. This allows whoever is the loudest voice in the room to sway him. And Trump has driven out the people that told him no...

[Hanley]

I believe the provocations you are referring to are fairly normal

Rog. Thumbs-up Emoji.

[Bcharles123]

A Congress Critter's salary is greater than $500,000 per year.

Son, are you on the pipe?

[aurelius]

Son, are you on the pipe?

I wish. That would be more fun than my irritated eye.

Conflated President's salary. It is $174,000. But that is misleading as they get an allowance (about $1 million) for their staff. While I looked that up, Congress Critter's by law are limited to 15% of their $174,000 salary for outside income. So they really couldn't monetize their online social media in a significant way.

Of course the real money a Congress Critter makes is through their 501(c)

[Bcharles123]

Son, are you on the pipe?

I wish. That would be more fun than my irritated eye.

Conflated President's salary. It is $174,000. But that is misleading as they get an allowance (about $1 million) for their staff. While I looked that up, Congress Critter's by law are limited to 15% of their $174,000 salary for outside income. So they really couldn't monetize their online social media in a significant way.

Of course the real money a Congress Critter makes is through their 501(c)

I agree that they don’t make money from social media. The social media giants make money from politicians saying outrageous things.

As an aside, if you can figure out how so many of them end up wealthy, I’ll buy you beers. I suspect they get preferential investment deals or at least are tipped off. I also suspect that “book deals” is money laundering. Nobody that I know buys these books.

[JonA]

I believe the provocations you are referring to are fairly normal

Rog. Thumbs-up Emoji.

Rereads OP. Looks at thread title and author. Scratches head...Shrugs...

[aurelius]

Rereads OP. Looks at thread title and author. Scratches head...Shrugs...

I do not see SA as an extension of the US or how Iran striking SA is a provocation to the US. And I have been consistent on that position.

[aurelius]

As an aside, if you can figure out how so many of them end up wealthy, I’ll buy you beers. I suspect they get preferential investment deals or at least are tipped off. I also suspect that “book deals” is money laundering. Nobody that I know buys these books.

The 501(c) loophole. The candidates have no legal responsibility to spend that money on actual campaign expenses. And since the candidate is entirely in control of the corporation, they can treat it like their own personal bank account. At any point in time, they can 'close' the campaign and simply pocket the money. When one considers that MOST political donations are made to the lead candidate after the rest is mostly decided, it becomes more clear what these political 'donations' really are. Add to that incumbents win at a very high rate...it is legal bribery. Stephen Cobert famously demonstrated how to do this on his show.

Real world example: Cory Booker, the man of the people, campaign accepted $500,000 dollars from the pharmacist lobby group. He is one of the Senators that shoots down any proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Big Pharma bought the Senate. And cheaply too. Gave ~10 Senators on key committees $500,000. What a return on their investment. Crony capitalism.

Also, as you hint at, insider trading. Congress Critters can buy and sell stock with knowledge of what legislation will be passed and what contracts will be awarded.

I had not thought about the books. I don't know anyone that reads those things. And the general public is most definitely less likely to read a book previous eras...