Just thinking of Frank Luntz makes me want to take a shower. But I have a personal guideline: If I have to mention him at all, I like to mention his toupee in passing.
The polling industry is impressive in the way they’ve built an entire industry on a service that’s very often wrong, much like weather forecasters. Why do so many follow them so much? I don’t get it. Your post brings together a couple of thoughts for me that I believe are related. One, presidential campaigns, specifically the media coverage, are now four years long. People have built lucrative careers on that fact. Perpetual. Second, I think the major reason we have such lousy candidates is that our best and brightest look at the four-year process, the coverage by polls and media, the gotcha/sound bite nonsense, and refuse to put themselves and their families through the meat grinder. One would have to have an incredible sense of service, and/or a massive ego, to jump in.
Of the two reasons to jump in, the massive ego is the winner. There are other paths to satisfy a sense of service, but the presidency is the ultimate ego trip.
In my opinion, the force of the negative vote (I'm voting against ...) has grown enormously and may even be dominant due to the low caliber of the candidates. In the absence of a good one, we are left to choose between the lesser of two lesser candidates. I know there are some truly single issue voters out there, but to they vote for/against one issue even if they think the candidate who supports (make that purports to support) "their" issue will be worse for the economy?
That was something different, and contrary to my mood today, I was intrigued to read it and found it informative.
I think one of the last experts cited presented the argument I agree with most: People who’ve cut the cord five or ten years ago and have been alternating streamers will be shocked at how expensive cable packages have become.
The industry is at a bust phase, and some of the streamers and cable companies will have to consolidate and/or go bust so the industry consolidates. There’s no way any of it will cost *less* in the future. Prices will go up, not least because of inflation.
It was an interesting piece. I'm looking for a way to cut the cord and get *all* the sports my wife and I watch. Thus far, there's been no good answer. We'll see ...
I don’t envy the sports fans in our current era. They’re seen as the cash cows (cash cattle?) for media and franchisees alike. Cable companies know they can charge more for people who want the live action. Team marketing departments know they can earn more by balkanizing their schedules, too. True fans have to stitch together packages of channels from a wide array of obscure TV channels and online streaming services.
If you’re a dedicated team fan, they really don’t leave you any options to save money if you want to see a team’s full season. They do their utmost to make you pay while exploiting your FOMO.
I’ve become just an occasional TV watcher so I’m not a candidate for anything bundled. Just the basics. It’s interesting to watch how creative they’re getting in coming up with ways to separate us from our money. Get off my lawn.
I would say I don’t know why the media do this, but I do. The news consumers like it, even if and when the complain about it. The complaints are usually about slant and bias, not about its general existence.
In so many parts of news, the headline is all I need. There aren’t that many items where I read the headline and think: Please tell me more! And when I do read on, I find the underlying story unsatisfying because it isn’t that conclusive.
Everyone does stuff for the money. No offense, but I don’t find that very helpful as a reason why people do things. Ironically, people also get gambling addictions “for the money”—even if they lose their shorts day after day. They just keep telling themselves “Today it’s different! My luck is about to turn!”
Still, as the money goes, from the reporting side, horserace reporting requires minimal expense. You don’t have to send reporters anywhere. One person with a phone can call willing pollsters eager to get publicity who will give you quotes to pad the copy. For cable channels, you can do everything from the comfort of a studio with minimal staff. Of course, this also means its boring work that AI generated bots could easily handle.
You and I are in agreement about headlines, for me probably 95 percent of the time. And that is assuming it’s in a subject area that interests me by and large.
No offense taken, I was responding to your opening line. Some things are complicated, others are not. If it didn't pay off, they wouldn't do it unless, as in your example, they are addicted to it and that is an entirely different matter.
Today’s special animal friend is the African wild dog, Lycaon pictus. It is the largest native canine in Africa. This animal’s publicists have struggled to find a common name that gives the public a good impression. “Painted dog” and “painted wolf” are believed to generate good will, while people find “wild dog” off-putting. Phylogenetically, they’re pretty far off from the iconic gray wolf and domestic dog.
I’ll flatter this endangered animal – and use its scientific name - by calling it the painted wolf. Adults are 30 to 43 inches long and weigh 40 to 79 pounds. Their coats are pretty sleek and are splotted and blotched in patches of white, black, brown, gray, and buff. They lack an undercoat, and older individuals tend to lose their fur and be hairless. Their medium-length tail is white on the end. They have enormous ears, much larger, in proportion, than the vast majority of canid species.
They are known as “hypercarnivorous” and are very successful hunters of medium-sized antelope of many different species. In some habitats, packs have learned to kill larger adult herbivores such as buffalo and zebras. They can maintain a speed of 35 mph for long periods. As diurnal hunters, they compete with cheetahs and sometimes steal kills. They also eat rodents, hares, and birds.
Painted wolves are highly social. Packs average between 7 and 15 members, but groups up to 40 are known. Each pack is led by a dominant, monogamous pair. The pack hunts cooperatively, and also cares for young and injured and sick members, sharing all large kills – puppies first! – and regurgitating food to share with adults as well as young. Only the dominant pair is supposed to breed; this can be enforced by killing the puppies of subordinate females. Litters can be up to 16, and 10 is average. Males tend to stay with their natal pack, while females join another pack or form a new group with a mate. Painted wolves are very vocal.
It’s a tough life for the painted wolves. They compete with many other predators, including all the large wild cats and hyenas. Many adults and puppies are killed by lions. Both cats and hyenas steal kills. Lifespan can be 10-12 years if an individual is very lucky.
It is estimated that there are 6,600 painted wolves in the wild. About 600 live in zoos. The wild population is very fragmented. The practice of females’ leaving their natal pack helps to reduce inbreeding, but some subpopulations are unlikely to last as genetic diversity declines. In addition to wild predators, they are also sometimes hunted by people, usually to protect domestic livestock, although conservationists blame most livestock kills on the large cats.
That’s a lot of competition in the carnivore space!
The pack feeding behavior seems different from wolf behavior. I don’t think other canines give first feeding priority to the pups, but let them fend for themselves for scraps. But I haven’t read anything about the specifics on this either.
"I vote against both Trump and Biden: I find them similarly unacceptable, but not identically so."
One might also say "equally unacceptable, but not identically so." They are both 100% unacceptable. So are RFK, Jr., Jill Stein, and Cornell West. Every one of these candidates is either old, crazy, or both. (Not one is under age 70, which is marginally "old" but also correlates, in this context, with crazy.)
This is all too true. Whatever else our political system is doing, it isn’t encouraging very appealing people to run for the presidency.
The feedback the winners get is mentally unhealthy. They read about how their victory means they’re the smartest people ever! And so they enter office assuming they should “govern” actively because they’re freaking geniuses who always know what’s best or better. You get no points for intellectual humility or anything remotely like it.
At the crappy comments section at UnHerd, it would show the net vote, which I thought was worse than showing ups and downs separately. It would also hold a comment in limbo if the word Nazi was used, which made discussions of World War II awkward.
I wonder how it would work with notifications. UnHerd either didn't have that feature, or I didn't know how to work it. Currently, as at Substack, The Dispatch will send you an email saying, "Wilhelm liked your comment (shows text) on (article)." (I don't use it at The Dispatch, although I do at Substack.) Will the new system send a notification that "Wilhelm disliked your comment on (article)"? That seems like an opportunity to build up even more of a "hostile teams" environment than currently exists.
I think I would rather have no non-verbal indicators than a facility for up/down voting. Perhaps there needs to be a Use Your Words Caucus of people who promise to say "I agree" or "I disagree" followed by at least one point of agreement or disagreement. When I was undercover doing an open seminar at Young Writers' Workshop, the rule was that feedback on a person's story proposal/outline had to have three parts: a positive comment, a question, and a suggestion.
"I like that fact that your protagonist has two orange cats. Do the cats have any special abilities? Maybe one of them could take a stenography class."
"When I was undercover doing an open seminar at Young Writers' Workshop..."
Undercover what, if I may ask?
Yeah, I may just hit a thumbs up occasionally when I'm in a hurry or it's not really worth adding anything. But, I think I'll pretend the Down button isn't there and make my point and move on.
I like the comment, question, suggestion combo. I'll try to think that way. You have a policy of not disagreeing, don't you? (I end up wasting a lot of time discussing/debating/arguing points with people.)
Undercover as a young person with a story idea instead of a 50+ person with a story idea. The information about the online open seminar (normally they charge a fee) came through a homeschooling email group.
I don't have a policy of not disagreeing. My policy is to disagree with something specific: "I don't agree with (this one point) because (this reason)." If a person doesn't want to respond in the same spirit of arguing about a clear idea using fact and logic, then I disengage.
Just thinking of Frank Luntz makes me want to take a shower. But I have a personal guideline: If I have to mention him at all, I like to mention his toupee in passing.
There. I'm done now.
LOL!
I can't handle commercials. I stopped watching news and not much else interests me. I've found other ways to use my time.
The polling industry is impressive in the way they’ve built an entire industry on a service that’s very often wrong, much like weather forecasters. Why do so many follow them so much? I don’t get it. Your post brings together a couple of thoughts for me that I believe are related. One, presidential campaigns, specifically the media coverage, are now four years long. People have built lucrative careers on that fact. Perpetual. Second, I think the major reason we have such lousy candidates is that our best and brightest look at the four-year process, the coverage by polls and media, the gotcha/sound bite nonsense, and refuse to put themselves and their families through the meat grinder. One would have to have an incredible sense of service, and/or a massive ego, to jump in.
Of the two reasons to jump in, the massive ego is the winner. There are other paths to satisfy a sense of service, but the presidency is the ultimate ego trip.
In my opinion, the force of the negative vote (I'm voting against ...) has grown enormously and may even be dominant due to the low caliber of the candidates. In the absence of a good one, we are left to choose between the lesser of two lesser candidates. I know there are some truly single issue voters out there, but to they vote for/against one issue even if they think the candidate who supports (make that purports to support) "their" issue will be worse for the economy?
I'm grateful I have my woodwork to keep me busy.
Good morning. Sunny day today.
The mothership is reporting on moves bwteeen cable TV companies and streaming services to “bundle” multiple offerings together.
That was something different, and contrary to my mood today, I was intrigued to read it and found it informative.
I think one of the last experts cited presented the argument I agree with most: People who’ve cut the cord five or ten years ago and have been alternating streamers will be shocked at how expensive cable packages have become.
The industry is at a bust phase, and some of the streamers and cable companies will have to consolidate and/or go bust so the industry consolidates. There’s no way any of it will cost *less* in the future. Prices will go up, not least because of inflation.
It was an interesting piece. I'm looking for a way to cut the cord and get *all* the sports my wife and I watch. Thus far, there's been no good answer. We'll see ...
I don’t envy the sports fans in our current era. They’re seen as the cash cows (cash cattle?) for media and franchisees alike. Cable companies know they can charge more for people who want the live action. Team marketing departments know they can earn more by balkanizing their schedules, too. True fans have to stitch together packages of channels from a wide array of obscure TV channels and online streaming services.
If you’re a dedicated team fan, they really don’t leave you any options to save money if you want to see a team’s full season. They do their utmost to make you pay while exploiting your FOMO.
I’ve become just an occasional TV watcher so I’m not a candidate for anything bundled. Just the basics. It’s interesting to watch how creative they’re getting in coming up with ways to separate us from our money. Get off my lawn.
There is always broadcast TV 🙂
Just recycle this every 6 weeks, alternating Trump and Biden. Its what the media does.
The media's cycle is much shorter than 6 weeks, closer to 6 hours. They have a problem of biblical proportions: Ecclesiastes 1:9
Had to look it up. So true.
I knew the quote, but had to look up the chapter/verse.
👍
I would say I don’t know why the media do this, but I do. The news consumers like it, even if and when the complain about it. The complaints are usually about slant and bias, not about its general existence.
In so many parts of news, the headline is all I need. There aren’t that many items where I read the headline and think: Please tell me more! And when I do read on, I find the underlying story unsatisfying because it isn’t that conclusive.
1) Why do they do this? Follow the money. They want to get paid to write this stuff and consumers are willing to pay for it.
2) To the extent that I read news, headlines are all I read. In depth just never is.
Everyone does stuff for the money. No offense, but I don’t find that very helpful as a reason why people do things. Ironically, people also get gambling addictions “for the money”—even if they lose their shorts day after day. They just keep telling themselves “Today it’s different! My luck is about to turn!”
Still, as the money goes, from the reporting side, horserace reporting requires minimal expense. You don’t have to send reporters anywhere. One person with a phone can call willing pollsters eager to get publicity who will give you quotes to pad the copy. For cable channels, you can do everything from the comfort of a studio with minimal staff. Of course, this also means its boring work that AI generated bots could easily handle.
You and I are in agreement about headlines, for me probably 95 percent of the time. And that is assuming it’s in a subject area that interests me by and large.
No offense taken, I was responding to your opening line. Some things are complicated, others are not. If it didn't pay off, they wouldn't do it unless, as in your example, they are addicted to it and that is an entirely different matter.
Lol - well played!
Thank you.
Today’s special animal friend is the African wild dog, Lycaon pictus. It is the largest native canine in Africa. This animal’s publicists have struggled to find a common name that gives the public a good impression. “Painted dog” and “painted wolf” are believed to generate good will, while people find “wild dog” off-putting. Phylogenetically, they’re pretty far off from the iconic gray wolf and domestic dog.
I’ll flatter this endangered animal – and use its scientific name - by calling it the painted wolf. Adults are 30 to 43 inches long and weigh 40 to 79 pounds. Their coats are pretty sleek and are splotted and blotched in patches of white, black, brown, gray, and buff. They lack an undercoat, and older individuals tend to lose their fur and be hairless. Their medium-length tail is white on the end. They have enormous ears, much larger, in proportion, than the vast majority of canid species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGtpYaTkjiQ
They are known as “hypercarnivorous” and are very successful hunters of medium-sized antelope of many different species. In some habitats, packs have learned to kill larger adult herbivores such as buffalo and zebras. They can maintain a speed of 35 mph for long periods. As diurnal hunters, they compete with cheetahs and sometimes steal kills. They also eat rodents, hares, and birds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCI-qgPEbw4
Painted wolves are highly social. Packs average between 7 and 15 members, but groups up to 40 are known. Each pack is led by a dominant, monogamous pair. The pack hunts cooperatively, and also cares for young and injured and sick members, sharing all large kills – puppies first! – and regurgitating food to share with adults as well as young. Only the dominant pair is supposed to breed; this can be enforced by killing the puppies of subordinate females. Litters can be up to 16, and 10 is average. Males tend to stay with their natal pack, while females join another pack or form a new group with a mate. Painted wolves are very vocal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVpEt_jlFFI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVpEt_jlFFI
It’s a tough life for the painted wolves. They compete with many other predators, including all the large wild cats and hyenas. Many adults and puppies are killed by lions. Both cats and hyenas steal kills. Lifespan can be 10-12 years if an individual is very lucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00KjjDqYxu8
It is estimated that there are 6,600 painted wolves in the wild. About 600 live in zoos. The wild population is very fragmented. The practice of females’ leaving their natal pack helps to reduce inbreeding, but some subpopulations are unlikely to last as genetic diversity declines. In addition to wild predators, they are also sometimes hunted by people, usually to protect domestic livestock, although conservationists blame most livestock kills on the large cats.
https://www.awf.org/wildlife-conservation/african-wild-dog
That’s a lot of competition in the carnivore space!
The pack feeding behavior seems different from wolf behavior. I don’t think other canines give first feeding priority to the pups, but let them fend for themselves for scraps. But I haven’t read anything about the specifics on this either.
The articles said the feeding behavior is unique among studied canid species.
They look like dogs whose owners got them Mickey Mouse ears when the owners went to Disney World.
"I vote against both Trump and Biden: I find them similarly unacceptable, but not identically so."
One might also say "equally unacceptable, but not identically so." They are both 100% unacceptable. So are RFK, Jr., Jill Stein, and Cornell West. Every one of these candidates is either old, crazy, or both. (Not one is under age 70, which is marginally "old" but also correlates, in this context, with crazy.)
There may be more brain worms to be reported among the candidates. Just a theory.
This is all too true. Whatever else our political system is doing, it isn’t encouraging very appealing people to run for the presidency.
The feedback the winners get is mentally unhealthy. They read about how their victory means they’re the smartest people ever! And so they enter office assuming they should “govern” actively because they’re freaking geniuses who always know what’s best or better. You get no points for intellectual humility or anything remotely like it.
I have often remarked upon the symbiosis between the elected, appointed, and professional political class and the journalistical industry.
So, I'm contemplating the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down aspect of TD's comment section. I'm really going to try to not use the Down button.
You usually show much more restraint than I do. Thoughts?
At the crappy comments section at UnHerd, it would show the net vote, which I thought was worse than showing ups and downs separately. It would also hold a comment in limbo if the word Nazi was used, which made discussions of World War II awkward.
I wonder how it would work with notifications. UnHerd either didn't have that feature, or I didn't know how to work it. Currently, as at Substack, The Dispatch will send you an email saying, "Wilhelm liked your comment (shows text) on (article)." (I don't use it at The Dispatch, although I do at Substack.) Will the new system send a notification that "Wilhelm disliked your comment on (article)"? That seems like an opportunity to build up even more of a "hostile teams" environment than currently exists.
I think I would rather have no non-verbal indicators than a facility for up/down voting. Perhaps there needs to be a Use Your Words Caucus of people who promise to say "I agree" or "I disagree" followed by at least one point of agreement or disagreement. When I was undercover doing an open seminar at Young Writers' Workshop, the rule was that feedback on a person's story proposal/outline had to have three parts: a positive comment, a question, and a suggestion.
"I like that fact that your protagonist has two orange cats. Do the cats have any special abilities? Maybe one of them could take a stenography class."
"When I was undercover doing an open seminar at Young Writers' Workshop..."
Undercover what, if I may ask?
Yeah, I may just hit a thumbs up occasionally when I'm in a hurry or it's not really worth adding anything. But, I think I'll pretend the Down button isn't there and make my point and move on.
I like the comment, question, suggestion combo. I'll try to think that way. You have a policy of not disagreeing, don't you? (I end up wasting a lot of time discussing/debating/arguing points with people.)
Undercover as a young person with a story idea instead of a 50+ person with a story idea. The information about the online open seminar (normally they charge a fee) came through a homeschooling email group.
I don't have a policy of not disagreeing. My policy is to disagree with something specific: "I don't agree with (this one point) because (this reason)." If a person doesn't want to respond in the same spirit of arguing about a clear idea using fact and logic, then I disengage.