Who's "they"?

Who's "they"?

Goddammit Sup Forums

The Russians

It's true, you can't polish a turd

Like UGH

((dunno))

>Some creep
The absolute state of journalism

>Some X did Y, and it's Z

At what point did journalism stop using legitimate titles and start using "someone just did something and you wont believe it"?

You can polish a turd, its been proven.

The creep. In this case they is singular

>some (((creep))) ruined star wars, and everyone thinks its awful

Creeps

Late 2000's with the rise of TMZ, Gawker and Buzzfeed..etc

(((they)))

>even the improved version of shit is shit

when the internet fucked up their analytics
there's no realiable way to measure what's actually read these days, and editors push clickbait, hoping to appease their stakeholders, being too unprincipled to produce actual journalism, being too retarded to do anything else

I loled when you said journalism

Hahha it was me, the alt right hacker known as 4chin, you may know me from past events like ghostbusters remake, star wars the last jedi and the presidential election

>creep

That movie was so underrated. Is the second one any good?

News day really that slow? "Someone made an edit, and a even people that hate TLJ thought it was bad?"

It's an edit. Maybe worth a few comments on here. It's not worth a article. The fuck?

How else do you influence a population? With evidence?

Titles like these are pushed because it engenders an immediate emotional reaction. 'This has happened, and here's how you should feel about it'. If you agree with the title, you enjoy the article because it reinforces your prebelief. If you disagree, you read it anyway to get mad at how wrong the writer is.

It used to make me fume when I'd see article headlines like this...but now I understand the reason why. Mainstream media on the TV has followed suit, of course. There's a reason why every news station has a 'panel of experts' to discuss the latest political situation. They are not there to tell you the facts, they're there to tell you how you should FEEL about the facts, and to shame you if you feel otherwise.

Not trying to be le fedora tipping man here but has anyone else noticed a serious decline/shift in AVClub content (and even just the overtly SJWesque way they title their articles like in OP) since they joined that network of sites that Jezebel Gizmodo etc are on

Dare I say, some creep BTFO?

>avclub
>journalism

wtf I love 4-Chong The Pepe Frog now!

The Russians obviously

i dont just see ideology in this picture. i also see sheer incompetence. people who have a position at a news outlet only because they do what they're being told and have some skills at social networking.

if you can manipulate a TIME magazine poll, you can also make Drumpf president

>some creep
>they think
Only sith lords deal in absolutes

I am fucking shocked they didn't assume it was a white male who made it.

absolutely, i used to read them all the time

so where is it?

r u me? This is something I would've written

Fa/tv/irgins. They're on to us lads

Nah, we saw it streamed by EcoFash yesterday.
It's legitimately better than the actual movie.
It's no joke. I ain't memeing. I'm 100% serious.

>click bait
>journalism
Choose one

Yes, but the incompetence is socially endorsed and supported. Media no longer cares about reporting facts to the population because facts and information are in fact a form of power. If you want to keep a population under your thumb, you feed them propaganda, not fact. The ones who write this are part of that machine; some of them know EXACTLY what they're doing, and are proud of it. Think Jessica Valenti.

Maybe I am. The way I see it, there are many of us who see the problem, but sadly I am not in the position to make a positive change for the better. I can merely point out the flaws of the system so that others see the pattern on the veil and no longer mistake it for what lies behind.

...

look at the URL. you are not looking at journalism (technically you are but you get what i mean)

Yes. The decline really became noticeable to me around 2011/2012. Whatever is going on their now is just standard clickbait that gives their comment section hive content to buzz and chirp about.

I rewatched that scene in MGS2SoL and im totally against net neutrality now.

>when the internet fucked up their analytics
care to explain please?

makes you wonder if these people have strong convictions about their writing, or their just thinking of the most outrageous titles/article ideas that will make people want to read it.

The latter, of course. The whole purpose of these article titles is to make someone click on the article, nothing more. Like having a picture of a beautiful girl on the cover of a men's magazine.

Conviction is irrelevant. Just try it, make something up, and write it like they would. You'll be surprised at how easy it is.

Example:

BANANAS ARE GOING EXTINCT. IT'S NOT AS BAD AS YOU THINK.

According to /fa/, bananas the world over will no longer exist by 2055. user E. Mouse, director of /fa/'s Center for Dildo Replacement Research (CDRR), published a study last month that details why Bananas will go extinct. 'Sadly, it's only a matter of time...transgenders keep on using them as replacements, and unfortunately, this spreads emotional distress to the other fruit, both on the tree, and in society.'

Now, you may be thinking this is a disaster waiting to happen. But it's not. According to Sup Forums, these days fruit are multiplying at rates we've never seen before, so even if you only liked Bananas, you'll be presented with a variety that far outweighs the individual loss. As Sup Forums wrote last week, 'Diversity is the most important cultural touchstone to develop in the past 20 years. This is progress of the best kind'.

So don't worry. If you support progress, and if you consider yourself to be on the right side of history, then you're sure to not mind if a Banana is no longer at the table...in fact, you won't notice it because of all the new fruits you'll be able to taste and enjoy. And that's a delicious way to be on the right side of history!
See, wasn't that easy?

>Bananas Are Going Extinct, And That's Okay

and that's a bad thing :(

No, the reason it has to be 'it's not as bad as you think' is that you not only have to tell the person what they should feel, you have to show them that you're assuming their emotional reaction.

Only when you're dealing with a topic that is obviously controversial can you go as direct as you suggest. i.e.

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IS GROWING IN SWEDEN. HERE'S WHY THAT'S OKAY.

The creep of indeterminate gender, they is the third person singular pronoun that is used when he/she is not appropriate

cont.

In other words, it's a subtle distinction. When you have a subject that no one really cares about, you have to make more assumptions about the reader in order to shame them into agreeing with you. No one cares about bananas, at least, not emotionally, therefore you not only tell them that 'it's not bad' but you add in 'it's not as bad AS YOU THINK'...the point being that the author already assumes how you would react to the news.

With something inflammatory and emotionally charged (think anything to do with Trump or Clinton, as an example), they can go direct because the assumption of emotional reaction doesn't have to be posited at all. To use your example:

TRUMP WILL WIN IN 2020, AND THAT'S OKAY.

My favorite titles though are the ones that are blatant propaganda, where they make claims in the title that have no backing but are stated as absolute fact.

GHOSTBUSTERS 2016 WILL PISS OFF MEN. GOOD.


lol I love those....

>According to /fa/, bananas the world over will no longer exist by 2055
>According to /fa/

Hm?

I am fucking shocked that you didn't say
>I am fucking shocked she didn't assume it was a white male who made it.

Of course the think it's awful. You try making a silk purse out of a pigs ear.

Why wouldn't /fa/ go bananas over bananas? They are the world's favourite fruit

Well, it depends on if the bananas are full Rick or not.

Zero was right all along.

All journalism is click bait m8

Journalism is Dead (and why that's okay)

i'm in a hurry

the tl;dr is that in the old world, sales and subscriptions was the metric of quality. when editors reported to their business managers, they could justify their decisions by how it impacted sales.
the internet destroyed sales as a metric; things come free too easily. editors were forced to adopt page views as a metric of success.
now, when sales reigned, the consumer was also more judicious about what they purchased. if you have limited resources, you pick wisely (relative to your needs, be they entertainment, information, discussion, etc.). but the internet offers unlimited resources. judiciousness comes less regularly in media consumption than previously. so how do editors compete for eyeballs when judiciousness is low? clickbait.
there are related problems to pageviews. what is more important? number of pages visited on a website? time spent per page? they have mouse trackers to try and figure out where the eyeballs are going on a page. but ultimately, it's very hard to tell what a consumer is actually consuming when they click on some piece of journalism, so they only real reliable thing business managers can go on when trying to sell advertising space is page views---the more eyeballs, the more ad bucks. but how do you get eyeballs? clickbait.

if an outlet doesn't have a reputations (Atlantic, NYT, and the like) it has to go with clickbait.

or the editors are millenials, who are fucking retarded

AVClub=Soyboy HQ

Beautifully condensed.

And that's a good thing

>"We need to talk about _______"
>*comments are disabled*

Every time.

Exactly. Used to love that site. Then the comment section gotten taken over by redditfags and the editors decided to push a liberal agenda.

You know why that happens though...online publications don't like moderating their comment section. If it's about Bananas, no one cares...but if it's about Migrants, it's full of anti-propaganda which must be silenced.

That's related to the danger I mentioned above; people having facts, and discussing facts is far more dangerous than media discussing opinions and spreading those opinions through fear, social stigma, and coercion.

The internet really is their best friend and their worst enemy. It can't exist if it's not free, but when it's free it serves as a hub for all those who know the truth and wish to spread it. The government really should have destroyed all the Gutenberg presses when they had the chance. Now...well, now it's too late.

Most of this shit is written by bots these days.

Thanks.

It's weird where you can't even make a joke edit of a shitty movie without being labeled by the mainstream media

Why is this worth writing stories about?

Took me a second and then I Laughed Out Loud.

...

If you liked the first might as well give the second a try

I enjoyed it.

It plays with the concepts of the first one in pretty fun way, with the audience never really knowing when he's being genuine and when he's putting on an act.

Good follow up in my opinion, not quite as unnerving/suspenseful as the first, but that's mainly out of intention.

He also hangs dong within the first 20 or so minutes.

Can't I just not like a movie without it being for any new-aged, anti-social justice reason?

For fucks sake, it just wasn't good.

>Last Jedi but it's just a 45 minute middle finger to the feminist faggots who made the actual movie
Where can I see this masterpiece?

It's the ultimate shield against being creatively bankrupt or just outright inept. You can't write? Reboot, pull the sexism/racist card immediately.

No, because part of the propaganda is to convince people like you that you don't have any opinions of your own, and that every opinion you have is shaped by society and as a result is a sign of greater (larger, not 'gooder') things at play.

This is why so many titles are linked with 'causes'.

>In Defence of Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reflecting on Rian Johnson's Film as an Allegory fo teh Toxicity of Expectation

>An eerily perfect installment for the post-Trump era

>Star Wars: The Last Jedi' and its unexpected examination of toxic masculinity

etc.

The whole point is to say to you that you belong in one of two possible camps; on the side of righteousness (the author) or on the side of wickedness (if you contradict the author). It's the same idea as being 'on the right side of history'.

In all honesty, the most difficult thing for me personally is to construct the feminine version of this kind of title. Men respond with rage when facts are wrong and false assumptions are made, but women don't seem to care as much about that. Given that women's articles are usually titled with something like 'How to give the perfect dinner party' or 'Why is he not talking after sex?', I think in order to reverse it onto women the titles would have to be appropriately styled in the manner of 'here's free information to make your life better' or 'here's what our panel of experts thinks about your problem'. But it's difficult to come up with rage-inducing titles because I don't naturally think like that.

>'10 Signs That You're Not Beautiful'

>'Why Losing Your Virginity to Chad Means that You'll Marry a Dud'

>'He doesn't Pay Attention to Me Anymore' Why you should be ashamed.

It's a tough thing to construct...

Sorry

>...Allegory fo teh...

Should read as '...Allegory For The...'

Eh, not worth it. It does take out most of the crap those, but of coarse that just leaves gaping holes. Though you can use your imagination to fill those holes with better crap.

Literally what stories has she told? What has she created?

These screen shots always come from sites that are entirely composed of clickbait.

First off
>The SJW Club
But why?

Secondly, it was probably a feminist posing as an MRA that made/posted it.

It's a great follow up

10 Signs That You're Not Beautiful'
>'Why Losing Your Virginity to Chad Means that You'll Marry a Dud'
>'He doesn't Pay Attention to Me Anymore' Why you should be ashamed.
Fucking kek you might be on to something here.

>SOME CLICKBAIT DID A CLICKBAIT AND IT'S CLICKBAIT AND YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT'S CLICKBAIT
Are the people who write these articles the most worthless fucks of all time? They're worse than NEETS, they actively produce shit that exists only to make people upset.

You see? It induces rage, doesn't it? lol It's so beautifully crafted as a piece of clickbait; it fulfills the feminist dream, and enrages men who know better.

If it weren't for what it represents, I'd say it's close to high art in terms of existential quality...

"Why I'm Not Reviewing Ghostbusters 2016" seemed to work pretty well.

No fucking joke. It's been bad for a while, but the switch the Kinja killed it completely for me.

It worked because it was a specific attack on the current feminist zeitgeist (excuse the pun). You'd achieve the same effect if someone prominent (like on a news station on CNN) had written an article for the Washington Post that was titled, '10 Reasons why I'm Not Voting for Hillary Clinton'.

Ghostbusters was an assumption by the makers; that nerds would accept it because there is nothing else, and that they could freely shove feminist propaganda down the throats. But one very popular 'nerd' simply said, 'no'. The backlash against him was not focused on him saying 'no', it was focused on personal attacks against his character and all the nerds he represented as a viceroy.

The problem is that with Ghostbusters it's VERY believable that nerds would have not gone to see it, and that's the demographic that Ghostbusters needed to be successful.

Here's a possible scenario that I can think of, going by the same rules (take a traditional male thing, superimpose a woman onto it, and expect the men who supported the previous thing to support the new thing, only this time they rebel).

>WNBA All Star Game
>Sports personality/commentator who is important writes article or states on air that 'I'm not going to watch it. It'll suck, and no one needs it or asked for it'.
>Cue backlash. 'He's sexist', 'He's misogynist', 'He's against progress', etc.


Follow the rules, and you can recreate it too!

Why my weenus peenus of course!

I haven't torrented in years. Does anyone have a MEGA link?

Well, I think I am on to something, however it simply will never exist because women account for more clicks on shitty articles on the net than men.

My favorite though is the last one...'why you should be ashamed'. You'll notice that women are never blamed for anything, they are never expected to take personal responsibility for their actions, and they really hate it when there's no one else to blame but themselves. Here are a few more that came to mind.

>Your Husband is Divorcing You: How He Saw Through Your Lies
>Why Marrying a Man Who is Smarter Than You Is a Good Thing
>10 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Nag Your Husband, And Why You Should Be Proud To Be Gentle and Kind
>You're Not Attractive Enough Unless You Have A Bikini Bridge

It takes some thought, but it's possible.

Hahaha! :)

Wow you should work for cosmo faggot

>Some guy edits TLJ to trigger soyboy faggots
>It worked

Shocking.

>"What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context."

Pre-2009 AVClub comment section was hilarious. Zodiac Motherfucker owning bitches everyday.

>supposedly this edit exists
>no links, no proof

ok

>spend countless hours editing a bad movie to troll sjws
>They are now nonstop complaining about it

Is this the best troll in history?