I mean, yes, but they’re minimal. They don’t charge enough for a subscription to fully cover their revenues. Plus serving ads has always been something news outlets have done for revenue.
But hey, if they can just fuck off, I guess we can maintain either ads all over the page or let Sinclair/Newscorp run everything.
The issue isn’t data transmission and hosting, it’s paying someone a living wage to do this work professionally, along with their editors, graphic artists, analysts, and everyone else along the way that writes the news. It’s a bit absurd that people complain about ads and low quality reporting/analysis while simultaneously demanding all journalists work for free. Hell, if you get a library card you’ll probably be able to legitimately access the article right now for free in a way that still pays the journalist.
Fun fact: she’s Mitt Romney’s niece. He once put her in a binder.
I’d like to note that in this situation where you’ve expressed you don’t like either major party, you only believe one of those parties should reform the situation (Democratic), which means that inherently you know one is acting more in good faith than the other. I doubt it even occurred to you that a Republican would want to reform the FPTP process because you know they won’t do it and have no incentive to.
If you implictly know that there’s a lesser of two evils and yet choose to vote third party in the general, it’s just as much on you when the worse of the two evils wins.
Because it’s not about the amount of money or the ability to fight it, it’s about the way the income or other wealth was generated. The IRS audits the rich all the time, it’s just easier to have someone fix a mistake or catch tax evasion/fraud when the underlying income/wealth is only generated from a few sources. If you make 7 figures because that’s your salary, it’s still pretty easy to audit you.
If you’re a power user there’s a minor learning curve to prevent shit from breaking and some mild inconveniences like being unable to use NFC. Location can also just not work at times. Overall, I’m glad I made the switch.
At least we’re not unique.
If there is a quorum in the chamber but more Democrats than Republicans present, in theory they could successfully vote for a Democratic Speaker while in the minority. There is nothing that says the Speaker of the House has to be a member of the party that holds the majority. However, Republicans/the Speaker Pro Tem will almost definitely make sure this doesn’t happen. I say almost definitely because, as we’ve seen, they’re not that great at strategy these days.
It’s a Catch-22. He’s a contender for the presidency and the former president who has a real shot of winning. He’s also under indictment in multiple jurisdictions. The things he says are news, regardless of how stupid they are, because he’s saying them to become president and avoid jail.
The first time around they didn’t have to give him so much coverage early on in the primary race. This time, they don’t have a choice because it’s actually relevant news. That said, most networks have toned down coverage of Trump significantly. Actually most news orgs are more focused on the shutdown than the recent debate and Trump’s bullshit.
Styles change over time. I don’t see you calling people slobs for leaving home without their hat.
Let me be clear: this specific third party is most likely a GOP-led operation to bleed votes from the left. They do not have real policy goals that align with what people on the left actually want. Their goal is for a Republican to win, not someone from their party.
They’re good sandwiches, Bront.
*Multiple cops. More than one Capitol Police Officer died after and due to 1/6.
The third party here is a spoiler to try to bleed people from the left to think there’s a legitimate other option when their motive is to get a Republican elected. People on the left may not be equally susceptible to bad faith arguments, but that doesn’t mean they’re immune.
We can’t all be not American.
Because of how Republicans have rigged the system, it being a Republican problem necessarily means it’s an American problem.
British, French, Spanish, Hawaiian…
There’s a very real argument that it does mess with the consumer’s head. The person being hurt is the consumer of the media and while some unhealthy behaviors can be okay in reason, there’s also risks in terms of how it makes the consumer view the world and people in it. Violent video games don’t make people more violent, but imagery in porn does affect how consumers of porn view people and relationships.
Yes. You are misinformed.
Agreed. I’m friends with a few journalists and even the ones who had a steady job at major outlets were working it like a hustle. There really isn’t a good way to do it that doesn’t involve some level of either corporate or wide-public investment and both of those have an easy chance to get corrupted.