Cheers to Cuban for responding so quickly. I wish the media would stop hyping this (front page news at CNN, ESPN, Yahoo, etc) until he's proven innocent or guilty. Unfortunately they make their money on pageviews not in depth reporting.
If he's guilty, I wonder if sharesleuth.com will cover it.
You shouldn't report just headlines. This morning CNN literally just had an unclickable headline about Cuban. No article. No link. Nothing. Just more "breaking news" linkbait/trafficbait bullshit.
Readers depend on news websites to report breaking news in a timely manner. I'm sure CNN would love to have a full article about the charges as soon as they are announced, but even they need some time to read, digest, and write up their report.
I'm a bit puzzled. "Breaking" doesn't mean "important". In this context, "to break" means:
14. (v. tr.) To make known, as news: break a story.
15. (v. intr.) To become known or noticed: The big story broke on Friday.
(http://www.answers.com/topic/break)
So a "breaking news" story is one that is being made known or becoming known. In the morning when the story was becoming known, I think the label was perfectly appropriate.
Did cnn.com really "interrupt" any "scheduled" programming with the Cuban story? They usually just have that red bar over the top with the "breaking" headline.
Obviously the definition doesn't transfer perfectly to the internet.
Traditionally breaking news is reserved for news deemed important (see previous definition). The problem is, everyone uses it too much, and if too many things are deemed important, nothing is. And we're back to where we started :).
studies show the headline is the most read, influential, and remembered part.
you're not supposed to want to think, you're supposed to want to be able to convey to other people that you're part of the same cult they are by using key phrases while not putting in the effort to actually think, and be mesmerized by the ads while you are skimming well enough to bullshit your way through meaningless pseudo-conversation with other cult members about the headline along the paradigm of choices the puppet-masters create for you.
Of course they should just report headlines. You are the product they sell to their customers (advertisers). You think they care one little bit about informing you of the world as it is? It works out best for everyone except you if they don't. Go back to sleep, watch american gladiators, and don't think about it too much.
Wow! Those studies are very good at uncovering the obvious. Maybe that's what you want to do, but it's not what _I_ want to do. And it's one of the many reasons why old school publications & media companies are dying. Good. While the in depth, real reporting publications are doing well (e.g. The Economist).
I think you're the one that needs to go back to sleep; you've obviously given it more thought than me.
What's american gladiators? You're being factitious right?
see you don't want to think, you want me to give you an answer! You are starting to stir, but your next realization needs to be that your desire to read the economist instead of the CNN headlines, and the resultant feeling of superiority are themselves programming delivered the same way through the same mechanisms.
Picture Rupert Murdoch playing with puppet strings attached to education, political, and religious groups talking to an emperor palpatine figure who is the ghost of Edward Barney's, being told, "We'll control the rubes with Fox, and we'll control the slightly smarter rubes with the message 'Well the rubes watching fox are brainwashed, but the source I get my information from is more sophisticated.' which we can imprint on them the same ways. We'll just program them to think they are thinking, as a way to stop them fro actually thinking."
Go back to sleep, it's not as nice when you're always aware of it.
Wrong - it wasn't. Cute attempt though. Your answers sounds like it was from someone who watches American Gladiators, but you probably already knew that. Did Rupert help produce?
Unfortunately, voice tone doesn't carry over in written communication, and when someone writes with attitude dripping off theirs words it's hard to decipher what they mean.
Go back to sleep, maybe when you wake up you won't be as pretentious.
American gladitor is what the lowest rung rubes watch. More sophisticated rubes watch more sophisticated shows that program them the same way to think they are better then the other rubes.
If I can get you irritated at me by what I say, what makes you think your not being programmed along the same mechanism targeting other emotions, by your literature? The economist writes more words then me. They can hypnotize you and make you react more then I can. If I can change your emotion a little, so can they, and they control you at this point.
I'm the kind that's tricked himself into aspiring to represent the place incompleteness or relativity breaks down the structure of embedded systems of thought so new paradigms can emerge more continuous with 21st century scientific knowledge.
If he's guilty, I wonder if sharesleuth.com will cover it.