US suicides hit an all-time high last year

[TheCount]

Breitbart didn't exclaim anything. AP (Associated Press) did. Breitbart just reprinted AP's article.

Does it make a difference that they bought this article rather than writing it themselves? Either way that says they think their audience wants to read about this.

 

[TheCount]

The Count thinks there's nothing to be angry about these days.

How did these words get in my mouth when I didn't put them there? Huh.

 

[nobody's_hero]

How did these words get in my mouth when I didn't put them there? Huh.

Do you think people get pissed off because they read a Brietbart article (or AP or whatever) or . . .

OR . . . just going out on a limb here:

are people already pissed off regardless of whether they read the article or not?

Maybe if they just don't talk about suicides people won't get frustrated. Daggummit Breitbart!

 

[Occam's Banana]

Does that make a difference?

Given that you falsely attributed the article to Breitbart, I suppose it does (insofar as such niceties even matter any more).

Given that your remarks could be applied just as easily to any and every individual, organization, or venue that ever publishes anything at all - from the New York Times to Breitbart, from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Ron Paul Institute to the Southern Poverty Law Center, from Reason to Jacobin, and so on and on an on - I suppose it doesn't (insofar as it thereby becomes pointless to single out any particular locus in that regard - so why bother?).

Does it make a difference that they bought this article rather than writing it themselves?

If it doesn't, why whine about Breitbart for reprinting it, and not about AP for writing it?

Either way that says they think their audience wants to read about this.

Okay.

And ... ?

Are they wrong to think that about their audience? Should their audience not want to read about it?

Are they supposed to (re)publish things they think their audience does not want to read about?

Do the answers to those questions not also apply with respect to AP - as well as to every other venue that ever (re)publishes anything at all?

 

[acptulsa]

Does it make a difference that they bought this article rather than writing it themselves? Either way that says they think their audience wants to read about this.

Specificity, please. Their audience, as in the poor unfortunates who can't seem to find a way to get real information? Or their audience, as in their sponsors with the flinty eyes, who read them most carefully because any variance from The Narrative must result in instant defunding?

 

[TheCount]

Do you think people get pissed off because they read a Brietbart article (or AP or whatever)

Yes, of course they do. That's how media works now. Anger and fear get more clicks, more engagement than positive emotions. The engagement-driving algorithms that serve us news, social media, etc. are actively fucking with us. Constantly.


How many rage-bait articles and videos do people post on RPF after seeing them elsewhere?

Why do you think those people saw those?

By accident? They stumbled across them? They intentionally went out into the depths of communist trans lesbian tumblr to find an idiot on the internet?


No, of course not. They were served that content intentionally. And their response? That's engagement. That's clicks and view time. That's revenue.

 

[nobody's_hero]

No, of course not. They were served that content intentionally. And their response? That's engagement. That's clicks and view time. That's revenue.

FFS man, as Occam pointed out you could apply that to just about anything.

Even Ron Paul has sponsors for the liberty report. We all know the 'survival food' people just want to control the world. Don't fall into the trap!

Give me a fk'ing break.

 

[TheCount]

Specificity, please. Their audience, as in the poor unfortunates who can't seem to find a way to get real information? Or their audience, as in their sponsors with the flinty eyes, who read them most carefully because any variance from The Narrative must result in instant defunding?

I turned off my ad blocker for you so that I could see what their sponsors look like. It's all the "Doctors hate this grandma because of her one weird trick!" ads. I've always been baffled as to who actually clicks on those. I assume it's people on their phone whose thumb slips and hit the ad by mistake. I don't think they're at any risk of being defunded.


Anyways, by audience I mean their readers. They know who their audience is. If you've never looked into it, you'd be shocked as to just how specific internet advertiser metrics can get as to age, gender, income, etc.

 

[TheCount]

FFS man, as Occam pointed out you could apply that to just about anything.

Even Ron Paul has sponsors for the liberty report. We all know the 'survival food' people just want to control the world. Don't fall into the trap!

What the fuck are you talking about?

I didn't say anything about sponsors.

 

[nobody's_hero]

What the $#@! are you talking about?

I didn't say anything about sponsors.

You seem to think that the moment anyone speaks truth, if there's any profit motive piggybacking off of it, then it must be discredited.

I'm not doing the 'going around in circles with you' routine while you feign bewilderment like you have no idea what I'm talking about. Where TF do you think they get their money from? Are the clicks physically generating them money? I need to click myself about $15,000 to pay off some credit cards, how do I do that? Hmm. I probably need sponsors to factor in there somehow.

You've stepped in your own shit and you can wipe it off.

And for the 10,000th time, I have no idea why you're even on these forums.

 

[Anti Federalist]

"Gee whiz," exclaims Breitbart, "Our target demographic keeps killing themselves at a higher and higher rate! What could possibly be causing that? I guess we'll never know... well, no point dwelling on it. It's time to go back to making money by selling news, media, and social media products designed to drive engagement through eliciting anger and fear."

So, what's your problem now?

I gather, from the back and forth with others in this thread, that your reason for the rise in suicides is because of "rage click" articles, that get everybody all worked up, which then drives up suicides, that then provide the opportunity to write even more rage click articles about the rising rates of suicide.

That about the long and short of it?

You may be on to something...

All news should be like this from now on:

 

[oyarde]

Nobody killing themselves is reading articles. People that depressed dont care about about shit news

 

[Anti Federalist]

Nobody killing themselves is reading articles. People that depressed dont care about about shit news

For middle aged men, you nailed it.

A man finds himself coming up to the end of the road, his kids that he gave himself the second ulcer over to afford a quarter million dollar ivy league university have come home as two self loathing, genderqueeer, purple haired, angry, communists.

The wife, a woman who, 25 years ago claimed she could not live without him, now can't stand the very sight of him, and she has turned toxic, frigid and harsh.

His job, packed up, offshored, shut down, moved away.

Yeah, I can see why...

 

[TheCount]

You seem to think that the moment anyone speaks truth, if there's any profit motive piggybacking off of it, then it must be discredited.

I'm not doing the 'going around in circles with you' routine while you feign bewilderment like you have no idea what I'm talking about. Where TF do you think they get their money from? Are the clicks physically generating them money? I need to click myself about $15,000 to pay off some credit cards, how do I do that? Hmm. I probably need sponsors to factor in there somehow.

You've stepped in your own shit and you can wipe it off.

And for the 10,000th time, I have no idea why you're even on these forums.

It's amazing that you have gotten this far in life while being completely illiterate.