Timex
4867
That is a true statement in this case.
Technically, but they are going to push that and avoid his Trump ties.
Truer would be: “Clinton and Trump-linked sex offender.” Wonder why they didn’t report that?
Man, this is really going to hurt President Clinton’s re-election chances.
Probably a simple oversight. I am sure when they do the headline on television, they’ll get it fixed up. I mean, anything else would be inconceivable for a news organization that is both fair and balanced.
They dumped that tagline a while ago after it became obvious to even them that their viewers didn’t care that they’re a propaganda machine.
rowe33
4874
We don’t have a recent CNN thread so figured I’d plop this in here. It seems like a good % of the articles I try to click on CNN have an annoying-as-fuck banner ad at the top, which prevents me from actually seeing the headline or parts of the article. I don’t see any way to dismiss these or prevent them. They don’t go away if I wait a little bit. Any ideas? Why on earth is this a thing? This is with Chrome on a PC.
EDIT - this was also a great reminder to reinstall an ad blocker because I apparently had forgotten to add it back in.
Strongly suggest ad blockers and more! Here’s how mine looks using a Raspberry PI-based DNS black hole server (Pi-Hole) in front of my network. Much much better!
Diego
Tman
4876
Scott Dworkin (@funder) tweeted at 11:48 AM on Sun, Jul 07, 2019:
Fox News went to a bar to cover the soccer game, then everyone started chanting “fuck Trump!” on live tv. https://t.co/H6wbMtg7Wk
(https://twitter.com/funder/status/1147940564609982464?s=03)
Okay, but if you are blocking the ads from CNN, how are you paying for its content? If you aren’t paying for it in some fashion, aren’t you basically forcing everyone else to pay more on your behalf?
And yes, tracking sucks, as do pop ups, and of course, we have to worry about viruses (Although I doubt that last one is a legitimate concern on the CNN website), but that doesn’t mean we don’t have an obligation to pay the price put forth by the creator if we decide to the use the product. I don’t get to sneak into the Movie Theater just because I think 10 dollars is too much to pay for a ticket.
Yeah, the thing to do is avoid sites with bad pop-up or aggressive ads entirely, so that you train media outlets to craft better sites with less obtrusive ads.
That’s a fair argument; but I’d rather whitelist to support the sites I DO use (Washington Post, etc) while keeping the blocks turned on for the web at large. There’s way too much drive by virus, phishing etc activity to make browsing safe otherwise IMO.
I’m ok with banner ads and sidebar ads, but those things that pop up and block half the screen have to go.
rowe33
4881
If you literally can’t read the content because of the horribly designed ads, what’s the point of “paying for the content”? They’re nothing but extremely aggravating.
ShivaX
4882
Or play deafening audio.
Do that once and there is an extremely high chance I never visit your site again.
CNN is a horrific offender in this respect and you can’t stop it beyond muting.
I basically keep my tablet muted all the time for that reason.
I’ve yet to find a set that has ads that don’t significantly dampen the experience. For years I lived a completely ad-free existence, but getting it running smoothly on a non-rootable Android phone is a hell of a lift, since the built-in browser most apps tap into to open links “in-app” lets 'em through.
Seriously though, every single mobile website I visit that has ads is fucking cancer. Pass the same Pampers ad that takes up 60% of the vertical screenspace (plus another 15% for a nonscrolling header bar or some similar damn fool nonsense) eight times to read two paragraphs – no thank you, ma’am.
Far, far better on my ad-blockered-the-fuck-up PC.
Ah, yes. The best retirement plan is to keel over while taking a dump at work.
