Mediaboss Marketing

The folks at The Big Lead Sports decided to poll members of the sports media to see just how far left they are, and the results are about what you would expect.

The Big Lead polled 51 members of the sports media, allowing their answers to remain anonymous, to encourage the media to fill out the survey without fear of being outed as liberals. The site also polled 312 readers as a control group to see if the media was more, less, or the same politically as the sites readers.

The poll revealed that most considered themselves Democrats or independents, with 58 percent calling themselves Democrats and 37 percent claiming to be independents. As to the GOP, well, only three respondents (a measly 6 percent) said they were Republican.

The Big Lead points out that a recent Gallop poll said the breakdown above is far out of whack compared to the general population which sees 31 percent each claiming to be Democrat or Republican and 37 percent claiming to be independent.

However, party affiliation was the least of the sites poll finding, when asked if they were socially liberal, 76.5 percent said they were extremely liberal.

When the question turned to how they cast their vote in 2016, a whopping 80.4 percent said they voted for 2016 loser Hillary Clinton. While only a few said they cast their ballot for Donald Trump. In fact, more sports reporters said they didnt vote at all (9.8 percent) than said they voted for Trump.

For its control group, the sites readers voted for Clinton at 50.3 percent, while Trump and a third party candidate each got 20 percent.

The sports reporters also favored abortion (86.3 percent) while the general readers were closer to the middle (55.8 percent). In addition, 88.2 percent called themselves firm believers in global warming, while the readers only accepted climate change at 48 percent.

Gun ownership was also rejected by the sports reporters at a number far higherthan that of regular Americans. Of all the reporters asked, only three polled said they owned a gun. Meanwhile, national average fro gun ownership in America is 36 percent.

The reporters also self-identified as leftists in other ways. All but one chose left-wing news sources as their main sources of news, 78.4 percent agreed that sports media should be very liberal, and 76.5 percent wanted to see pot legalized.

In its conclusion, The Big Lead makes a point that has been echoed by other members of the sports media recently not that this conclusion helps the matter.

The sports media clearly leans left. But, it may be a stretch to say that alienates a significant portion of the audience, Ty Duffy wrote. The sports media is clustered in major cities and along the coasts because thats where much of its audience is.

This makes sense, most sports writers work for big media outfits in places like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

However, this also means that a relatively small community of liberal sports writers in liberal enclaves, are writing for a massive percentage of the country. Which, according to the numbers in this poll, do not hold the same values or opinions. While that has probably always been true in media, to some extent, given that media has always been coastal and liberal. However, one wonders if 50 years ago the ideological gap between scribe and fan was quite this stark.

In any event, this is a large part of the reason why outlets like ESPN have lost viewers. No one is serving half the number of sports fans in the country, and many of those fans are simply walking away from their once fervent love of sports because of it.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original:
POLL: Only 4% of Sports Media Support Donald Trump - Breitbart News

Added on August 9, 2017 Neely Swanson Movie Reviews , Neely on Reels , newsletter

Riot Police in Ferguson, MO in WHOSE STREETS?, a Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

by Neely Swanson

Whose Streets? is a heartfelt and emotional documentary inspired by the aftermath of Michael Browns death in Ferguson, Missouri. Written and directed by Sabaah Folayan and co-directed by Damon Davis, the film vividly expresses the anger felt by African American communities everywhere faced with this and too many other similar incidents that underscore the injustice faced daily by people of color. Would, however, that the filmmakers had been able to channel more of the anger into a cohesive and less chaotic film.

Michael Browns death was a catastrophic event for the country, revealing how stacked the deck is when racism, both overt and subtle forms, rears its head, whether it is a police officer claiming deathly fear of an unarmed suspect or a citizen in a stand your ground state who kills and is exonerated (e.g., George Zimmerman). Folayan and Davis set out to show how Browns death stimulated a new activism in the residents of Ferguson, a community that over the last 40 years has gone from 99% white to 67% black but still has an overwhelmingly white political power structure and police force.

As anger over the event built, demonstrations, both peaceful and violent, increased to the point where the governor, Jay Nixon, called in the National Guard to restore order that, to a certain extent, exacerbated the situation.

Certainly the portrayal of the peaceful protests and their leaders is informative; however, the juxtaposition of these protests with the rioting serves to undermine the directors point of view when they do not give enough context for the resultant looting, something that rarely supports the rationale for protests.

From the standpoint of storytelling, it would have been helpful to have given a site-specific history of Ferguson to make it more representative of the frustrations of its citizens as stand-ins for African Americans throughout the country. Ferguson is a suburb in St. Louis County, a region that participated fully in Jim Crow laws up until the 1960s. It was in St. Louis that the Dred Scott decision was handed down in 1857, deeming an African American born of a slave, whether now free or not, could not be a citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The directors use a quote from the decision as a chyron and introduction to one of the four parts into which the film is divided, but without context it floats away.

Magnolia Pictures release. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.

In one of the more interesting segments the film follows one of the leaders of the protest movement, a young single mother. Perhaps if they had used her as the focus of the documentary, revealing her struggles for a middle class life as she balances school, motherhood, and a relationship with the new woman in her life all the while energized by the injustice she sees around her placing her in a leadership position at the protests theyd have had a more focused and accomplished film.

Any one of a number of quotes from Ta-Nehisi Coates book, Between the World and Me about the dangers awaiting black males as they try to navigate a world that has been stacked against them would have offered the kind of insight missing from the film. Instead one is left with what seems to be 100 minutes of palpable and justifiable anger missing historical context and a central focus. It may not be a fair comparison, but Ezra Edelmans outstanding documentary, winner of more than a dozen major awards including the Oscar, built its case on why OJ Simpson was exonerated using the historical context of past injustices to the local African American community. Never has the aftermath of riots and police injustice ever been made clearer.

Folayan and David have chosen to forgo the teaching moments to focus on the visceral. There is value to Whose Streets? but it suffers from a single minded anger without enough background context. Because of that, any viewer will find it hard to watch and the audience who is not already on the side of the filmmakers will probably not move into their corner.

Opening Friday August 11 at the AMC Sunset 5; Cinemark Rave Baldwin Hills; and the Regal LA Live Stadium 14

See the original post:
Whose Streets? Good question [MOVIE REVIEW] - Easy Reader

Last year, Facebook had silently launched a teen-centric social networking application called Lifestage. Just as silently, the application has been pulled from the App store. The application shut out anyone over the age of 21, but users could fake their age to get in. Lifestage was launched to get teens to use Facebook services, over competing applicationsthat were particularly attractive to the demographic, such as Snapchat.

Lifestage

According to a report in Business Insider, Facebook will be using the learnings from the Lifestage experiment in its other products that have features similar to the camera-first Snapchat application, such as Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook "stories".

Lifestage was similar to a video version of a slambook, where teens could answer biographical questions and share a video profile of themselves on school networks. The application was primarily meant to be used among classmates.

Every time the profile was updated, it showed up in the feeds of other classmates. Users had to unlock school networks, and then could access the profiles of other users in the same school. A minimum of 20 users from the same network were required for any school to get active on the application. However, there was no integrated facility to check if a particular user actually went to the school they claimed they were going to. If users hit the age limit of 22, they could see their own profiles, but not that of others.

The application was initially an exclusive to the Apple App store, but was launched on Android in October 2016. However, adoption of the application was slow, and had dropped to the number 1289 in the Social Networking category on iTunes, according to analytics by App Annie by the time the app was launched on Android. Even then it was believed that the learnings and features from Lifestage would be included in Facebook, if Lifestage failed to catch on. The application never went viral.

Read the original:
Facebook silently pulls the plug on teen-centric social networking app Lifestage, that it launched last year - Firstpost

Ah, the modern world. The news we read is fed to us by Facebook. The jobs we apply for are filtered by LinkedIn. The perfect Instagram feeds of our friends instill a growing sense of social anxiety while our politicians communicate to us in 140 characters or less. Doesnt it just stink of progress? Well, the land of good beer, even better sausages and the very best sense of punctuality didnt get the memo. In fact:

According to a Pew Research survey, only 37 percent of Germans report that they use social networking sites, even though overall levels of internet use are comparable to those of countries like Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. (with 71 percent, 69 percent and 61 percent social media adoption, respectively). In various surveys, Germany consistently ranks at the bottom of lists of advanced Western countries for usage of sites like Facebook and Twitter (the Pew survey also included the German-language professional network Xing in its question).

Plus, those few Germans with accounts are more often lurkers than posters, being relatively more passive online than their peers in other countries, says Welf Weiger, professor of marketing and innovation at the University of Gttingen. Many Germans on social media dont use their full real names (instead they use their first name split into two), which has led to a lengthy legal dispute involving Facebook, which wants the use of fake names on its site strictly verboten.

Politicians are very reluctant to frankly post opinions because it could backfire and initiate a spiral of bad comments. We call it a shitstorm.

Maik Hammerschmidt, University of Gttingen

So why dont the Germans twittern, facebooken and snapchatten like the rest of us? (Yes, those are actual German verbs.) It all comes down to concerns over privacy, says Sonja Utz, a professor of social media communication at the University of Tbingen near Stuttgart who conducts her studies on Dutch participants because shes worried she wont get enough participants in Germany. Given the not-so-distant memories of the Stasi, the secret police in the formerly communist East, Germans are keen to keep their private lives private, Utz says, from governments and big American tech firms alike. Oversharing details about ones personal life is considered narcissistic in the famously reserved country, she continues, and the countrys older-than-average population (with a median age of 47 years, compared with 38 years in the U.S.) also plays a role.

Although marketers still use social media to target young Germans, it plays a markedly reduced role in public life through either celebrity or politics. According to analytics company Socialbakers, soccer star Mesut zils 16 million followers comprise the largest Twitter audience in the country by a factor of three, though he comes nowhere near the followings of top soccer celebs in other countries, and he only really hit the big time while playing for clubs in Spain and England. Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel doesnt even have an official Twitter account. Public figures rarely have professional social media managers, says Maik Hammerschmidt, a colleague of Weigers at the University of Gttingen. Politicians are very reluctant to post frankly because it could backfire and initiate a spiral of bad comments, he says. We call it a shitstorm.

And while young Germans are almost as social media crazy as their foreign peers, the older generation may never change its habits. On the upside, it seems German millennials need never worry about their parents awkwardly tagging them on Facebook. #wunderbar.

Link:
Social Networks Taking Over the World? Not in This Country - OZY

Almost one at home two people in the world already owns at least one account in an existing social network on the internet. According to the Global Digital Statshot report for the third quarter of 2017 (with Q2 data), the survey was conducted by the social networking companies Hootsuite and We Are Social.

In total, they are 40% of all the 7.52 billion human beings on the planet with a profile on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, among others. Some messengers were also considered in the survey. The count only considers who has at least one account on any social network. That is, about 3 billion.

In the last three months, 121 million people have created their first social network account, in a universe of more than 3.8 billion people connected to the Internet, almost 80% already have a profile to share photos, videos or ideas.

Facebook dominates but YouTube is in the queue

The report also shows the largest social networks on the planet, including some messengers on the list. Facebook is the hottest leader, with over two billion active users monthly. YouTube has 1.5 billion. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger put the company of Mark Zuckerberg also in the 3rd and 4th positions.

But the domain of the company Facebook does not stop there. Instagram is also the third social network (excluding messaging apps), or the seventh application to be listed, behind WeChat and QQ. Twitter, which has 328 million active users, is behind Tumblr (with 357 million). Snapchat is still far behind with 255 million users.

The world in the palm of the hand

In the last 12 months, the type of device used to connect to the internet has changed a lot. The number of PC and notebook users dropped by 18%, while mobile accesses grew 21%, reaching 54% of total Internet traffic which is 51% on PCs and notebooks. Other devices grew 27%, reaching 0.14%.

This number is easy to understand when we know that more than 5 billion people have a mobile device, with or without Internet access. And a little more than half of the mobile connections made on the planet, which reaches 8.2 billion (since many people have more than one line) is made through a smartphone: 55%.

And guess which is the most popular mobile operating system connected to the internet? Android is responsible for 72.9% of requests made to servers, against 19.4% of iOS. The remaining systems, which include Windows Phone, take up only 7.7% of the market.

Read more here:
40% of the world's population has at least one social network account; See the most popular - Markets Morning