Congratulations to Abrams Research and its collection of blogs that connect business leaders with a global community of social media professionals.

P.S.
Thanks for busting bad dish Dan!

Dan, as an influential member of the press, please look into this.

—————————————————————-
Documentary (“We Will Not Be Silenced – 2008″) by lifelong DEMOCRATIC operative Gigi Caston DOCUMENTS:

VOTER FRAUD & INTIMIDATION RAMPANT (and documented!) – BY OBAMA CAMPAIGN IN 2008 PRIMARY TO DENY HILLARY CLINTON THE NOMINATION!!!
—————————————————————-

DNC & Network Media told of it over & over – DID NOTHING!!!!!! – Media (like panther case) refused to report it!

WHERE ARE THE SPINELESS REPUBLICANS TO EXPOSE & PUBLICIZE THIS – and the Cover-Up of this ELECTION THEFT by the Network Media!!??!!??

20% of the people admit to being liberal. Why limit yourself to that small percentage and allow Fox to have the rest? It is like “throwing in the towel” and hoping to survive with the crumbs.

I think Dan is right about the business realities of cable news but I guess I’m in the minority of people who is sick and tires of highly partisan single host shows like Hannity, Maddow, Beck and Olbermann. I would like to see more balanced news and less ideologues simply making their sheep feel good about themselves. I want to see more intelligent debate and less pandering to the given network’s core audience.

Congrats on the one year! I really enjoy all the videos the site provides, and the analysis, even though I don’t always agree with it. ;O) Which, really, is why I come here. I get bored with only commenting on sites I agree with.

After seeing the JUNTA-like Tactics of this third-world Obama Administration, we MUST DEMAND THAT REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTER THE KAGAN NOMINATION!!!!

CALL YOUR G.O.P. REP OVER & OVER – TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!!!!

Congratulations, Dan!

You have a fine site. Slid, reliable content.

For a period of time, I was concerned you wouldn’t be able to withstand the assault from the right. In the end, your content and their own anger and bitterness did them in. Thankfully.

Good piece, Dan. And congratulations on the success of your Internet Domination Plan. Before you know it….one billion dollars! Bwahahaha!

Dan I’ve been a huge fan of yours for years, and you are the reason I came to this site in the first place.

But its your writers that have kept me coming back.

Well done on your first year.

Dan is the voice of reason and a visionary regarding how the web works now.

Dear Mediaite staff, please NEVER be afraid to call out the lies on Fox, MSNBC and CNN and do not be intimidated by crybaby comment losers on the right. That’s just what they want is to silence you.

Dan, talk about Mediaite’s bias.

I think the Congratulations should go to the three million hits (nee visitors) mediate gets a month meaning all you guys who comment on the blogs posted here. You’re the reason for mediate’s success.

“three million hits”

300 people 10,000 times each per month.

I agreee, Rouge-Comment that we regulars area big part of the site’s success.

Rogue-Comic is right, Mediaite gets a lot of traffic because it’s maddeningly biased and populated with some of the worst examples of journalism you can run across on the web. But it also has a great design that’s unfortunately easy to read.

Congratulations, Dan!

You have a fine site. Slick, reliable content.

For a period of time, I was concerned you wouldn’t be able to withstand the assault from the Left. In the end, your content and their own anger and bitterness did them in. Thankfully.

Dear Mediaite staff, please NEVER be afraid to call out the lies on ABC, NBC, C-BS and P-BS, and do not be intimidated by crybaby comment losers on the Left. That’s just what they want is to silence you.

Great job, Dan!
I’ve been a fan ever since you were the legal analyst for The People’s Court.

Wait, was that you?

Rogue-Comic said:
I think the Congratulations should go to the three million hits (nee visitors) mediate gets a month meaning all you guys who comment on the blogs posted here. You’re the reason for mediate’s success.

2,500,000 hits – Michelle

500,000 hits – Everyone else.

Congrats to Mediaite for covering the key stories and presenting a range of perspectives. CNN and other news networks could learn from your example.

So, this is where you went Dan….congratulations and I wish you every success. However, your majority posts tend to lean right….I don’t think you meant this to happen, but I appreciate the ability to put forth my side of things which is usually not allowed in the lamestream media. With the other channels getting the lowest viewership in history, it is just a matter of time before most Americans come to cable. You know what will happen Dan, I’m sure. But, if it continues to help you out with your work, so be it. Oh, and as to cable moving to ideologically hard programs, this happened at the beginning of CNN because, Dan, this is the usual bent of most print and television and celebrity venues. We, in the middle and the right as used to this and we applaud the latest polls that put the American people solidly in the conservative side…..

Sue, you stick with your polls.

i’ll stick with this (so much for your theory the American people are “solidly on the conservative side”).

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

As long as opinions on videos, in analyses or comments are split down the middle between left and right, Mediaite is perfectly OK with me and I will return. And thanks for not insulting my intelligence!

Thanks Dan for creating this. Great interview on CNN.

The only thing though I hate here on Mediaite though is this comment section. It’s just a constant repeat of the same people trolling over and over again. It’s tiresome and a real drag for repeated visitors like me. I’ve been visiting since very much the start and initially the comment section was great because the atmosphere was kind and I always tried to make insightful comments to have a discussion. Then after the first real *boom* of visitors this website got, it just got dragged into the crapper and turned into a cesspool.

“Sarah Palin calls Barack Obama ‘backasswards’ on Twitter”

I’m spamming this here so a Mediaite writer will see it.
It’s too good to pass up. lol

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
“Sarah Palin calls Barack Obama ‘backasswards’ on Twitter”

It’s catchy, but it doesn’t fully capture Obama Administration’s recto-cranial inversion. Now watch this drive.

Dan failed to mention the obvious and numerous bias writing of the Mediate staff here. Just forgot I guess!!

Arthur Clough said:
Dan failed to mention the obvious and numerous bias writing of the Mediate staff here.

Indeed.

But, at least for the time being, isn’t it kinda fun to have so many loquacious Left leaning targets, all gathered into one one tiny cyber-space, just to toy with & torment a little bit, while we simultaneously teach them a thing or two about reality as it stands, not as how they would like it to be? Especially with plenty of indisputable facts, & unassailable logic too?!

Come on, admit it. You know that it’s really fun?!

Arthur Clough said:
Just forgot I guess!!

I don’t believe that, not even for a New York minute.

Dan’s proven he’s a savvy & a fairly bright guy, & he certainly knows that if he can continue to draw in multiple sides on every type of debate, he wins!

But.

Yes, there’s almost always a “but”.

Dan needs to be extremely careful, not to push the far Left side of the envelope too far. Otherwise, he surely knows that he’ll end up alienating, & eventually losing, those few of us that come here to provide him with reams of free but fascinating & highly valuable content. Especially, losing the free content posted by those of us arguing from the conservative spectrum, about most of the truly important issues & events.

With that, before Dan & hisrowdy, jejune, & Lefty crew, break out the funny pointed party hats, the vuvuzela horns, & all the beer bongs too, they should really read (very closely) & take to heart, the subject of an article published in the most recent edition of Commentary Magazine, written by Andrew Ferguson.

Here’s the addy, & an excerpt as well:

Commentary Magazine Excerpt:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/press-man–don-t-give-readers-what-they-want-15488

July/August 2010

PRESS MAN: Don’t Give Readers What They Want

By Andrew Ferguson

In early May, on the evening of the day his magazine got shot out from under him, the editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, seeking fellowship, commiseration, and a platform from which he might discourse upon the larger significance of the day’s developments. Discoursing upon larger significances is one of Meacham’s particular gifts. No one was surprised then that he would seek to apply it to the unexpected news that the owner of Newsweek, Donald Graham of the Washington Post Co., was putting the magazine up for sale, with the implication that the place would be shuttered for good unless a buyer was found, and soon.

As Stewart listened, rapt and unusually smirkless, Meacham noted the explosion of journalism now available for free on the Internet. The moral that Meacham drew from this new competition, together with Graham’s announcement, was this: “If you’re not gonna pay for news, then you’re gonna get a different kind of news.” (I’m transcribing his pronunciation of “going to” in honor of his Tennessee twang, which gets folksier as his words get more portentous.)

It was an odd thing for Meacham to say, given his efforts to reposition his magazine in the media universe—to offer, that is, his own kind of “a different kind of news.” His efforts peaked last year, when he unveiled a new business and editorial plan with three main elements. He raised the magazine’s price per issue, to a whopping $6 on newsstands. He cut costs by laying off staff and by letting half his subscribers drop off the rolls. And he recast the magazine’s content for those readers who were stubborn enough to hang on. His newsweekly, he said, would no longer even pretend to offer the traditional summary of the previous week’s events, as it had been doing, with dwindling enthusiasm, for nearly 80 years. Instead, readers would find “argued essays” and “reported narrative … grounded in original observation and freshly discovered fact.” It would become a “provocative (but not partisan)” magazine of opinion—a liberal magazine written by liberals who didn’t want to admit they were liberals.

This final reinvention of Newsweek left Meacham’s customers with a choice. They could turn to the Web and get “a different kind of news” for free, or they could go to Newsweek and get “a different kind of news” for $6 a week. He seemed startled that so many of them turned out to be skinflints.

To Jon Stewart—still rapt, still unsmirking—Meacham went on to cast Newsweek’s unhappy fate as an “existential crisis,” confusing the consequences of his own terrible business sense with a calamity afflicting the whole country. “Let me say this,” he said, portentousness rising. “I don’t think we’re the only catcher in the rye between democracy and ignorance, but I think we’re one of them, and I don’t think there are that many standing on the edge of that cliff.” Indeed, Newsweek was one of the few “common denominators left in a fragmented world.” And it’s not his fault that the denominator business isn’t what it used to be.

Meacham’s Daily Show appearance was a bottled sample of the narcissism that is one of the besetting sins of our press establishment, and in large part the cause of its undoing. Newsweeklies were once the pashas of the magazine world. Editors enjoyed lavish salaries, traveled first class to overstaffed bureaus in Paris or London, gorged on expense–account dinners, and escaped each weekend to houses in the Hamptons in limousines paid for by the company. It was a fantasy life beyond the dreams of even the dreamiest literary men, but it came at a price: humility. The hacks had to restrain every impulse toward artsy self-expression and instead serve a readership that wanted only a straightforward and comprehensive account of what just happened. Cashing their checks, newsmagazine people agreed to write short and write snappy. They banished unconventional or discomfiting thoughts from their copy. They resisted any stylistic flourish beyond an occasional cheekiness of tone. And they restricted their subject matter to last week’s news. A sufficient number of these old boys thought the price was worth it, and the newsweeklies flourished.

Over the past 30 years, when a new generation of editors launched the magazines on a course of ceaseless reinvention—Meacham is by no means the first newsmagazine editor to fidget—each turn of the ratchet moved the form further away from the kind of magazine that people want to read and closer to the kind of magazine that journalists want to write. “We publish the magazine we would want to get every week,” Meacham told his readers in introducing yet another of his revolutionary reconceptualizations a few years ago. “We are betting that you want to read more, not less.?.?.?.?We think that you will make the time to read pieces that repay the effort.”

He may have been right about that; within reason, people like to read more of what they like to read. He forgot, though, that readers are different from journalists, with different expectations, tastes, and, often, views of the world and what it should look like. He ignored the truth that the old newsmagazine editors lived by: journalists who write to satisfy people like themselves will soon run out of readers. The magazine that lies dying in Don Graham’s arms violated this rule week by week.

To cite one obvious example: newsweeklies annually marked Christian holidays with a cover story on a religious theme, always respectful and sometimes celebratory in tone. I’m sure it was a strain, an exercise in self-denial; few journalists are religious in any conventional sense. The new Newsweek, by contrast, published holiday issues that any good secular journalist would like to read. One issue near Christmas offered a long and fallacious cover story on “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” Easter came and the magazine feted “The End of Christian America.” Pieces like this weren’t so much a challenge to traditionally religious readers as a declaration of war. Why not just put a bullet in the Easter Bunny while you’re at it?

Read the rest here:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/press-man–don-t-give-readers-what-they-want-15488