Why does Fox News enjoy better ratings than CNN and MSNBC?
Fox has better ratings because there is no other channel where a Republican can go for news and get through a half hour without throwing up their hands in disgust and amazement. When you have a single choice that is in better alignment with half the market, competing against an array of a half dozen or more channels (not to mention other media like web sites and print media), it's not hard to capture a big audience.The questioner almost certainly believes that conservative political philosophy is itself selfish and hate filled. I suspect they don't spend a lot of time watching Fox News, but that is my suspicion only. If they could work not from some particular single quote by a guest interviewee, but that a transcript of a news broadcast, and point out the selfish, manipulative and hate-filled parts, I would be glad to respond. No channel is telling lies. Working media professionals try to be objective. But they see the world through their own political philosophies. The editors and writers and owners of NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, The Washington Post and the New York Times can all jump up and down and go red in the face and swear that they are not partisan. All I would ask is for anyone to make me believe that if you took all those people and made them into a voting precinct, they would have given the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 2010. If you believe that they would not have, as I believe they would not have, then they are not representative of the voters and just simply see the world differently.If anyone is having trouble believing that I'm serious, pick a transcript from a newscast, or the front page of one of those two newspapers from any given day, and I will walk you through the significant number of judgments that I see based on the political views of the media. Of course I'd be glad to do the same with Fox. My point isn't that anyone is good or bad. My point is that philosophy informs perception.
What are the qualities and skills I may need to become a famous international e-sports gamer?
Insane amounts of practice are necessary. So the dedication and drive to grind those hours out are definitely needed.If you’re not willing to treat gaming like a job long before you get paid, then you’ll never reach the top, and you most likely don’t deserve to.Innate skill isn’t really needed, but if you lack the muscle memory, or the ability to understand and adapt to a playstyle (why I hate MOBAs), then you’ll need to put in even more hours to gain that skill.The ability to sacrifice your pride for the team is also a needed skill. Just because YOU want to fill a role in the team, doesn’t mean you should. I like to play the AWP role in CS:GO, but I understand that there are AWPers better than me, so if I’m trialing for a team that has one, I’m not going to try and replace them.You also need to get rid of the idea of becoming famous internationally. If you play for money, you’ll fall off very quickly. If you play for the love of your game, or the love of the competition, then you’ll stay on top for a lot longer.Playing for money makes you greedy. Playing for the sake of playing gives you a future, so play your game and have fun. That’s the ultimate goal.
Why is Machiavelli important to the Renaissance and history?
In his book, The prince,Machiavelli describes the proper orientation towards the volatility of the world, or Fortune, by comparing Fortune to a lady: "la fortuna é donna," or "Fortune is a Lady." Machiavelli is referring to the courtly love tradition, where the lady that constitutes the object of desire is approached and entreated and begged. The ideal Prince, however, for Machiavelli does not entreat or beg Lady Fortune, but rather physically grabs her and takes whatever he wants. This was a scandalous passage and still is today, but it represents a powerful translation of the Renaissance idea of human potential to the area of politics
Why can't CNN and Fox News stop talking about each other?
Because it plays to the “base” — in ratings as well as in politics — to trash the other guy. It’s not new to the Trump “era” or even cable journalism; I have clips of cartoons from turn of the last century in which the cartoonist for one local paper (at the behest of that paper’s publisher) took great care to include the publisher of the other paper in his cartoons about the dispute over a municipal light plant.I haven’t had more than occasional exposure to either CNN or Fox News (the national version) in the last few years, by choice and by mercy; people shouting at one another is not my preferred way to get information.However, Fox’s bread and butter since its inception is to tell a base that’s feeling disenfranchised, threatened or even a little bothered that it’s somebody else’s fault, and we’ll say bad things about and even make fun of those other guys if that’s what it takes for you to watch us. (Oh, and here are some pretty ladies in short skirts and boots, sitting behind a glass-fronted desk so you can see them.)CNN responded in kind — somewhat clumsily, as these counterfire efforts tend to be. (Perhaps most embarrassingly with the totally-not-a-zipper-sound-honest! ad promoting the hiring of former Fox anchor Paula Zahn, a promotional effort for which CNN was rightfully red-faced.)Of the two, Fox finds the formula more successful, so they’ll keep doing it. And apologizing when they get caught (Hi, Tucker! Hi, Sean!). And gleefully doing it again.And CNN will respond, stuffily.Really, they should get a room.
Which company will fall first: Google, Apple, or Microsoft?
Let’s be honest Apple will likely not make it through the next decade and share the fate that has come to Blackberry and Motorola. The real battle comes down to Microsoft and Google.My bet would be that Google falls before Microsoft. Why? Google is starting to lose its dominance in search and it’s highly dependent on advertising dollars. Guess who is knocking at their door:Amazon is eating away at Google's core businessEvery tech company out there wants you to start your search in their platform instead of on Google because it gives them a distinct competitive advantage. Yelp is building a more robust app and search function to funnel people away from Google. Even Quora is becoming a viable option to find answers to many questions versus Google if you don’t want to be bombarded with ads.Then you have YouTube which is running into its own set of problems:YouTube’s Ad Problems Finally Blow Up in Google’s FaceNow Microsoft has done well to diversify itself successfully across software, hardware, and cloud storage.Due to how quickly the tech space evolves and gets disrupted, diversification is incredibly valuable for long term survival.Meanwhile with Google relying on ads and taking on Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and traditional media for ad dollars, they are in a much vulnerable position.
Why is it so difficult to have a reliable, unbiased news source?
It’s not people just need to be able to distinguish between news and opinion. Talking heads discussing the day’s news stories [political news] are opinions of both sides of the political spectrum. Depending upon the channel there might be more left or more right talking heads on air at one given time.News, is given by an anchor or anchors to tell you the events of the day without opinion.When people get up in arms about fox being right-wing, it’s because almost all of their programming his opinion based and pushes the conservative agenda or glad handles Trump. I don’t know what time of day Fox has an actual newscast .CNN, has multiple news casts during the day and later at night. Their prime time schedule is dominated by opinion programming but at least it is less biased giving almost equal air time to both sides of the political world.The best news to watch for unbiased reporting is the BBC, the CBC, the AP, and the three American networks NBC ABC CBS.