I didn't realize we're a bunch of commies

[woodsmoke]

Another take three pictures and two analyses:

I think that anyone would probably think that this "news deck" is AT LEAST....SOMEwhat kewl! FORGET WHAT NETWORK IT IS look at the pics and then read the analyses.



That is NOT virtualized, it is hundreds of screens, reasoning behind it to follow.



Now......here is an analysis from 'the Verge:

Fox News has just unveiled a breathtakingly ridiculous newsroom,

complete with novelty-sized Windows-based touchscreens,

a Twitter wall, and

a wannabe Minority Report-style display, which it hopes will connect it with generations of viewers who use smartphones and apps.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/7/48...mith-news-deck

Here is what the CEO of ClickSpring(the hardware and set designer) said along with Shephard Smith:

From Ulfers(ClickSpring)

MSNBC has a newsroom background (sometimes), so does CBS News and ABC News.

Those are just people mulling about at desks,

what Clickspring has done with Fox News takes it a step further,

placing the anchor into the realtime “activity feed” of news as it enters the producers screens.

“It’s a work environment,” said Ulfers. “It’s 100 percent authentic in terms of their workspace. It’s not fake or just for the broadcast, that’s whats kinda new about in a way.”

This set ............. it’s about the news.

It’s a design that truly does put the news first.

While the set to many may seem flashy, this is really not a flashy set.

Ulfers described it as having a fairly neutral palate and being a “fairly significant break for Fox News” set design.

It just has a lot of moving news.

“The data is more important than the branding of the show, Shepard Smith or Fox News,” said Ulfers.

The graphics are tame, the set treatments are neutral, the monitor walls are plenty… but they just have the stories.

A newsroom on camera is not a new idea, but ...............camera and off camera technology to create something more than just an office space with studio lighting.

http://www.newscaststudio.com/2013/1...s-deck-design/

Ok so here is what THE SAME COMPANIES DID FOR CNN:



So the question which I would like to pose is..... there are two different approaches shown above....

Visually, at least it HAS to be a MATTER OF TASTE.

But....... why is it that a "lefty" group like the Verge has to be so HATEful of ......Fox News...

ABOUT THE SET!!?

Normally they just hate on FoxNews in general....but..THE SET!? :0

Search around to see if you can find hateful posts about CNN's set?

Remember, both made by the same people.

So.....maybe when ....people who "say" that "we" are "Commies", they have in the backs of their minds..... this kind of stuff being continually produced by "the left" / "the mainstream media" / ummm no talk radio because even with govt. subsidies the only lefty talk radio is gone, ...

maybe those people don't like the kind of stuff that is shoveled out continually about a news organization that..."we" DESPISE.....

maybe it really is a matter of "perception" on BOTH sides...

woodsmoke

[Feathers McGraw]

I think I first realised how small the differences between Labour and the Conservatives were when I looked outside the UK... compared to your republicans and democrats, our conservatives seem fairly liberal.

...but then when you look at statistics like this, it really puts everything into perspective. We're all being played by the top 1%, regardless of which country we're in. The debate is made out to be about whether those on low and middle incomes will pay slightly more or slightly less this time round... when it's really just about preserving the status quo or making small changes back and forth, whereby the rich get richer by doing nothing and the poor multiply in numbers.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

What I don't get is that you guys managed to rid yourselves of our horrific monarchy and aristocracy with your revolution (kudos), and yet you've ended up with worse economic inequality!!

Go figure.

Sweden is the only country I'm aware of that does consistently well in this kind of comparison.

Feathers

[GreyGeek]

I don't really see where they are wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private..._of_production

[Tom_ZeCat]

I think I first realised how small the differences between Labour and the Conservatives were when I looked outside the UK... compared to your republicans and democrats, our conservatives seem fairly liberal.

...but then when you look at statistics like this, it really puts everything into perspective. We're all being played by the top 1%, regardless of which country we're in. The debate is made out to be about whether those on low and middle incomes will pay slightly more or slightly less this time round... when it's really just about preserving the status quo or making small changes back and forth, whereby the rich get richer by doing nothing and the poor multiply in numbers.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

What I don't get is that you guys managed to rid yourselves of our horrific monarchy and aristocracy with your revolution (kudos), and yet you've ended up with worse economic inequality!!

Go figure.

Sweden is the only country I'm aware of that does consistently well in this kind of comparison.

Feathers

It's because corporations took over as the new aristocracy.

[woodsmoke]

Or it could be that Wilson started and FDR finished the building of the foundations of the welfare state we now see being expanded.

woodjustarguin'theotherviewpoint

[SteveRiley]

I don't really see where they are wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private..._of_production

Wikipedia vs. Wikipedia! I'll get the popcorn, who likes extra butter?

[woodsmoke]

woodsmoke

[woodsmoke]

oops sorry, I thought the previous pic was of a popcorn fight!

woodlookatthosePILLOWSsmoke

[kubicle]

Wikipedia vs. Wikipedia! I'll get the popcorn, who likes extra butter?

I don't think there is a deeper contradiction there.

There are differences between personal, private, collective, common, public and state ownership (or property). In Communism, the private ownership of means of production is replaced by common ownership (not by state or public ownership).

And none of the so called "Communist States¹" (which is a contradiction of terms used in the "west") ever reached communism, which is by definition stateless (and also moneyless). Whether they were ever meant to do that or whether people used some ideas from communism to justify overthrowing the government and grab power...I'll leave that to your own discretion.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state

P.S. I'll take a pillow while were at it

[GreyGeek]

Or it could be that Wilson started and FDR finished the building of the foundations of the welfare state we now see being expanded.

woodjustarguin'theotherviewpoint

It's because corporations took over as the new aristocracy.

Both statements are true.

[richb]

Or it could be that Wilson started and FDR finished the building of the foundations of the welfare state we now see being expanded.

woodjustarguin'theotherviewpoint

"Welfare state" is one interpretation forwarded by conservatives. Another is a state that cares for all its citizens.

[Feathers McGraw]

It's because corporations took over as the new aristocracy.

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

I just don't get why people in the UK are OK with the monarchy... if we had a referendum I think people might actually vote to keep it!!

Unbelievable.

[Tom_ZeCat]

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

I just don't get why people in the UK are OK with the monarchy... if we had a referendum I think people might actually vote to keep it!!

Unbelievable.

Well, it does give the Brits something to viciously satirize. Maybe people would miss being able to go to the news stand to pick up a tabloid with the latest grotesque caricatures of the royal family. I saw some of those when I was in London. They were hilarious. Anyone who did that in the 18th Century would have had his head chopped off. (Or is that France?)

[Feathers McGraw]

Well, it does give the Brits something to viciously satirize. Maybe people would miss being able to go to the news stand to pick up a tabloid with the latest grotesque caricatures of the royal family. I saw some of those when I was in London. They were hilarious. Anyone who did that in the 18th Century would have had his head chopped off. (Or is that France?)

I think you're on to something... every cloud has a silver lining and all that

Thing is, even if we voted them out they'd still be ridiculously rich and therefore still have undue influence.

Scotland will have a referendum soon on independence... part of the "better together" campaign was that you couldn't keep the Royal family and all that rubbish. Apparently that's a persuasive reason to stay in!

[woodsmoke]

Personally, it is just me, personally I have never agreed with what GB did with Ireland etc. I, personally, think that the whole getstalt of EUROPE would be in better shape if GB had cut ties, said "farewell and bon chance" and everybody could have got on with their lives.

Just an outsider's opinion and of NO worth to those involved.

woodsmoke