Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the buzzzzzzzz dept.

NBCUniversal announced it is doubling its investment in BuzzFeed, pumping another $200 million into the internet media company.

"NBCUniversal made an additional $200M investment to expand the strategic partnership," the companies said in a joint release.

The deepened alliance will center heavily on extending an advertising sales relationship between BuzzFeed and NBCUniversal, which is owned by US cable colossus Comcast.

Comcast invested an initial $200 million in BuzzFeed last year.

NBCUniversal and BuzzFeed have partnered on initiatives including the 2016 Rio Olympics on Snapchat and selling advertising.

"BuzzFeed has helped us engage millennial audiences with our content and extend the reach of our clients' campaigns to new platforms," NBCUniversal president of digital experiences Maggie Suniewick said in the release.

Is NBC trying to get around the damage the American presidential election did to its reputation?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:51AM (#431717)

    > Is NBC trying to get around the damage the American presidential election did to its reputation?

    Lolwut?
    Facebook and, to a lesser extent, google lost reputation. Not NBC.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:22AM (#431728)

    Not to mention increasing your reputation by investing in Buzzfeed is... where do I even begin?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:42AM (#431787)
      Well, this is a 'news' channel who hasn't been right on anything for 2 years...

      So not the brightest bulbs around.

      People did notice too. msnbc/nbc and cnn lost all their viewers around this area.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @01:23PM (#431803)

        I'm thinking you aren't the brightest bulb around.

        MSNBC viewership increased enormously over the last year.
        Up 96% in primetime.
        http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2016-ratings-msnbc-delivers-biggest-dayside-audience-in-network-history/305839 [adweek.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @02:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @02:01PM (#431812)

          Doubling from doodley-squat isn't saying much.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @02:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @02:50PM (#431842)

            And you still aren't very bright.

            • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:49PM

              by Geezer (511) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:49PM (#431966)

              And the MSM is still tanking. FTW!

        • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:21PM

          by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:21PM (#431891)

          Yeah, because liberals like real liberal media as much as neocons like Fox. It's probably for the best that the fake "liberal media" the right likes to complain about (really just corporate tools that ignore prominent issues from both sides) are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

          Too bad real journalism is never coming back.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:07PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:07PM (#431982)

            Too bad real journalism is never coming back.

            What you call 'real journalism' was the aberration. Look at the history books and realize the media was always biased. It was only a brief moment in time, due to a technological limitation, that we had fact based journalism. The early wire services went over telegraph lines and every word counted. If you were going to sell a single story to both the Republican and Democrat newspaper in every town you had to write it neutral p.o.v. to an extent Wikipedia only aspires to but rarely achieves.

            What eventually happened was bandwidth got cheaper so every news outlet had their own man covering important stories and returning national coverage to the same blatant bias that ruled local coverage. But it still worked in that your could subscribe to both local papers and between them have a pretty good idea what was going on. Economics again intervened. Now only decent size cities can even support one paper, all of them are Democrat because all cities are Democrat hives. TV only made things worse, three networks, all parroting the Party Line printed daily in the New York Times. Even now, most of the cable dial is controlled by six people.

            The Internet is the answer of course. And it is already leveling the field between The Narrative and alternate views. What it won't be is fair and balanced, neutral p.o.v. news since bandwidth is now virtually unlimited. Hopefully the end product that evolves does include a few well funded entities who realize there is actually a market for distilled facts without a bias, i.e. the news, for subscribers who don't have time to read a dozen websites and piece together a likely approximation of reality.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:58PM

              by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:58PM (#432008)

              I hold no illusions that journalism was ever neutral, objective, or purely fact-based. They try to pretend now that it's possible, because they want us to believe that they perspective is the neutral point of view.

              But I think it's important to reconsider who "they" is. Because not that many people actually read the New York Times. It's those "six people" you mentioned. Those six people face a very different system than we do. In their world, Democrat/Republican is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they can give massive amounts of money to both sides to help secure their hold on society.

              Because when you say "Economics again intervened", it wasn't Smith's Invisible Hand that made it happen. It was the government, guided by the "six people". It was government-mandated TV news, in which the words must be compressed and the references all but eliminated. Yes, the slow death of the newspaper started when people started learning to get their news from the talking heads on TV. All that made the newspapers relevant was that they offered a more diverse viewpoint, because while on TV you hear from one lead anchor and perhaps a few reporters, in a newspaper every single journalist produces their final report. The report that you read.

              That's what's missing from news: the multitude of voices. And while the internet should solve that problem, it has created an all-new funding problem. Experienced journalists have to compete with every jackass with a modem who can put forth their take on news for free. With less audience, and even less willing to pay, how will we get our long-form exposés? How can anyone afford to spend months researching one story without a big newspaper to support them? It's even harder in the face of the rising cost of living.

              Which is how we've arrived where we are: getting our news from slaves of the oligarchy. "Real journalism" is what happens when the only voice a journalist is peddling is their own. Now, to have the time to research a story, they must work for The Media, which in turn places certain demands on their voice. Want to talk politics? Go to Fox or MSNBC and peddle their specific viewpoint or GTFO. Want to talk economics? Go to the Wall Street Journal or...some marginalized liberal publication nobody's heard of or GTFO. Want to talk foreign affairs? Go to England and work for the BBC 'cause we don't do that shit here. Want to talk corruption? Unless it's Hillary's corruption you better GTFO.

              --
              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:51PM (#432003)

          I personally would stay away from NBC news. They have been caught *many* times altering items to change or wildly exaggerate the POV. No one really cares. However, you never know when the next story will be a fake one from them. Them joining up with buzzfeed makes sense. It fits how they have done news for a long time (at least the early 90s). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_C/K#Sidesaddle_fuel_tank_controversy [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:33PM

    by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:33PM (#432176) Journal

    Just the other day NBC said the Trump admin would not press charges against HRC and so on, essentially they ended up pushing a story saying she would be left alone to "heal" or whatever (*insert clip of healing early-level video game boss here*).

    It's bullshit and doesn't even matter (what matters —as with all the other topics— is what has happened after Trump has been in power for a good while, and why and how) but it got picked up by "everybody else" (both mass liar media and "fake" news alike —saw it at both Zerohedge and Gateway Pundit and maybe Drudge too however Superstation95 dodged this one, perhaps, I only read their site I don't listen in but maybe I should). A bit later the NYT (of all places) says Donald Trump personally said to them that they're not stopping any investigations i.e. pretty much the complete opposite of what NBC had said and which mostly everyone else parroted uncritically .

    They too could be wrong. They usually are. Please always remember that.

    It's time to slap on default disclaimers on anything out of the MLM: Mass Liar Media (previously MSM/"mainstream" but not any longer).

    All this stuff is going on for a president who hasn't even been inaugurated yet, everyone should be able to infer their collective panic. They ought to be praying on their knees and hands to every imaginable god that Trump doesn't get assassinated but of course they're doing the exact opposite; they didn't get to where they are because they're smart and it continues to show.

    Because Trump is old and white it is somehow supposed to be okay to murder him, just ask that ex-Politico asshole, try to imagine what these same people would say and do if there had been anything close to this kind of reaction —their kind of reaction— to the election of Barack Obama. Actually there's no imagination required, heh.

    So there's the obvious bias of the MLM, they're not remotely close to anything neutral and pretty close to die-hard fascist. FOX too from what I gather but a tiny bit less so.

    Neither NBC nor NYT nor anybody else should be trusted. Never trust anyone, always be skeptical. Don't pay those assholes any money, ever, it doesn't do any good, it doesn't increase any quality. Cancel or quit if you have any kind of subscription. Personally I try not to refer to them or link to them either; let them stew in their own lies and self-importance.

    Take your figurative red pill every day and be careful it's actually red and not just a different kind of blue pill.

    Btw as far as for example Infowars (Alex Jones & co.) and Superstation95 goes I think most people are automatically somewhat skeptical or maybe even dismissive, they should embrace that innate skepticism and apply it equally to everything else. A lot of people might already be doing that but some obviously aren't.

    P.s. http://www.moonofalabama.org [moonofalabama.org] is nearly always a good read.

    --
    Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:12AM (#432225)

      Holy cow. I had no idea you could get WiFi out in the mountains in your bunker.

      • (Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:20AM

        by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:20AM (#432253) Journal

        There's always RONJA [wikipedia.org] but it doesn't like the plumes from my volcano.

        (Microwave dish to the rescue!)

        --
        Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))