THe EnD oF NeWSWeeK...

williambanzai7's picture






Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Die Weiße Rose's picture
NewsWeek and Iraq war planning

Fareed Zakaria, a Newsweek columnist and editor of Newsweek International, attended a secret meeting on November 29, 2001, with a dozen policy makers, Middle East experts and members of influential policy research organizations that produced a report for President George W. Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The meeting was held at the request of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense. The unusual presence of journalists, who also included Robert D. Kaplan of The Atlantic Monthly, at such a strategy meeting was revealed in Bob Woodward's 2006 book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III. Woodward reported in his book that, according to Mr. Kaplan, everyone at the meeting signed confidentiality agreements not to discuss what happened.

blindman's picture

Renaissance 2.0 - Financial Empire - Full Length - Damon Vrabel

are we there yet's picture

My zero hedge on iPhone has an irritating pop up add on its small screen but it has actual news.

blindman's picture

Debunking Money - The Way the World Really Works - Full Length - Damon Vrabel

Zero-risk bias's picture
"THe EnD oF NeWS"

Reminded me of David Carsons' 'The End of Print'.


What happened to Newsweek? ;-)

Die Weiße Rose's picture

What happened to Newsweek? ;-)

NewsWeek got Bombed by the Mossad Zionists.

whoknoz's picture

ah, WB, what might have resigned to the life a lowly cartoonist...but Thank The Lord! as the world loves you for that...and remember, good things come to those who wait...

williambanzai7's picture

Digital has been a side interest. Never a profession for me.

cifo's picture

I would wear a tshirt with Ben Guevara.

stant's picture

better stock up on those left over rolls of paper at your local newspaper at 40 cents a lb thats cheap tp, and you dont have to read the propaganda first

Lumberjack's picture

Bloomberg strikes again

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg apparently isn't done advocating for former Gov. Angus King in Maine's Senate race.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Bloomberg -- the billionaire founder of his self-named financial data services and media empire -- is creating a super PAC to funnel $10 million to $15 million into select campaigns across the country in the weeks before the election.

The paper lists King's campaign among them.

If so, this will be the third time that Bloomberg has put his name and his money behind King, an independent still regarded as the race leader. The mayor, also an independent, has already given $500,000 to Americans Elect, a nonprofit that plans to spend at least $1.7 million on independent ads intended to help King. Bloomberg also hosted a fundraiser for the candidate in New York on Tuesday.

Federal law prohibits both Americans Elect and Bloomberg's Independence USA PAC from collaborating with the King campaign. Critics of those laws point out, however, that the prohibition is almost impossible to enforce.

Translator's picture

Another lying asshole democrat turd propaganda outlet closes.......



oh boo fuckin hoo

williambanzai7's picture


And yes, it is ironic that the demise of Newsweek's print edition has coincided with Google's market stumble.

disabledvet's picture

who wouldn't want to be "inside the car." That's why Ford attitude problem. Interestingly...Hitler's pilot drove a Ford. Nice Chicken Hawk btw...

JamesBond's picture

Newsweek was full of pump monkeys



falak pema's picture

WB7, concerning your comments on Google the other day, (RM thread), and their model of siphoning all Net advertising thanks to their super search engine and mega clicks techniques, we are seeing the collateral damage of that trend inflicted on paper supported MSM; in this demise.

I hope the NET media will stay free of the corporate influence we are seeing in paper and TV press, where the fourth estate of our society is owned by the big corporates like Murdoch. 

But I doubt it, as the Google behemoth is showing us today. Just as an example, concerning the recent twat in France between Google and the French government who envisage, like Germany has already done, to impose a sales tax on Google's search engine, it is very revealing to look at the numbers.

Google's publicity revenue just for France represents around 1 billion Euros/yr according to one media source (I haven't cross checked this). That is around 80%-90% of total publicity budgets allocated to NET by french corporates. The Governement intends to tax Google around 5 to 10 million Euros on their virtual monopoly position to allow Other french media to benefit from some of this publicity that gets drained to Google. This is a small amount and justified in terms of dominant postion laws prevalent in Europe. 

As the trend of overall corporate publicity budgets moves inexorably from other support channels to the NET; this trend is very prevalent as the NET is the biggest growth segment; Google's clout worldwide will only get bigger until a search engine challenger of comparable size appears in the global market. This is not the case today, and RM is right in seeing Google as a trailblazer and digital Cloud type power-house gamechanger.

Lets keep this in mind...the fourth estate, a free press, is our most precious possession in this Oligarchy dominated world. 

Hulk's picture

The fourth estate is dead and buried on this side of the pond...

disabledvet's picture

once you tax it then you agree with its..."moral nature."

falak pema's picture

...once you tax it then you agree with its..."moral nature."

thats been the historic reality of european civilization; a world without state and taxes would indeed be a novelty; today it is utopia. SO although I agree in prinicple, I await that new horizon with baited breath. As WB7 says here, the Internet and peer to peer in future could allow each one of us to avoid intermediaries EITHER as tax collectors or as bankers. 

That would be a step in the right direction. 

williambanzai7's picture

The reason Google has done so well for as long as it has is no one had a Rosetta stone for allocating advertising spend in the Internet blob.

Advertisers panicked because they knew traditional media was losing crowd attention.

Search seemed to provide a more rational method for connecting buyer bytes with seller bytes and allocating advertising spend on the internet...good bye Yahoo.  However, there were all kinds of flaws in the methodology. It was just the best available alternative, but essentially the same as throwing darts and Google was the default beneficiary.

Social media offered the possibility of providing a more precise means of determining user behavior but as we have seen, no one ever got it right for a number of reasons.

Now, we are moving into the next wave of user interface which is mobile.

Mobile tech offers the possibilty of pinpointing user behavior and integrating media with a payment system. However, the old interruptive methods of advertising face multiple challenges such as screen size, site architecture and the mobile users aversion to advertising distraction.

Who wants to watch advertisements on the train or in Starbucks or while driving a truck?

No one wants to pay for anything on the Internet and wasting time watching ads is considered just another form of payment.

The net effect of pay wall media is loss of viewers with certain exceptions such as periodicals considered essential for business (eg Wall Street journal).

While the media conglomerates struggle for new ways to mine the serfs, the social issue is information inequality.

Traditional channels of access that are being shut off from those without wealth. Libraries are destroying books, archives are converting to digital access, periodicals are going pay digital and all these fancy iDevices are very expensive.

To a central planner, taxing Google sounds like a slam dunk for raising revenues to support fledgling media. But it is not. It is just another tax offering the potential for further resource misallocation.

The nature of the relationship between the user and the content generator is evolving into something very different and the role of media intermediaries, like all intermediaries, is being marginalized into the ether.

There is no intermediary between you and I, is there. Theoretically you look at my stuff on this site and "pay" by subjecting yourself to Google ads. But you could just go to my Blog which has no ads or visit my Flickr which also has no ads. I could ask my viewers to buy T-Shirts or books etc. to support me or recommend things I like. This is essentially where the relationship between content generators and their Internet followers is heading.

That is how music performers and other artists are struggling to do it. They can no longer rely on central production to manufacture an audience.  

The bottom line is the Internet has decentralized the media landscape which means fewer megastars can be hyped and piped by huge media intermediaries.

I actually developed a conceptual framework for Social Media monetization which covered all the main issues, privacy and user identity, interuptive versus voluntary user commericalization (i.e., empowering the user), vitual currency and couponing, virtual payment for content generators, localization etc. I tried to show it to the players. Guess what. They and their robot handlers didn't care to listen.

Now the elements that I wanted to tie together are floating around in a symphony of online chaos and I am quietly laughing.

The owner of this publication is one of the people I attempted to approach. ;-)

williambanzai7's picture

Clarification: By "this publication" I mean Newsweek's owner Diller, not ZH.

The reason I approached him was not because I like him, but because he seemed to have some of the necessary pieces under one roof already. Tactically, however, they were not very creative in their approach.

My basic premise is simple. People don't like being exploited. If they feel they are being treated fairly and compensated in some way, they will be more willing to surrender some time, attention and privacy. But it has to be the users decision and the user as to ultimately control their data.

Unfortunately, social media has turned into one big user bukkake culminating in the Facebook fiasco.

falak pema's picture

WB7, just reminiscing, but your ideal internet world idea I once addressed in the 1990s for the downsized computer system age.

I met a guy who proposed a scheme (he worked for Pepsi and was big in marketing; aka couponing via Nielsen for them). He said that in France we had a problem with the arrival of mega retail chains, aka Carrefour and the likes,  that were screwing down producer margins thru their buying center pricing monopolies. He felt that there was a place to build a retail outlet chain bypassing them to allow big producers; aka Coca and all the big food brands, to sell directly to consumers via couponing and retail outlets (smaller sized mom n pop local stores) who bought into the coupon promotion scheme.

The novelty of my scheme was that each retail outlet would have a ETF type terminal (we are talking 1991!) which would be client-servered to a computerised network, and would register proof of purchase and coupon discount by a codebar scans at point of sale, registered for each client in secured database. 

It was a neat scheme that required a non hyper retail chain to tie in and my plan was to set up the whole marketing plus computerised client-server network nation wide. We needed a big media group with point of sales tie-in to promote the coupon system and allow encrypted client data based to log on the coupon benefits that could either be paid to consumers each month in cash or cross couponed for holidays and traveller miles with other specialised retail chains. The big boys who were deep into couponing in USA (Danone, Coca, Nestle) were all for it. We had their backing.

We found the media chain, Hachette. It had a powerful family ownership, Lagardère. We had to convince him. He had an ideal situation with media outlets, kiosks on all sidewalks selling his own press magazines (Paris Match and TV7 magazines) all over France.

He backed down as he didn't want to take on a fight with the mega chain Oligarchy. Unfortunately, there was no Internet then! 




disabledvet's picture

you still need on analysis tho! Facehugger "is all about me"...hence a slam dunk. We act that way here...but in fact do not PERFORM that way...which is much more HONEST actually. Unlike Jew "sucky phucky" (sorry for being so crass...but you show me i show you is the their way...with a straight line to Uncle Adolph i might add) genuine cannot be "sold" per se but "must be given" or "offered up" as it were. And torturing people...Americans actually... in order to get it only proves my point. i.e. "porno is bad entertainment." and of course the irony of the movie Body Double was that it was meant to try and show you the difference...did it work? in other words "what gives REAL feelings"...not some corporate knock-off of "what you feel" b.s. the latter of which Hollywood must fight against while embracing. There is no doubt of course where we stand with the corporate oligarchy in these here parts of course. What is interesting is how easily the New York City "artsy fartsy set" has simply discarded the very notion of freedom of expression because of the advent of social media. disgusting really. i'll get more culture and civilization in 5 minutes on ZH than spending a lifetime in an art museum...because the people here are REAL. go ahead...DON'T put a price on that New York. Better yet...put the price of DEATH on it. But it's already infected your movie business now too. Why should i even go there when once i see that what i need is in fact real and that i can...

williambanzai7's picture

The NY Art scene is incestuous. It is a social edifice polluted with financiers who fancy themselves as savy asset collectors and socialites. The dealers coordinate the spectacle and the artists prostitute themselves to it. The museum boards are stuffed with them all.

Now with the advent of digital media, which requires start up financing, the artists are again prostituting themselves.

What is created is pretty objects suitable for display in billionaire sky bungalows. You won't find anything subversive in that cesspool of monetized mediocrity.

falak pema's picture

may the Gods above hear u WB7!

and us users of the NEt herebelow.

machineh's picture

'I could ask my viewers to buy T-Shirts or books etc. to support me or recommend things I like.'

Would it compromise your artistic integrity to accept commissions?

Such as an alternate version of 'Scary Clowns' with different dramatis personae, to publicize a nationwide protest in another region of the world ... 

williambanzai7's picture

I think I've pretty much established the sincerely of my intentions for everyone. This did not start as a commercial enterprise. It started with outrage.

I never promoted the T-Shirts etc seriously. It was really for everyone's enjoyment.

I have to find some help to coordinate the serious production of my ideas for sharing. I want to put some thing out for gallery presentation that is collectible and has permanence. I am concerned that relying exclusively on digital media is risky due to the unpredictable nature of technology. Who knows what will be around 50 years from now.

Die Weiße Rose's picture

williambanzai7, the problem is -

You have too much talent and you are a true Artist.

That puts you in the same Category as Vincent Van Gogh.

So to be recognized in our commercial world of consumption,

you will have to cut off both your ears, shoot yourself in a field of Sunflowers,

live a life in abject poverty, anxiety and frequent bouts of confusion and mental illness

and then die a violent death in a mental asylum before you reach the Age of 37.

After that, make sure to invite all the main stream media (including Google). According to market research:

A record crowd of 61,000, including billionaires Mitchell Rales, Eli Broad and Roman Abramovich will show up at the Funeral of Art.

Wealthy patrons and collectors have been the lifeblood of the art world for centuries, from Italy's Medici family to American industrialists Henry Clay Frick and Andrew Mellon. That is still true today even as art valuations drop. Indeed, in a downturn like this one, billionaires are some of the only people who can still afford to buy expensive art or help prop up museums.

Broad, for instance, spent $30 million in December bailing out the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art to prevent the museum from having to sell off artwork and leave its current headquarters. Several months earlier, Estée Lauder Chairman Leonard Lauder gifted $131 million to New York City's Whitney Museum, of which he is chairman emeritus, in part to help it keep its Upper East Side location.

After Art and the Artist is finally exterminated, dead and buried,

fame and fortune can then be achieved by the Art of commercial enterprise -

unless your name is Jeff Koons or Andy Warhol -


cartonero's picture

Slideshows at museums seem to be the medium of choice for digital artists to present their works these days.  If you went retro and non-digital on that you might do coffee table books.  Short run/limited editions would create collectibility.

q99x2's picture

All mainstreet media is being replaced by independent media. It is not our fault they decided to support propaganda. People are sensing that they are being used if they watch that crap. They tried to fuck their customers and got screwed. Fuck Bernanke.

Would you rather see an ad for Romney and/or Obama or take a look at the truth.

Die Weiße Rose's picture
'Bomb NEWS-WEEK' memo: Media warned !

Thursday, November 24, 2005 Posted: 0106 GMT (0906 HKT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government has warned news organizations against publishing details of a secret memo which one London tabloid newspaper said recounted discussions between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush about bombing the headquarters of the Arabic news network Al-Jazeera.


Angus McHugepenis's picture

Surely they can get a bail out to save that rag sheet? Call Ben.

Angus McHugepenis's picture

On a long enough time line, even News Week turns to zero. Long live ZH BitCheZ!

machineh's picture

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate of the Mainstream Media drops to zero.

-- Tyler's Law, circa 2006

One World Mafia's picture

I shall bake a cake.  How many more propaganda rags to go?

“Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.”-ThomasJefferson's picture

Starting to worry I soon may be running out of toilet paper; trying to figure out if I may take an e-shit.

flapdoodle's picture

Not to worry - there will be plenty of FRNs and if they ever run out, there's always the Congressional Record

otto skorzeny's picture

thank God millions are trees are no longer sacrificed for the US version of Pravda. Newsweek can fight for control with HuffPo for the coveted "sitting in their parents' basements(aka "home") blogging on their douchey IPads" demographic.

GottaBKiddn's picture

All the news that's sad but true.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Boris is now nostalgia for Pravda (old NKVD Pravda)!