Interesting to see who is in MAGA's good graces

[Axulus]

AmericaFest 2024, a 4 day Turning Point USA event that started today, is one of the biggest annual MAGA conventions.

It is interesting to see who is in MAGA's good graces based on the list of those who have been invited to speak:

AMERICAFEST 2024

www.amfest.com

One name stood out to me: Ben Shapiro. He is a good example of many MAGA celebrities and intellectuals in the movement. He had been lukewarm on Trump in the past and has spoken out against him many times, very strongly after January 6th, for example.

But for the 2024 election he bent the knee and openly supported Trump. And by doing so, he gets to be a MAGA celebrity. Most of his audience is MAGA, so any disloyalty to Trump could mean upsetting his audience and suffering a decline in business.

This is the very essence of audience capture and to completely lack integrity in order to get rich and be a celebrity in the MAGA movement. So many of these people are utterly devoid of any integrity whatsoever.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Shapiro is currently in their bad books because he said on one of his videos that only left-wingers supported Luigi Mangeone, whereas many MAGA do also, so he got a lot of lashback from them in response.

 

[Elixir]

The damn right wingers are trying to steal my Luigi, futile cause and all? Fuckers want to take everything.

 

[ZiprHead]

Speaking of MAGA's good graces...

This company rates news sites’ credibility. The right wants it stopped.

When veteran newsmen L. Gordon Crovitz and Steven Brill started their news site rating company, they were prepared for the inevitable cries of bias from both sides.
What they didn’t anticipate was that NewsGuard, their company of some 50 employees, would become the target of congressional investigations and accusations from federal regulators that it was at the vanguard of a vast conspiracy to censor conservative views.

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted. It uses a slate of nine standard criteria, such as whether a site corrects errors or discloses its ownership and financing, to produce a zero to 100 percent rating.

Crovitz, a former publisher of the Wall Street Journal and a Republican, and Brill, a left-tending independent who founded Court TV and the American Lawyer magazine, engaged with publishers wanting to understand subpar ratings, sometimes wrangling for hours by phone over the details of a site’s correction policy.

But conservatives now question the company’s premise. Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, accused the company of facilitating a “censorship cartel,” in a November letter to leading tech platforms. Noting that key legal protections depend on tech executives operating “in good faith,” Carr continued: “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard.”

NewsGuard, backed by legal experts, argues that Carr’s letter may violate the First Amendment by threatening the speech rights of private companies.

 

[Elixir]

Fuck Newsguard. Crovitz should sue them first, for defaming his pub. As long as we're filing frivolous lawsuits, I mean.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I don't suppose they judge newsworthiness. Sure USA Today may be reputable but so might Variety or E!. So if what they put on their front page isn't what would be considered the most important news of the day, one is as poorly informed as a MSNBC or FOX fan.

"'Stressed' Amazon driver leaves 80 packages in woods before Christmas, police say" is not news.

 

[Elixir]

"'Stressed' Amazon driver leaves 80 packages in woods before Christmas, police say" is not news.

It is if one of them was MINE!

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I can see some obvious problems with that graph. Firstly, 100 should be an impossible rating to achieve. Secondly, I am not sure that it is completely rightly ordered, though I don't have a really good knowledge of major USA newspapers, other than I know that they have all in recent years failed badly with real journalism. I see that they don't have publications like Mother Jones, I suppose because this is designed for advertisers, but Time magazine has advertising, therefore they are only considering newspapers, not magazines (unless they have a separate graph for them?)

 

[ZiprHead]

Who cares what their rating methodology is? Using government to shut them down is bullshit.