Or should we be praising ad-blockers? As consumers, and as a normal internet adventurer, I say of course! How great is it to not have to deal with pesky ads while you’re watching Hulu or to never have to see a pop-up again? Yes, software like this exists and it’s free and legal. Believe me, I use it. But the below article describes how this poses a big issue for advertisers and companies like Google who make a huge profit off of being the facilitator for many companies to get their ads and messages out.
Now Apple has included this option in Safari and iPhones. Now the average American who is about as good at in depth technology tweeking as changing the background on their phone can easily start to utilize the benefits of ad blockers that us people who know our way around the internet have been using for years.
Unfortunately for the advertisers, that lowest common denominator of tech-noobs were easy ad space and doops to the features technology could use to thwart the efforts of advertisers technology. But, it’s all on now.
The post I am making is about an article written by the Guardian at the following link:
I found this article to align very well with out topic of journalistic claims and whether they are true/how they can be trusted. In this article, a journalist claimed that a politician was sexually harassing one of his prior employees how apparently quit because of inappropriate advances made towards her.
In response, this politician (who wants to be Prime Minister of Trinidad) defended himself and said these were bogus claims. The journalist simply came back to challenge the politician to a lie detector test if he’s not lying.
But the underlying point of bringing this article into discussion is how claims by journalists can have resounding affects on the world around them. Was this journalist lying? Who knows. They outwardly called out the politician and challenged them to a lie detector test so they must feel they have some leg to stand on. But regardless, the claim has been published and the moment such claims by journalists reach the public, damage has already been done.
Do you feel this is a good representation of how unproven journalistic claims can influence others?
The article which this post is in reference to is as follows:
The reason I find this so interesting is because it ties into our lessons of the important of data driven companies (or in our instance, journalism) in today’s market. It sort of boggles my mind that a corporation as large as Microsoft is not on the cutting edge of analytics while companies like Facebook, Google, and even Twitter are known for their analytical capabilities. That being said, this is proof that the need for data driven business is not going to go anywhere.
In reality, those who have the most accurate way of utilizing data, and predicting business through it, are at an extreme economic advantage. The same can be said about the journalistic world. It would help journalists like us better understand our demographics, and post accordingly. It would also help us see where concentrations of posts are being had during major events thus making finding sources that much easier.
All in all, probably a sounds investment for Microsoft.