Apologists for Craig's list haven't been able to answer questions regarding sex trafficking on Craig's list and seem to think that their best defense is in attacking everyone who raises questions.
The part about everyone hating Newmark and his work because "He doesn’t do it to get rich" and because he is a disruptor who kills classified ad revenues is amusing.
All the recent hoopla is over a CNN interview and afaik little or none of CNN's ad revenues are threatened by Craig's List. My understanding is that Newmark has made tens of millions of dollars and it is absurd to suggest that journalists would go easier on him if he made even more money to qualify as "rich" in the writer's dictionary.
[edit] Interesting to see my comment downvoted to zero and a response saying that "The same people that own the TV news own the newspapers".
Can anyone tell us which newspaper is owned by CNN or the people who own CNN ?
[edit 2] The downvoting trend is amusing. A short while ago, my comment was at 4, now it is at -1. I see one more response and this one says that Time Warner owns magazines.
Right, so Time Warner owns some magazines, but NO NEWSPAPERS, Craig's List has hurt newspaper ad revenues , Newmark has only earned 10s of millions of dollars and isn't "rich" by the writer's standards ....and because of all this, a whole lot of downvoters seem to believe that CNN shouldn't ask any questions about Craig's List sex trafficking This is funny
As far as hurting newspapers goes, don't measure it by what Craigslist takes in. Some of the would-be paying newsprint advertisers are getting exposure on Craigslist for free, and of course papers still see that as damaging.
The media is not very friendly towards entities that don't buy advertising and take away ad dollars of or compete with operations that do. Note how little mention Ubuntu gets at release time, or when Windows malware hits, even though it would help many readers/viewers.
Not only is Craigslist affecting ad revenue, it a safe target since it is not a business likely to buy ads. Some news departments get a bit sheepish when it comes to attacking companies that buy advertising. They're more apt to run stories that amount to press releases.
News outlets seem to like stories like sex scandals in general... remember how much attention they gave Michael Jackson. Even jury selection swamped out some other stories that actually mattered. Here's one of the stories I saw no mention of locally during jury selection:
The part about everyone hating Newmark and his work because "He doesn’t do it to get rich" and because he is a disruptor who kills classified ad revenues is amusing.
All the recent hoopla is over a CNN interview and afaik little or none of CNN's ad revenues are threatened by Craig's List. My understanding is that Newmark has made tens of millions of dollars and it is absurd to suggest that journalists would go easier on him if he made even more money to qualify as "rich" in the writer's dictionary.
[edit] Interesting to see my comment downvoted to zero and a response saying that "The same people that own the TV news own the newspapers".
Can anyone tell us which newspaper is owned by CNN or the people who own CNN ?
[edit 2] The downvoting trend is amusing. A short while ago, my comment was at 4, now it is at -1. I see one more response and this one says that Time Warner owns magazines.
Right, so Time Warner owns some magazines, but NO NEWSPAPERS, Craig's List has hurt newspaper ad revenues , Newmark has only earned 10s of millions of dollars and isn't "rich" by the writer's standards ....and because of all this, a whole lot of downvoters seem to believe that CNN shouldn't ask any questions about Craig's List sex trafficking This is funny