Following yesterday’s post about ads posing as news items at Breitbart, I see this little thing today:
I’m not saying that I had anything to do with it, of course, but I also note that the “Sponsored” note appears at the END of the headline and not at the top.
Improvements still needed, dickheads.
Even worse, they still tried to sneak it in as news on the sidebar:
They really must think we’re stupid.
Your suggestions in Comments.
I see this development with something approaching satisfaction:
Women are wearing ‘safety layers’ over their outfits to deter ‘creepy’ men – with many labeling it ‘sad but necessary’.
Let me get all the stipulations out of the way, first.
Yes, I agree that womyns should be able to wear what they want. Yes, I agree that womyns should be “body proud” to bolster their self-esteem. Yes, I agree that (in this respect anyway) Men Are Pigs and shouldn’t respond to scantily-clad womyns with catcalls, wolf whistles and overt sexual behavior (groping, etc.), not to mention trying to sneak some “upskirt pics” (which is really unacceptable).
However:
If womyns are going to dress like prostitutes, please understand that while men like myself can simply appreciate the female form as an object of beauty, Not All Men Are Like That and some may regard displays of flesh and the female form as sex objects. Yes, their behavior is to be deplored.
But, in the words of some wise man, and according to sound marketing principle:
If the goods aren’t for sale, don’t put them in the window.
I hate to sound old-fashioned, but there’s this word… wait, it’ll come to me… give me a moment, what was it again? Oh yeah:
Now I know that the word has been abused, most notably by the radical religionists (Puritans, Muslims an other assholes of that ilk), and if applied to its extreme, you get shunning, niqabs, mercy killings and so on. All bad things.
But can we at least agree that somewhere between this:
and this:
…there lies an expansive area wherein womyns can dress in a non-provocative fashion that is still… sexy, without being overly provocative?
I often use Brit-TV hottie and uber-MILF Charlotte Hawkins as an example of stylishness and sexiness, because she is most often seen in public dressed, ummm stylishly and sexily. This does not means she can’t go deep, so to speak:
…but only when the occasion calls for it, i.e. when display is called for, in a secure environment so to speak.
I know, all this is Not Fair To Women etc., but can we at least try to live in the real world, and not in some ur-feminist fantasy?
Modesty works, ladies, and you need to dial Teh Sexeh back a tad when you’re out in the public eye.
So you’re a young-ish man or woman, and you want to get into the wonderful world of Hunting / Target Shooting, Rifle Division. But when you start looking at what’s out there, you’re bowled over by the prices.
You might saunter over to Collectors, and snatch up this one, for only $600:
Here’s the checklist, all answered in the positive:
Caveats:
Honestly, it’s a dandy for an entry-level shooter. Me, I think the positives outweigh the potential negatives, bigly.
It can’t be simple coincidence. After my post about coolers the other day (wherein I lashed out at over-priced Yeti), I got this message (flagged as junk mail):
Of course, clicking on either of the links doesn’t do anything except register your email addy as belonging to a sucker. Whoever created this bullshit then spoofs your email address and starts sending you dozens of spam messages per day — so it looks as though you’re receiving emails from yourself but worst of all, you can’t flag your own address as spam or junk so you can’t stop the fucking things. (Ask me, I’ve tried.) Here would be my solution to these assholes:
I read Breitbart News every day, sometimes more than once, to get an idea of what’s going on out there. So it pains me when these guys piss in the soup by, in this case, treating a fucking commercial as a news item, viz. (don’t bother clicking on it, it’s just a screen grab):
Most of the comments are scornful of BN, saying things like “As sponsored by…” and so on.
Here’s the news: nobody cares if you carry ads, or even advertorials. But you have to tell people that they are just that and not actual news reports, like this example from, of all places, the Daily Mirror:
Otherwise you could (justifiably) be accused of abusing the trust of your customers, which in this case, you are.
Even the “mainstream” news has followed this principle, although they too have succumbed to clickbait bullshit recently.
I thought Breitbart News was different. Clearly, I was mistaken. They just did a Bud Light.
Dumb shits.
It’s as though my Readers were to discover that all these years I’ve been paid by Springfield Armory to say all those horrible things about Glock. (Relax, I haven’t.)
And I’m just a little blog, tucked away in the corner of the Internet. If you’re in the Big Media Playground — and especially in the roped-off conservative area — trust is your only coin: fuck that up, and you’re dead. Ask Dan Rather.
No, I’m not going to stop reading Breitbart News, but I’m going to be a lot more skeptical about their reporting in future.
See how that works?