0
0

[–] SnapeDoggyDogg ago 

0
0

[–] WhiteSoIMustBeRacist ago 

One more follow up. Their FB page is more active than CNN beause they post substantially more junk. CNN posted 732 articles while Breitbart posted 3000. The difference is that CNN actually tries to fact check and practice solid journalism. Breitbart finds a single email and then writes a bullshit article as if it's groundbreaking earth shattering news. And of course the dummy conservatives on FB eat it up.

0
0

[–] SnapeDoggyDogg ago 

You must be kidding me. Even President Obama, who is clearly on the left, makes fun of CNN for being bullshit. Their reputation does not reflect what you are saying. And besides, this type of argument about which journalism is more solid is not based on anything scientific. You're just blowing hot air out of your ass. What you're doing here is not critical thinking. You're just making up statements, based on zero evidence, that are impossible to either prove or disprove and then strutting like a pigeon. You might choose to argue against me quoting Breitbart's 45 million unique reader statistic, but at least I have a source. I don't just accuse people of things based on my own bare assumptions. You're a hypocrite and a joke. In fact, what you are doing here is literally a perfect example of confirmation bias. And when I say literally, I actually mean that word in its original meaning.

0
0

[–] WhiteSoIMustBeRacist ago  (edited ago)

45 million monthly readers.

Assertion not supported by link.

Here, I will do your homework for you. This is what you are looking for.. Except there is a flaw in this. Unique visitors are not actual unique visitors. This doesn't account for one person who views the website on Chrome, Firefox, their cell phone, their tablet, and their work computer. That number is probably closer to 1/2 to 1/3 of that.

Nor does it tell you just how long people are engaged on the site. Most of the news on that site is crap, and probably engages people for as long as they can get the person to read down to how Hillary Clinton was a satantic pedophile cult leader or some stupid shit like that which it loves to peddle.

In addition, that number is based on the 31 days mostly all leading up to, including, and the immediate days after the election. Something that happens every four years. In fact, really only every eight years when there isn't a re-election and the position is more hotly contested.

You might as well pick Black Friday as your data-point to assert how the shopping malls are doing boffo business.

The site does >>> NOT <<< have 45,000,000 active regular readers. It is probably closer to less than 10,000,000. Their "boycott" doesn't even have 1/3 of a million pledged. Oh and that includes junk signatures like "fuck-your-boycot@fuckoff.com" that I signed myself about ten times by hitting the back button and re-submitting.

Sorry for applying critical reasoning skills again to shit all over you.

0
0

[–] SnapeDoggyDogg ago  (edited ago)

You're straying from the point of the original argument. The point is that Breitbart is CAPABLE of having a significant affect on Kelloggs revenue. Even with your esitmates of 10,000,000 regular readers, it is enough to hurt a company. And who cares about how many signatures they got. I didn't sign, yet I am going to boycott Kelloggs from now on. Sign up pages on the internet mean nothing. I know this from personal experience, because I was a nightclub promoter. I used to book out venues and then advertise them online, on radio etc. And on the Facebook event page it says ~180 people are coming. Sometimes you get half that number, other times you get ten times that number. Some people just don't want to register their opinions or preferences publicly. We saw the effect of that in the election polls this year. THAT is how you do cricital reasoning. BOOM!