which magazine is now the most widely circulated in the world?.
before responding, keep in mind that certain parameters (such as content and page count) ought to be met before any printed material intended for mass distribution can be categorized as a “magazine”.
for example, the absolute minimum range for any publication to be considered a magazine is typically around 32 to 48 pages while the highest page counts are usually around 128 to 160, with some popular women’s fashion magazines coming in quite a bit higher than that.. so with that said, which is now the world’s most widely circulated magazine?.
Not only is the number of pages of the Watchtower substantially reduced but bigger font sizes and bigger color photos and pictures dominate that which is left.
They now resemble a cheap WordPress blog with images, captions, bullet points, charts and graphs. Anything to take up space without actually having an in-depth discussion on the topic.
which magazine is now the most widely circulated in the world?.
before responding, keep in mind that certain parameters (such as content and page count) ought to be met before any printed material intended for mass distribution can be categorized as a “magazine”.
for example, the absolute minimum range for any publication to be considered a magazine is typically around 32 to 48 pages while the highest page counts are usually around 128 to 160, with some popular women’s fashion magazines coming in quite a bit higher than that.. so with that said, which is now the world’s most widely circulated magazine?.
How many magazines are actually placed at homes and not just printed and taken by JWS for field service? I know I always had magazines left over, the old ones we would place at laundries. Then if we had super old ones they would be recycled. There were some at our hall who would pick up fifty magazines at a time, I doubt all of those were left with people who were genuinely interested in reading them.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
I know they visited China, but what does that have to do with the Russian campaign?
China was very upset with the Democratic party over how the election turned out. In their view censorship of the net is needed to have a tighter control over the people. These are the conversations they were having with Obama/Zuckerberg. Remember the Chinese are big supporters of the Clintons and the Democratic party as a whole.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
The email scandal and wikileaks aren't fake news they are hacked information there is a difference. Cybersecurity is definitely something that should be looked at by all government agencies. However, the information revealed was real and showed the true nature of the Democratic party. I'm sure if the Republicans were hacked there would also be a treasure trove of bad publicity. I believe that did affect the election, how much is hard to say, but that isn't the fake news Obama and Zuckerberg came out against. We are talking about spam articles with clickbait titles whose main purpose is to drive traffic and money. These are clearly not reputable sources and the people sharing them are most likely partisans who wouldn't change their minds no matter what happened. I'd like to keep the internet free and deal with the consequences rather than censor everything because dumb people can't tell what's real and what's fake.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
The report I am referring to is the (declassified) US cyber security review of the Russian influence on the US election in 2016. I believe it is the (classified) version of that document that Obama was basing his information on. How does that fit into the theory?
I have no doubt that the Russians were behind many false news stories in an attempt to get Trump elected. However, what is not talked about is whether they really swayed the election one way or another. I think it's highly doubtful that our election was altered by what were clearly fake news articles being published on social media. The threat of China having a say in how the internet is run in the future is much more alarming considering their track record on censorship. The fact that Obama and Zuckerberg are getting their talking points from Chinese officials is worrisome. The CIA document was not officially published until a much later date.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
JW_Rogue: You mean that the CIA/FBI is colluding with the Chinese government in order to spread the narrative that Russians are using fake news to influence the US election?
I have no idea about any CIA/FBI involvement but it's a fact that after meeting with Chinese officials both Obama and Zuckerberg came out against fake news. Instead of doing any real investigation into whether this fake news actually affected the election in a meaningful way, the mainstream media just parroted exactly what Obama and Zuckerberg were saying. When you hear someone say get rid of "fake news" what they are really talking about is censorship and it's an idea borrowed from communist Chinese Government. The mainstream media hates that Trump has tried to flip this idea of "fake news" back on them. From this point forward the media will do whatever is needed to discredit anything coming from the Trump admin.
http://mashable.com/2016/11/22/facebook-censor-china/#8wYFjW8H5iqi
Didn't the mainstream outlets report on the very real threat of net censorship? Nope, it doesn't fit the agenda at this time.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Don't forget it was the mainstream media that promoted the fake news narrative that was authored by the Chinese Government. That somehow Trump got elected because of "fake news" spread online. They actually ran with this story which was made up by the Chinese government to promote censorship in the west. Mark Zuckerberg caved because he wants a piece of the Chinese market for Facebook.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
None of you DFs with your heads stuck up your asses will ever question any news article that confirms those biases.
I don't read any of those sources you mentioned I just watch the nightly news. It is easy to see that things that were non-news for Obama are now being blown out of proportion for Trump. Example: there was a big story on the news about 160 undocumented immigrants being deported as if it were some new tactic from Trump. In reality, it was a routine operation and they did many of them during Obama's administration. Complete non-story but it was used to reinforce the idea that Trump is racist and after illegals. Obama actually deported more people than any other president in history, where was the reporting on that?
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Trump is an idiot but they are also biased and out to get him impeached. When Obama was in office they were all kissing his ass and there wasn't a tough question in sight. It is easy to see the difference. The media is part of the resist Trump campaign.
should others make decisions for us?.
) we should not give someone else the responsibility to make decisions for us.
rather, we should personally learn what is right in god’s eyes and choose to do it.. how might we give in to the danger of letting others choose for us?
Don't let others make your decisions! Read our publications and brainwash yourself into thinking it was your decision all along. This is what they want but JWs will never see it even though it is clear as day.
