Microsoft Hardware sales are struggling according to Forbes

[The Phoenix]

@The Phoenix here's another one

http://wonkette.com/529563/forbes-c...e-will-steal-7450-from-typical-family-of-four



Random speculation with no regard for accurate info and a click bait title.



As I said nobody really respects them anymore.

Here is more

I'm not defending these dudes, but they wouldn't be the first to incorrectly assess costs associated with Obamacare. Not by a longshot. In regards to that second piece you posted. Who is that from? It sounds to me that THEY are speculating and participating in some ax grinding. You can't call out one publication for their lack of integrity then reduce their writing core to simply "A group of commenters....." Is that really what Forbes is doing or is the writer of that article trying to purposely degrade other contributors for the sake of humor? Where there is smoke their is fire. So I'll admit, there are some people out there calling out Forbes for not being what they once were, but I still don't see where this discredits the OP. I still don't see where this discredit's their editors. Again, have they been reporting things falsely? Have they been WILDLY speculating only to have it blow up in their faces?

 

[Deezay]

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I'm not defending these dudes, but they wouldn't be the first to incorrectly assess costs associated with Obamacare. Not by a longshot. In regards to that second piece you posted. Who is that from? It sounds to me that THEY are speculating and participating in some ax grinding. You can't call out one publication for their lack of integrity then reduce their writing core to simply "A group of commenters....." Is that really what Forbes is doing or is the writer of that article trying to purposely degrade other contributors for the sake of humor? Where there is smoke their is fire. So I'll admit, there are some people out there calling out Forbes for not being what they once were, but I still don't see where this discredits the OP. I still don't see where this discredit's their editors. Again, have they been reporting things falsely? Have they been WILDLY speculating only to have it blow up in their faces?

Yes you are defending them, I've posted all types of proof that they are full of shyt, but here you are still trying to deny it.

The quote i posted was from USAtoday:Money
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/02/23/forbes-magazine-on-the-block/5684695/

A real website with real writers and editors.

And yes they've had things blow up in their face. They got caught posting articles that they were paid to post, and their contributers have been caught writing advertisements for their own products under the guise of "financial advise"

Forbes doesn't have any editors to discredit. It's all written by bloggers, and there is no check for accuracy.

 

[Boris Reznikov]

They really need to quit. They've never quite managed it

 

[Rekkapryde]

Forbes doesn't have any editors to discredit. It's all written by bloggers, and there is no check for accuracy.

this nikka just said they have NO EDITORS.

you crackin me up today breh....

 

[MeachTheMonster]

this nikka just said they have NO EDITORS.

you crackin me up today breh....

They don't edit "contributor" articles.

Read some of the info i posted.

I hope your not getting financial advise from Forbes

 

[Rekkapryde]

They don't edit "contributor" articles.

Read some of the info i posted.

I hope your not getting financial advise from Forbes

Keep superman.....but for you to act like NO ONE reads throw the shyt people post on there is

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Keep superman.....but for you to act like NO ONE reads throw the shyt people post on there is

Tell a real financial adviser about some info you got from Forbes and he will at you

 

[Rekkapryde]

Tell a real financial adviser about some info you got from Forbes and he will at you

don't move the goalpost.....we aint talking about no damn financial advisor. you said no one goes through the shyt posted on the site.

 

[Rekkapryde]

double

 

[ORDER_66]

http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/07/17...icrosoft-faces-trust-issues-with-advertisers/

http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/07/21/behind-microsofts-change-of-heart-on-xbox-and-original-content/



So is the Wall Street Journal something to be laughed at in terms of coverage about the microsoft problems concerning the xbox one or is their editors smoking crack too??? Is the WSJ not credible?

 

[The Phoenix]

Yes you are defending them, I've posted all types of proof that they are full of shyt, but here you are still trying to deny it.

The quote i posted was from USAtoday:Money
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/02/23/forbes-magazine-on-the-block/5684695/

A real website with real writers and editors.

And yes they've had things blow up in their face. They got caught posting articles that they were paid to post, and their contributers have been caught writing advertisements for their own products under the guise of "financial advise"

Forbes doesn't have any editors to discredit. It's all written by bloggers, and there is no check for accuracy.

No I'm not. You aren't posting proof, you are posting examples of people who have something negative to say about them. That's not proof. USA Today has contributing writers as well. Hell some people that contribute to USA Today also contribute to Forbes. If Forbes is shyt, then there should be a slew or articles that they have been written that have had to be retracted because of there inaccuracies. Or even if there isn't a retraction, there should be a number of instances where Forbes wrote one thing, and then a more reputable publication came along and directly countered said article. I'm not trying to hear about that one time someone misquoted political numbers. We are discussing the merits of the writer and the person that allowed the article. I'm sure if I dig into Huff Po and a number of other online rags, I can find instances where they are scrounging up clickbait whether they admit it or not. That doesn't prove that they are facilitating the spread of misinformation.

I WILL admit though that I do not see Forbes in the same light from a brand standpoint that I did, maybe 2 hours ago. If for no reason more than that they are selling out to the Chinese. SMH.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

don't move the goalpost.....we aint talking about no damn financial advisor. you said no one goes through the shyt posted on the site.

No I said. Nobody who's serious about money respects forbes anymore.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

No I'm not. You aren't posting proof, you are posting examples of people who have something negative to say about them. That's not proof. USA Today has contributing writers as well. Hell some people that contribute to USA Today also contribute to Forbes. If Forbes is shyt, then there should be a slew or articles that they have been written that have had to be retracted because of there inaccuracies. Or even if there isn't a retraction, there should be a number of instances where Forbes wrote one thing, and then a more reputable publication came along and directly countered said article. I'm not trying to hear about that one time someone misquoted political numbers. We are discussing the merits of the writer and the person that allowed the article. I'm sure if I dig into Huff Po and a number of other online rags, I can find instances where they are scrounging up clickbait whether they admit or not. That doesn't prove that they are facilitating the spread of misinformation.

@Rekkapryde we need one of those superman gif.

I've given you examples, and I've shown you the overall attitude that people have forwards the validity of information on that site. That story I posted wasn't about misquoted numbers. It was about the writer purposely fudging the numbers for clicks. Did/can you read?

Also beyond any of that. The company is owned by a Chinese advertising company, and they pay writers by the click. If you don't think that's a recipe for fukkery, then I'm done with this conversation.

 

[The Phoenix]

@Rekkapryde we need one of those superman gif.

I've given you examples, and I've shown you the overall attitude that people have forwards the validity of information on that site. That story I posted wasn't about misquoted numbers. It was about the writer purposely fudging the numbers for clicks. Did/can you read?

Also beyond any of that. The company is owned by a Chinese advertising company, and they pay writers by the click. If you don't think that's a recipe for fukkery, then I'm done with this conversation.

You keep saying that you are posting examples. Yet you are trying to discredit Forbes, saying people don't take them seriously.....and that USAToday has REAL writers, and the very same publication that you posted at the very beginning is SH!TTING on that real writer.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/michael_wolff_on_digital_media.php?page=all

The Columbia Journalism Review criticized Wolff in 2010 when he suggested that The New York Times was aggressively covering the breaking News International phone hacking scandal as a way of attacking News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch. CJR called Wolff's analysis "pathetic", "disgusting", "twisted", and based on "zero evidence".

Real writers eh? So does that somehow bring USA Today down a notch. I mean to your credit you've found more scathing articles in regards to Forbes but I feel that this has to hurt your argument.

And yes, I DO believe that a recipe for fukkery. But I need to see it happening. If it's that easy to see and we believe they are doing that then it should be easy to prove. But I'm not even questioning whether I think Forbes does that. Hell, I wouldn't need an article to tell me that is the case. I know ALL online publications do that. Some may do it more than others or may just not be as good at it as others. That doesn't mean that I discredit anything written by an online publication. If the proof is in the puddin then show me the puddin. And while you have posted articles relating to Forbes diminished brand, you haven't posted articles showing where they have said one thing and have been consistently balked at by others in response. Keep in mind that I am aware that they have erred in some way at some point. I find it hard to believe any publication could NEVER get anything wrong. But I'm speaking in regards to a consistent reputation of being wrong and discredited.