Maybe its just me, so mods should delete this if this sounds retarded and/or inaccurate.
I noticed that like WaPa and NYT make you pay now to view their articles now via sub? Was it always like that? I started to notice that some of the content posted here from fake news wont let you view the article without the sub, and just now I tried to verify if Kim Klacik conceded or not (I heard she did) and an article from WaPo came up, so I figured if anyone is going to gloat about Republican's losing, its going to be these scumbags
So I clicked on it and they were trying sell me a sub in order to read their propaganda. Like I said, its not the first occurrence I noticed lately, and I don't ever remember it being like that, so I'm just sitting here wondering 1) just how badly are they doing financially after constantly getting their shit pushed in and boycotted? 2) who tf would pay to have propaganda spoon fed to them?
idk just a random thought, but I could be wrong and they could have very well been selling subs forever - but its something i started to notice. Whats says you?
Maybe its just me, so mods should delete this if this sounds retarded and/or inaccurate.
I noticed that like WaPa and NYT make you pay now to view their articles now via sub? Was it always like that? I started to notice that some of the content posted here from fake news wont let you view the article without the sub, and just now I tried to verify if Kim Klacik conceded or not (I heard she did) and an article from WaPo came up, so I figured *if anyone is going to gloat about Republican's losing, its going to be these scumbags*
So I clicked on it and they were trying sell me a sub in order to read their propaganda. Like I said, its not the first occurrence I noticed lately, and I don't ever remember it being like that, so I'm just sitting here wondering 1) just how badly are they doing financially after constantly getting their shit pushed in and boycotted? 2) who tf would pay to have propaganda spoon fed to them?
idk just a random thought, but I could be wrong and they could have very well been selling subs forever - but its something i started to notice. Whats says you?
They have been doing it for awhile. What pages they put under a paywall changes, and a page that is free at the moment, may be put under the pay wall a few minutes or a few days later.
Best practice for linking any of their content is to run the page through Archive. It locks the page in, so that WaPoo and NYSlime can't edit it, it prevents them from getting any clicks, and the page will remain free for other viewers.
This is a good example -https://archive.is/64rMC
something the NYT would like for people to never see again, but something they did publish:
That article is really upsetting. I doubt they regret it, which is even worse
It's been a thing for a few years now, but has become more & more common.
Before it was usually just a premium to get access to special content, or they would use an IP tracker & only allow access to a few articles for free before blocking you with a pay wall. I can't read even one full article before a pay wall comes up now (not that I ever read or trust MSM, but when I need to see what shenanigans they are up to...). It used to be 3 or 4 articles and before that it used to be most or all of the articles.
They have also slowly eroded comment sections away when they used to be common, because their propaganda can be directly exposed with a quick link to facts in the comments. MSM used to be called out all the time that way.
But the most damning thing by far is that 10-15 years ago, news articles used to provide academic-standard, fully cited sources at the bottom with all the information needed to trace back to the original source, in addition to or to support any in-line or online citations. Like a professional scientific journal. Like what your high school English teacher (if they were a decent one) made you do for all your essays. (The good ones also teach what primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are, and make you stay as close to primary sources as possible.) Even more alarming is how access & reporting of primary sources used to be the golden egg for every reporter, but they are all but practically nonexistent in MSM now. Primary sources are the most reliable & easily verifiable by far, but MSM is just full of tertiary & secondary sources at best now.
That is the scariest thing because sourcing & citation review is the foundation of informative integrity. That is the difference between reporting & propaganda. Reporters do the work & provide the proof to back it up. Propagandists just throw out claims without providing a clear path for the readers to review & find the evidence.
I noticed they were pretty much totally gone from MSM by the time 2016 rolled around. MSM stopped doing that sometime during the Obama years (Not a coincidence that it was around the same time Obama signed some sort of EO enabling state-funding of propaganda & libel protections for the propagandists).
I don't fully trust any claim that does not have a well-cited primary source. Preferably to academic standard, which includes the date accessed, so you can trace any changes, deletions, retractions, etc., or direct links to original sources. That's another HUGE problem with internet sources--Dating (not the singles kind) & edittability. Great for convenience, but terrible for source tracing. You can publish something & then change it without notice at any time later, enabling untrustworthy people to cover up their tracks almost undetected. Can't do that with books & print, unless you collect & burn all the fucking books like a Nazi. And where there's fire, there's smoke, so good luck doing that unnoticed.
Science has already been heavily politicized, especially anything relayed to psychology, medicine, or environmental science. I only wonder if it's a matter of time before peer-reviewed journals stop requiring citations, too!
(It's already a faulty system, because the peer-review is based on the honor of the reviewer. Reviewers are supposed to read & verify not only the article itself, but read & verify the sources in the citations. Except few actually take the time to do that because there are too many academics competing for tenure trying to get as many papers & citations out as possible. Nobody is there auditing the reviewers to see of they are doing a good job or even keeping a record of the quality of their review. It is just assumed that they do it. This is why we have a replication crisis. Repeating experiments to verify results is the backbone of the scientific method. But nobody is replicating studies like scientists are supposed to. Part of that is because there is no money in it. The other major part is that a lot of scientists aren't even properly reviewing the articles & sources they are supposed to review. Real major problem with science that will inevitably come back to bite the scientific community in the ass. But that's academic arrogance for ya.)
I promise I didn't intend for this to be a rant about information integrity, but you got me thinking about it & then I fell down the rabbit hole, kek.
This is great! So true. When I was in high school I was taught that research for history type papers should be primary sources or as close to primary as possible (forgive me if I botched that, it’s been a long time since I’ve written anything close to a historical analysis but that’s what I remember from many years ago). I find the use of spin the most when people discuss speeches secondhand. Obviously we all know about the difference between what Trump said and what the NYT said he said, but I feel like this happens on Twitter when people comment and it doesn’t seem like they’ve listened, just read replies and formed opinions.
This wasn't a rant. This was actually an amazing analysis on information integrity. I appreciate you for this because the citing standards today on a collegiate term paper for undergrads is a joke, and I low key take advantage of it. One of my biggest beefs as far as information and integrity is who is writing it. I took notice that "reliable sources" cite themselves as the primary source of information, which in hindsight is scary to think about. For instance, reading an article in a journal that references to the author's past work, and you have to sift through bullshit to pin point their original source or data, lets say. I found myself in instances where I questioned how these authors were interpreting the data they were presenting and passing it off as facts.
This was a rant
It wasn’t, but not as recent as you think. You used to get 10 free articles a month maybe 1-2 years ago. Then it swapped to subscription only.
Many won’t let you view at all if you have an ad blocker on.
I didn't know that about ad blockers.
I have noticed that pedes often post links to msm sites that I can't access. For some sites, it's been that way for a while, but it does seem to have increased.
Do you use an ad blocker? The pede above pointed out these sites won't even make it available if you're running one.
Yes, I do. And I know that's part of it, but it's very frustrating because I don't want to disable my adblocker just to read an article on some (usually) lefty web-site. That's why I always appreciate it when the pede posting gives a synopsis of the material.