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.

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 heir 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 on-line 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.

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 heir 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 on-line 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 cam trace any changes, deletions, retractions, etd.) or direct links to original sources.

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.

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 heir 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 on-line citations. Like a professional scientific journal. Like what your high school English teacher (if they were a good one) made you do for all your essays. (The really good ones also teach what primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are.) Even more alarming is how access & reportimg 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 cam trace any changes, deletions, retractions, etd.) or direct links to original sources.

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.

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 heir 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, articles used to provide academic-standard, fully cited sources at the bottom with all the information needed to trace back to the original source. Like a professional scientific journal. Like what your high school English teacher (if they were a good one) made you do for all your essays. (The really good ones also teach what primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are.) Even more alarming is how access & reportimg 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 cam trace any changes, deletions, retractions, etd.) or direct links to original sources.

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.