Funny you mention NYT [0] and The Guardian [1]. It also happened to Forbes [2] and other sites in the past, such as Yahoo. It has a name [3] because it's more c

Funny you mention NYT [0] and The Guardian [1]. It also happened to Forbes [2] and other sites in the past, such as Yahoo. It has a name [3] because it's more common than it should be. >If you cut out every publisher currently set up as a revenue-based organisation – would you be well informed? I don't believe these publishers accurately inform people most of the time (from either politically biased side). They give an illusion of "being informed" but are you really informed if you only know half the story with countless important details left out for brevity or because the situation is simply too complicated? How accurately do you think any of the places you mentioned cover what is happening in Syria? How many people do you think are actually "informed" about what is going on? Do you think most people are even capable of understanding what is going on from a few sound bytes or even segments on the news? >Is there some non-professional blogger(s) who could have served as a primary source for all the news of the last week? Yes actually, there are. They're just much harder to find. Most news worth knowing comes from a primary source (eg: Snowden) and while media may serve as a microphone to raise awareness - they aren't inventing news. They're sourcing news and hopefully verifying those sources for authenticity. Nowadays, they seem to have a vetting problem and most of their sources are users on Twitter. When the media covers a huge event - they have people who (should) be knowledgeable on the topic discuss the topic. From my experiences, these "professionals" are rarely well informed on the topic and just have a degree in the relevant field and happen to be a contact source for the media body. "Hey, we need a doctor. Find a doctor on our contacts who is willing to speak. I don't care if he's a surgeon and this is neuroscience! Doctor is a doctor!" sort of thing. The worst of the media bodies have their news anchors speak on the topics. I honestly think people would be better informed on topics without mass-media. Because a lack of knowledge, at this point, is often better than pre-existing but incorrect knowledge. Because then they think they are informed when they actually aren't. I think that's more harmful. About your lack of malware - good malware goes undetected. If you've connected to the internet at all, I can nearly guarantee you're part of a botnet at this point. I'm probably part of a botnet at this point and I take steps to protect myself. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/16/major-sites-new-york-times-bbc-ransomware-malvertising https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/16/major-sit... [1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/guardian-article-on-cybercrime-serves-up-malvertising/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/guardian-article-on-cybercrime-... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbes-site-after-begging-you-turn-off-adblocker-serves-up-steaming-pile-malware-ads.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbe... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising