3 ms·

If you bothered to actually read the site, then you'd know that the articles there come from many authors and many sources - some of them even from the so-calle

If you bothered to actually read the site, then you'd know that the articles there come from many authors and many sources - some of them even from the so-called "alarmist" side of things, though the site itself is usually tagged as "denialist". (Hence my balanced comment - they do generally cover stuff from both sides.) Comments from the site's owner and from readers about all of these articles can get quite interesting and heated, though. As an example of crap, a couple of articles were recently posted there about the current Judge Alsup proceedings - articles that were quite clearly incorrect to those of us actually following the proceedings; the reader comments called out this error. I don't know if the authors of those articles ever actually went back and corrected them, but I'm thinking not - which is bad! Also, I have on occasion seen things quoted there which weren't actual quotes, but rather paraphrases (to put it nicely) - which is also bad! For the record, these days the "legitimate" press is sometimes very bad at doing this kind of thing, too, but it seems that they are rarely called out for it.

mikeash 9y ago
A site which misquotes people seems like a really bad source for a bunch of quotes.
- southern_cross 9y ago
  Well, it's actually more of "Don't put quote marks around things which aren't actually quotes, but rather paraphrases" situation - so not necessarily an inaccurate assessment of what was being said, but not an actual quote either. Which is not a good thing at all, but at least they don't just make things up out of whole cloth, as I've seen some other "news" places do. Along those lines, I once saw a place which laid out an imaginary conversation with someone in the public eye (we'll say John Doe) where they "asked questions" and John Doe "gave answers". Then they actually had the gall to lay out a headline with one of the those imaginary answers - in quotes, no less. And then that headline made it into my supposedly legitimate newsfeed. Another time they interviewed someone who was speaking about John Doe, and they said something like (and I'm just making this up because I don't remember the actual context) "Deep down inside John Doe probably thinks that all illegal immigrants should be shot on sight!" And then the headline was 'John Doe: "All illegal immigrants should be shot on sight!"' And once again that headline made it into my newsfeed. Crap like that makes me wonder if there actually any truly legitimate news organizations left around these days.
mturmon 9y ago
I have read the site, and its contents border on ridiculous. The viewpoints are obviously biased toward a desired conclusion. But more importantly, the articles will typically take one plot, image, or paragraph out of context and then build a story around it. The comments are just a bunch of back-slapping.
- southern_cross 9y ago
  I've been reading the site myself on-and-off for several years now, and while it certainly has a particular spin much of the time, an awful lot of what shows up there as critique is just basic common sense. If you can't see that then perhaps you lack common sense yourself - because it seems that "common sense" isn't really so common after all. And certainly not all of the comments "are just a bunch of back-slapping" - in fact things can get quite heated at times. Which you would know if you'd actually read the site in depth and to any great extent. There may have been valid complaints in the past that the site was sloppy and too one-sided. But the tone has changed quite a bit over recent years, in that they now try to keep everything more balanced and in context. For example, they may print large parts of an article while highlighting and commenting on certain portions of it, rather than just presenting a few sentences from it that they think are relevant, with little or no context. They will also try and make sure to point back to original sources whenever they can, and so on. They still get it wrong sometimes, though.

mikeash 9y ago

A site which misquotes people seems like a really bad source for a bunch of quotes.

southern_cross 9y ago
Well, it's actually more of "Don't put quote marks around things which aren't actually quotes, but rather paraphrases" situation - so not necessarily an inaccurate assessment of what was being said, but not an actual quote either. Which is not a good thing at all, but at least they don't just make things up out of whole cloth, as I've seen some other "news" places do. Along those lines, I once saw a place which laid out an imaginary conversation with someone in the public eye (we'll say John Doe) where they "asked questions" and John Doe "gave answers". Then they actually had the gall to lay out a headline with one of the those imaginary answers - in quotes, no less. And then that headline made it into my supposedly legitimate newsfeed. Another time they interviewed someone who was speaking about John Doe, and they said something like (and I'm just making this up because I don't remember the actual context) "Deep down inside John Doe probably thinks that all illegal immigrants should be shot on sight!" And then the headline was 'John Doe: "All illegal immigrants should be shot on sight!"' And once again that headline made it into my newsfeed. Crap like that makes me wonder if there actually any truly legitimate news organizations left around these days.

mturmon 9y ago

I have read the site, and its contents border on ridiculous. The viewpoints are obviously biased toward a desired conclusion. But more importantly, the articles will typically take one plot, image, or paragraph out of context and then build a story around it. The comments are just a bunch of back-slapping.

southern_cross 9y ago
I've been reading the site myself on-and-off for several years now, and while it certainly has a particular spin much of the time, an awful lot of what shows up there as critique is just basic common sense. If you can't see that then perhaps you lack common sense yourself - because it seems that "common sense" isn't really so common after all. And certainly not all of the comments "are just a bunch of back-slapping" - in fact things can get quite heated at times. Which you would know if you'd actually read the site in depth and to any great extent. There may have been valid complaints in the past that the site was sloppy and too one-sided. But the tone has changed quite a bit over recent years, in that they now try to keep everything more balanced and in context. For example, they may print large parts of an article while highlighting and commenting on certain portions of it, rather than just presenting a few sentences from it that they think are relevant, with little or no context. They will also try and make sure to point back to original sources whenever they can, and so on. They still get it wrong sometimes, though.