3 ms·

> hyperpartisan sites are masquerading as local news. > while left-leaning sites prioritize statewide reporting, right-leaning sites are more focused on local

• cryptoz 6y ago
  The article suggests the likelihood that the writers of the content are lying about who they are and in fact are not in the local environment they are 'reporting on'. Is it really local news if the writers are lying about their identity and they are not located anywhere near the news location?
  • smsm42 6y ago
    I don't see any facts in the article that support that. The closest they have is that one of the people founding some of the networks also had a business where he employed overseas freelance journalists. I have looked at four sites in their map that are in my neighborhood, one was dead, others contained pretty standard boring local news. No sign of nefarious hyperpartisans masquerading as anything. I didn't analyze all the articles, so maybe they are biased, but not exactly uncommon in news business nowdays. They also make no claim about the location of their writers (and why would I care?) and disclose their affiliations. I could not see any "lying" involved.
• ianleeclark 6y ago
  The reason they're called hyperpartisan > often funded and operated by government officials, political candidates, PACs, and political party operatives They call it masquerading due to > We suspect many of the local sites are not based in or actually operating within the communities they serve. Timpone had previously operated “local” news sites using content produced by writers based in the Philippines and using fake bylines Draw your own conclusions, but please read past the summary.
  • smsm42 6y ago
    I did read past the summary, and I did draw the conclusion that the only evidence they have is what you quoted - that one of the persons involved also operated an overseas freelance journalist network. Even if it were true - for which there's zero evidence so far - that would only mean the writers of the sites aren't located in the places they are writing about. I don't see any reason to present it as nefarious "masquerading" - you can write about state court cases in Sacramento without living next door to the court. If they still report local news, there's no reason to call them "masquerading". As for scary "hyperpartisan", what I see is that some right-leaning organizations (and some left-leaning ones) own some news sites. There's not even evidence that it influences the editorial policy in any way (that very well may happen, but the authors don't even bother to provide any evidence), let alone so much that it warrants the "hyper" designation. Also, conflating "funded by" and "operated" adds another level of confusion. If I pay for NYT subscription, it's "funded by" me now. Does it mean I determine NYT editorial policy? Obviously, it is important to see the structure of the funding, and small one-time donation is not the same as whole ownership and operation, and the ownership of right-leaning think tank (e.g. Cato Institute) is not the same as ownership by a political candidate. It comes out as if any news ite owned by someone who has publicized political views is now "hyperpartisan". So my conclusion is sensationalism based on thinnest of evidence and a lot of murky innuendo.
• dhosek 6y ago
  I encountered one of these sites through Facebook advertising. The "reporting" was heavily biased. I just clicked through to their site now. The first article has the headline, "Cook county resident calls Casten 'opportunistic boob'" and a byline of T. H. Lawrence. The reporting is entirely quotes from this alleged 64-year-old "Cook County resident" alongside partisan critiques of Casten and positive accounts of Casten's Republican challenger.