4 ms·

> 95% of these sites are conservative-leaning. That's the story here No. The story there is that hyperpartisan sites are masquerading as local news. That they'

> 95% of these sites are conservative-leaning. That's the story here No. The story there is that hyperpartisan sites are masquerading as local news. That they're mostly from a few conservative companies should be prominently said, but to claim that they're only conservative is obviously incorrect and misleading. I believe the GP just hadn't read the complete article but merely skimmed, saw five conservative companies and understood "it's all conservative sites".

ciarannolan 6y ago
Well, yes, that's a huge part of this story. I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? FTA: >As the map indicates, there are considerably more conservative-leaning sites than liberal-leaning sites. Only 24 of the 445 sites we’ve identified so far are liberal-leaning. It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I think GP was dead-on in their assessment, skimming or not.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? In the comment I replied to: > Why not just say "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news?" As a suggested headline, that would certainly imply they're only conservative. A headline should accurately describe the content. Mentioning that the super majority are conservative would be an improvement, implying that they all are would not be. > It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment?
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    I disagree that "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news" as a title would imply that this phenomena is only a conservative one. I think you're adding the "only" part on your own, in your own reading of it. Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means. I said "A" you said "But it's A. Do you dispute that?" as if I hadn't just literally said A. That's very low, and really not something I'd like to see more of on this site.
      - ciarannolan 6y ago
        >I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment? I would like to see less of whatever this is on this site.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

ciarannolan 6y ago

Well, yes, that's a huge part of this story. I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? FTA: >As the map indicates, there are considerably more conservative-leaning sites than liberal-leaning sites. Only 24 of the 445 sites we’ve identified so far are liberal-leaning. It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I think GP was dead-on in their assessment, skimming or not.

luckylion 6y ago
> I don't see anyone in this thread (or the article) claiming that they're "only conservative", do you? In the comment I replied to: > Why not just say "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news?" As a suggested headline, that would certainly imply they're only conservative. A headline should accurately describe the content. Mentioning that the super majority are conservative would be an improvement, implying that they all are would not be. > It's 95% conservative sites. Do you dispute that? I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment?
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  I disagree that "Hundreds of hyper-conservative sites masquerading as local news" as a title would imply that this phenomena is only a conservative one. I think you're adding the "only" part on your own, in your own reading of it. Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Not really sure what the last part of your comment even means. I said "A" you said "But it's A. Do you dispute that?" as if I hadn't just literally said A. That's very low, and really not something I'd like to see more of on this site.
    - ciarannolan 6y ago
      >I literally quoted the relevant part there, what kind of question is this? Must this site really turn into Twitter? Did you really need a "Ha! Gotcha! Screencapped and Retweeted!!!!!" moment? I would like to see less of whatever this is on this site.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]