3 ms·

The reason they're called hyperpartisan > often funded and operated by government officials, political candidates, PACs, and political party operatives They c

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.

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.