3 ms·

I spot checked a few of these and question the legitimacy of whatever method they are using to select these sites. For example, the one nearest me (Austin) stat

I spot checked a few of these and question the legitimacy of whatever method they are using to select these sites. For example, the one nearest me (Austin) states clearly on its landing page: Our mission is to build a first-of-its kind media ecosystem in Texas to help get the progressive message out – to give Democrats a media signal. This is not a partisan site "masquarading as local news". It's a partisan site openly stating that it is partisan. It doesn't pretend to be local news. For another nearby one, I'm struggling to figure out why it is "hyperpartisan": https://coloradovalleyguide.com/stories https://coloradovalleyguide.com/stories I'm sure that many of the sites fit the "hyperpartisan masquerading as local news" description, but whatever method they are using to classify seems fairly inaccurate.

personjerry 6y ago
Hundreds of unvetted studies with questionable data are masquerading as sensational news
II2II 6y ago
It looks like they are using affiliation as one measure. From the article: > we’ve mapped the locations of more than 400 partisan media outlets — often funded and operated by government officials, political candidates, PACs, and political party operatives The Colorado Valley Guide links to LocalLabs in its footer. Not that we should trust the Wikipedia on anything political, but the article on LocalLabs redirects to Brian Timpone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Timpone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Timpone Further searches on Brian Timpone are strongly suggestive of his political affiliation and that it is managed at a national level. The Texas Signal is a different situation altogether. If my poking around is reliable, it may actually be a local news site that just happens to be open about its partisanship. I'm not going to go into the details since this poking around involved looking up registrar records (the records are public, but that doesn't imply the domain's owner is a public figure), yet at least one of the people involved appears to be politically active at the local and state level. It is easy to see how a Democrat would use this as a local news source if they are surrounded by partisan Republican news sources.
sebbecai 6y ago
What makes these sites "hyperpartisan" is that they are directly funded by candidates or PACs that support them. My read: it's in their interest to seem balanced until the moment that it matters--when covering candidates or policy.
- altcognito 6y ago
  This is the answer in addition to the stories being more subtle in many cases than implied by the term "Hyper-partisan". While "subtle" seems to imply less damaging to the political system, much like many people complain the media lies as being a large issue, this is pretty much the same thing except with a super PAC behind it. Someone else brought up Facebook -- that's the other thing -- these sites are typically linked or used as sources during election season. I think the amount of sway these sites has is small, but moderately effective. In a day and age where 70k votes can swing an election in a country of millions, it is just one of many tools in the bucket of lobbyists and political parties.

personjerry 6y ago

Hundreds of unvetted studies with questionable data are masquerading as sensational news

II2II 6y ago

It looks like they are using affiliation as one measure. From the article: > we’ve mapped the locations of more than 400 partisan media outlets — often funded and operated by government officials, political candidates, PACs, and political party operatives The Colorado Valley Guide links to LocalLabs in its footer. Not that we should trust the Wikipedia on anything political, but the article on LocalLabs redirects to Brian Timpone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Timpone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Timpone Further searches on Brian Timpone are strongly suggestive of his political affiliation and that it is managed at a national level. The Texas Signal is a different situation altogether. If my poking around is reliable, it may actually be a local news site that just happens to be open about its partisanship. I'm not going to go into the details since this poking around involved looking up registrar records (the records are public, but that doesn't imply the domain's owner is a public figure), yet at least one of the people involved appears to be politically active at the local and state level. It is easy to see how a Democrat would use this as a local news source if they are surrounded by partisan Republican news sources.

sebbecai 6y ago

What makes these sites "hyperpartisan" is that they are directly funded by candidates or PACs that support them. My read: it's in their interest to seem balanced until the moment that it matters--when covering candidates or policy.

altcognito 6y ago
This is the answer in addition to the stories being more subtle in many cases than implied by the term "Hyper-partisan". While "subtle" seems to imply less damaging to the political system, much like many people complain the media lies as being a large issue, this is pretty much the same thing except with a super PAC behind it. Someone else brought up Facebook -- that's the other thing -- these sites are typically linked or used as sources during election season. I think the amount of sway these sites has is small, but moderately effective. In a day and age where 70k votes can swing an election in a country of millions, it is just one of many tools in the bucket of lobbyists and political parties.