5 ms·
This article is nothing more than blog spam. Yeah, it provides a link back to the original post, but that's about it. Even most of the images are lifted.
by kitsune_ 14y ago
This article is nothing more than blog spam. Yeah, it provides a link back to the original post, but that's about it. Even most of the images are lifted.
- arrrg 14y agoNothing was lifted. The article was published on a different website with a larger audience. (That’s how people found it and posted it here, so don’t you dare question the value of republishing something.) I assume that NPR asked the author for permission to republish. Why are HN readers trying so hard to be assholes about stuff like this?
- 001sky 14y agoso don’t you dare question...XYZ -- This is not really needed. the tone is ~petulant.
- iy56 14y agoIf everyone only submits the original article to HN, all discussion is consolidated into one thread. If ten people each submit a different republication of the same article, discussion is fragmented. It's not a value judgment, it just makes using the site easier.
- dbaupp 14y agoThe original article being: http://deepseanews.com/2012/06/how-presidential-elections-are-impacted-by-a-100-million-year-old-coastline/ http://deepseanews.com/2012/06/how-presidential-elections-ar...
- 001sky 14y agoTitle: How presidential elections are impacted by a 100 million year old coastline -- Much better title.
- jofo25 14y agoI think its quite cool. I had no idea this blue band in the south existed. The history behind the fertile land and slavery migration I found particularly interesting. It does make an unwritten assumption that more black people = more democrat votes. But I guess that is probably a fair assumption to make.
- brudgers 14y agoIn recent US politics, it is a fair assumption. More than fifty years ago, it was not. Historically, the Republicans were "the party of Lincoln" and the Democrats were the party of the segregated South(1). One might attribute the beginning of the polar reversal to Truman's integration of the military services, but by the time of the Kennedy administration sent paratrooper's to Oxford the seeds from which the Dixiecrats grew were clearly sown. (1) The popular image of a segregated South is of course correct, but segregation was a national policy (e.g. the military). It enjoyed popularity in the North as well (e.g. at the time Jackie Robinson came to the Dodgers there were no Major League teams in the former Confederacy and the only Southern city with a team was Washington D.C. Despite not being subject to any state law and home to the Federal government, it was a bastion of Jim Crow.
- homosaur 14y agoHaving lived in the North for most of my life (or at least above the Mason-Dixon) and having lived an extensive stint in the South, nowadays the Northern cities seem far more segregated. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that there was not forced integration there in the 60's. Look at a city like Chicago or New York where some of the largest population areas are almost entirely black. Check out Kozol's book Savage Inequalities, it's pretty shocking if you didn't grow up in a large northern city. If you did, then well, you know all about what I'm talking about. There's a lot of elitism from the Northern states still about how they are so progressive but I saw way less racial hostility and more interracial interaction on a daily basis in New Orleans or Atlanta than I do in cities like Chicago or even Saint Louis, a lower midwest town where you can cut the racial tension with a knife.
- 14y ago
- mattdeboard 14y ago"blog spam" aka packaging and reporting a story from elsewhere, a basic part of journalism. People around here really try too hard to be indignant.
- mkr-hn 14y agoI don't think people realize how common a practice it is for one site to ask another for permission to republish an article. I would happily accept a republishing request from NPR.
- weinzierl 14y agoAre you the author of the original article? I found it not only highly interesting but also very well written. I'm sorry I didn't realize the link I posted wasn't the original. I totally did miss the link back to the original in the footer and (unfortunately) I guess most other people will.
- mkr-hn 14y agoI'm not the original author. And in my experience, that link at the bottom will send plenty of people back to the original who otherwise never would have heard of the blog.
- smacktoward 14y agoA part which made more sense in the days when you could only read your local newspaper, so you didn't have easy access to the original story. When the original story is just a click away, a repackager only adds value if he/she expands on the original in some material way -- coming at the story from a different perspective, say, or adding facts or background information that were not present in the original. This post does none of that. It's a straight-up rewrite of the original, with no new contributions to the story. It makes the same points and even uses the same illustrations as the original. It does cite the original and link to it, but there's nothing in the new piece that would make it a more authoritative version of the story than the old one. I generally don't oppose people posting links to blogs, but in this case it really does seem like sending people straight to the original post would have been the classier thing to do.
- curiousdannii 14y agoIt's also at least the third submission of the article.
- weinzierl 14y agoGood catch, I'm sorry I missed the link to the original in the footer. I guess it isn't possible to change a link after it has been posted?
- xefer 14y agoIt is very interesting, but it comes up every election cycle now: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Research/Elec2000/GeolElec2000.HTM http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Research/Elec2000/GeolElec2000.HT...
- Karunamon 14y agoNPR is blog spam now!?