5 ms·

tl;dr: /r/news considers the piece an opinion piece and they don't allow those. And here's the last paragraph of The Incerpt aticle that makes clear it's opini

by jere 13y ago

tl;dr: /r/news considers the piece an opinion piece and they don't allow those. And here's the last paragraph of The Incerpt aticle that makes clear it's opinion: >Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Phlarp 13y ago
This feels too convenient. And maybe just a little bit ironic given the subject matter?
- jere 13y ago
  If you've ever used reddit, you'll have noticed that subreddits have pretty strict rules that are clearly and prominently displayed and they offer alternatives subs if your content doesn't fit. I'd hardly call any of this convenient. It's simply the way reddit filters content. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/wiki/rules http://www.reddit.com/r/news/wiki/rules
  - siegecraft 13y ago
    And if you've ever REALLY used reddit, you'll know that mods are often paid by outside parties to influence their sub-reddits, or in some cases those mods ARE the outside parties and use their subreddit to divert traffic to their sites and away from competitors.
  - makomk 13y ago
    If you've ever paid attention to Reddit, you'll have noticed that the way in which subreddit rules are enforced is neither unbiased nor clear.
makomk 13y ago
That's certainly /r/news' justification, but their argument doesn't wash. It's no more opinion than any other piece of investigative reporting - they all tell a particular story through the facts they select, how they describe the issue, and the conclusion they draw.
- larrik 13y ago
  But IS investigative reporting "news"? Traditionally they've been bundled together, and there is undoubtedly overlap (depending on the piece), but at their core they could be considered quite different.
  - api 13y ago
    If you exclude investigative reporting from "news," then that means that the veracity of news is predicated on perfect trust in institutions. You must assume that all the pronouncements and press releases of governments, corporations, and interest groups are completely honest and accurate.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
      Or to maybe put it even more bluntly: If you don't consider investigative reporting to be news, then "news" becomes a synonym for what we would generally call "propaganda".
    - Semiapies 13y ago
      Which the beloved "objective" news does, uncritically rewriting press releases and cheerfully transcribing whatever spin government figures like to give under cover of anonymity. Because, and let's be blunt, "objective" news is what partisans call reporting about politicians they like that doesn't make them uncomfortable.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > But IS investigative reporting "news"? Yes, absolutely. "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." - George Orwell.
asgard1024 13y ago
Although I disagree with the premise that news shouldn't contain any opinion (because it's not always black and white, especially since the article in question contains original reporting), I would play a devil's advocate and argue that this isn't an opinion. The sentence states that this cannot be justified by the government, which may be a fact. Or do you know of any justification? We could maybe even prove that this contradicts freedom of speech, and therefore cannot be justified. (What I am trying to show here is that you can, to some extent, make an opinion into a fact and vice versa.)
- raldi 13y ago
  > I disagree with the premise that news shouldn't contain any opinion Nobody's asserting that premise. The question is whether /r/news should contain opinion.
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    That is the right question. And, I think at this point, it's become abundantly clear that default subreddits should not be "randomly" moderated. Policy (written by Reddit staff) should be set for moderators to follow. When you have a website that gets visited by more than a hundred million users, this just won't do. Why are a few handful of anonymous random users dictating what is seen and not seen by millions and millions as "news? That makes no sense, something has to change. There is something quite different about "news"... from, say, "biking". Most subreddits can stay as-is, but r/news and other subreddits would probably do better with officially picked staff.
    - raldi 13y ago
      The admins (disclaimerbrag: I used to be one) prefer to exercise control one level up: by deciding which subreddits to put in the default set. So the moderators have near-absolute domain over their subreddit, but only the ones who do a good job get featured on the default front page. That restores the proper incentives and controls to the system while maximizing free speech and experimentation.
- 13y ago
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>tl;dr: /r/news considers the piece an opinion piece and they don't allow those. Except they do allow them and apply this rule(s) at their whim. The next excuse that's trotted out is that reddit isn't a democracy moderators can do that if they want to. Go make your own subreddit if you don't like it, etc. Fine, what a shitty way to run a default subreddit. (little transparency, little accountability, etc.) >And here's the last paragraph of The Incerpt aticle that makes clear it's opinion: So what, you can find the same in a good portion of the content that remains on /r/news etc. The article is not an Op Ed, but if you like, read all but the last two paragraphs. Furthermore, the Intercept article[1] was rewritten[2] by other journalists to exclude "editorialized content" and also subsequently moderated. Missing from much of the discussion on this is the irony that the story in question exposes gov't operations whose task is ongoing infiltration and manipulation of the media. Even if you're happy to defer to the mods' interpretations that the articles written to date regarding this particular news story are appropriately moderated; you must then concede that the rules are inappropriate if they manage to effectively exclude such a timely and appropriate news story. [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... [2] http://www.examiner.com/article/snowden-government-infiltrates-websites-uses-social-media-to-deceive-destroy http://www.examiner.com/article/snowden-government-infiltrat...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by jere 13y ago

Phlarp 13y ago

This feels too convenient. And maybe just a little bit ironic given the subject matter?

jere 13y ago
If you've ever used reddit, you'll have noticed that subreddits have pretty strict rules that are clearly and prominently displayed and they offer alternatives subs if your content doesn't fit. I'd hardly call any of this convenient. It's simply the way reddit filters content. http://www.reddit.com/r/news/wiki/rules http://www.reddit.com/r/news/wiki/rules
- siegecraft 13y ago
  And if you've ever REALLY used reddit, you'll know that mods are often paid by outside parties to influence their sub-reddits, or in some cases those mods ARE the outside parties and use their subreddit to divert traffic to their sites and away from competitors.
- makomk 13y ago
  If you've ever paid attention to Reddit, you'll have noticed that the way in which subreddit rules are enforced is neither unbiased nor clear.

makomk 13y ago

That's certainly /r/news' justification, but their argument doesn't wash. It's no more opinion than any other piece of investigative reporting - they all tell a particular story through the facts they select, how they describe the issue, and the conclusion they draw.

larrik 13y ago
But IS investigative reporting "news"? Traditionally they've been bundled together, and there is undoubtedly overlap (depending on the piece), but at their core they could be considered quite different.
- api 13y ago
  If you exclude investigative reporting from "news," then that means that the veracity of news is predicated on perfect trust in institutions. You must assume that all the pronouncements and press releases of governments, corporations, and interest groups are completely honest and accurate.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 13y ago
    Or to maybe put it even more bluntly: If you don't consider investigative reporting to be news, then "news" becomes a synonym for what we would generally call "propaganda".
  - Semiapies 13y ago
    Which the beloved "objective" news does, uncritically rewriting press releases and cheerfully transcribing whatever spin government figures like to give under cover of anonymity. Because, and let's be blunt, "objective" news is what partisans call reporting about politicians they like that doesn't make them uncomfortable.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > But IS investigative reporting "news"? Yes, absolutely. "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations." - George Orwell.

asgard1024 13y ago

Although I disagree with the premise that news shouldn't contain any opinion (because it's not always black and white, especially since the article in question contains original reporting), I would play a devil's advocate and argue that this isn't an opinion. The sentence states that this cannot be justified by the government, which may be a fact. Or do you know of any justification? We could maybe even prove that this contradicts freedom of speech, and therefore cannot be justified. (What I am trying to show here is that you can, to some extent, make an opinion into a fact and vice versa.)

raldi 13y ago
> I disagree with the premise that news shouldn't contain any opinion Nobody's asserting that premise. The question is whether /r/news should contain opinion.
- selmnoo 13y ago
  That is the right question. And, I think at this point, it's become abundantly clear that default subreddits should not be "randomly" moderated. Policy (written by Reddit staff) should be set for moderators to follow. When you have a website that gets visited by more than a hundred million users, this just won't do. Why are a few handful of anonymous random users dictating what is seen and not seen by millions and millions as "news? That makes no sense, something has to change. There is something quite different about "news"... from, say, "biking". Most subreddits can stay as-is, but r/news and other subreddits would probably do better with officially picked staff.
  - raldi 13y ago
    The admins (disclaimerbrag: I used to be one) prefer to exercise control one level up: by deciding which subreddits to put in the default set. So the moderators have near-absolute domain over their subreddit, but only the ones who do a good job get featured on the default front page. That restores the proper incentives and controls to the system while maximizing free speech and experimentation.
13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>tl;dr: /r/news considers the piece an opinion piece and they don't allow those. Except they do allow them and apply this rule(s) at their whim. The next excuse that's trotted out is that reddit isn't a democracy moderators can do that if they want to. Go make your own subreddit if you don't like it, etc. Fine, what a shitty way to run a default subreddit. (little transparency, little accountability, etc.) >And here's the last paragraph of The Incerpt aticle that makes clear it's opinion: So what, you can find the same in a good portion of the content that remains on /r/news etc. The article is not an Op Ed, but if you like, read all but the last two paragraphs. Furthermore, the Intercept article[1] was rewritten[2] by other journalists to exclude "editorialized content" and also subsequently moderated. Missing from much of the discussion on this is the irony that the story in question exposes gov't operations whose task is ongoing infiltration and manipulation of the media. Even if you're happy to defer to the mods' interpretations that the articles written to date regarding this particular news story are appropriately moderated; you must then concede that the rules are inappropriate if they manage to effectively exclude such a timely and appropriate news story. [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula... [2] http://www.examiner.com/article/snowden-government-infiltrates-websites-uses-social-media-to-deceive-destroy http://www.examiner.com/article/snowden-government-infiltrat...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]