That is generally the ONLY reason I look into something.
Why?
That is generally the ONLY reason I look into something.
When I view a video on something, I look at the comments first.
Have you ever been to a news studio to SEE how news is made?
Have you ever been to a college or university to learn how investigative journalism is done, edited and published? The best check on this process is grass roots people confirming the authenticty of any story.
Otherwise? It is JUST PROPAGANDA.
Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)
Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/hj/chomskyhermanpropmodel.pdf
Interesting. I honestly have been to Fox News maybe a half dozen times and didn't even know they have comment sections. A few years back, CNN stopped their comment sections and left the political section open. Then that stopped as well. What I did notice leading up to this was a deluge of negative, nasty name calling instead of discussion, give and take. Much like here on USMB.
sites are hit and miss on it. some love it cause - interaction. get a few people bitching at each other and your page views skyrocket. make money. some won't do it cause the constant bitching is a turn off to their intended goal, giving the news. not to say this is what FOX is doing but my guess is they simply don't want the overhead of managing a bunch of internet tough guys on social wars.
i ignore most of those who do nothing BUT call people names. we all get frustrated and vent sure. but there are some where every single post is an insult to someone else. i just don't get being that angry or what someone is trying to prove at that point.
One news site that KNOWS what I say about comments on News is the truth. The Guardian still allows comments, but CENSORS it's comments heavily.
In response, some of the journalists of that source, and it's body of main commenters rebelled, setting up an alternative news source that is now considered more reliable and a check on a once trusted news source. It still tends to be liberal, yet it has some conservative content. IT got it right on the Russia collusion narrative. WHY? Because of grass roots commenting. DUH.
Thus, OffGuardian regularly posts which comments were censored and writes stories that the Guardian got wrong.
Read it's about page.
about
Because they don't want a critique of the journalists facts to be known.
I called the station and told them the next time I see Donna Brazile on their station would be the last time I tuned in.
Who needs your comments on a news article? Fox isn't a message board.
One news site that KNOWS what I say about comments on News is the truth. The Guardian still allows comments, but CENSORS it's comments heavily.
In response, some of the journalists of that source, and it's body of main commenters rebelled, setting up an alternative news source that is now considered more reliable and a check on a once trusted news source. It still tends to be liberal, yet it has some conservative content. IT got it right on the Russia collusion narrative. WHY? Because of grass roots commenting. DUH.
Thus, OffGuardian regularly posts which comments were censored and writes stories that the Guardian got wrong.
Read it's about page.
about
I looked at your link.
David Ray Griffin (griffith) is a featured commentator.
Yup; this boob:
If this is your example of what crowd sourcing produces...it's a pretty shitty example.
