politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Nah, this article cites and discusses multiple different sources and has some original comments Benen obtained
Plus you've gotta admit NYT is entitled establishment trash that get news stories dumped in their laps and fuck them up anyway half the time
Links are not primary sources, there are no primary sources in this article, as opposed to Thrush's. Every link in there besides nyt goes to a msnow article that does the exact same thing as this article: just summarize somebody else's news gathering. If NYT is a hack, msnow is the hack's hack. I actually do agree with you that nyt is trash, but that's not the point, the point is that a lot of articles in this community are just copping stories from journalists that actually do the work. And every click on msnow is another death blow for some aspiring journalist that won't be able to find a job.
Links are perfectly fine sources, better than primary ones in some ways because the reader can evaluate the author's use of that citation with full context instead of having to take it on faith that someone else's quote is being reported accurately and with context
Researching organizing and presenting multiple sources for readers and synthesizing those sources into a meta story that can cover a bigger time frame or offer additional context to breaking news is a valuable part of the journalistic ecosystem
Well, this is completely backwards, but at least you care about the right things.
First of all, MS Now linking to other people's articles is the only way a lot of readers will ever find out about those other articles and publications in the first place. Like, seriously, the idea of a reporter or editor feeling aggrieved because someone else shared their work is nuts.
Second of all, MS Now hires and employs journalists. Even if you think they're a bottom feeding outfit, some great journalist might start their career their with a summer internship or something. Bottom line is there's no way in which MS Now getting purity tested out of existence makes things better for journalists or the people who read them.
The idea that primary sources are less valuable is insane. What do you mean you can't trust it? All secondary and tertiary sources build off of primary sources. How can a link to a primary source be more trustworthy than the actual source?