Government Wants to Redefine Freedom of the Press
- Thread starter bmulligan
- Start date
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
LOL Washington Times.
I'm sure there's an issue somewhere here, but it's hard to define under all the rhetoric, hysteria, and propaganda.
I'm sure there's an issue somewhere here, but it's hard to define under all the rhetoric, hysteria, and propaganda.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Where do you get your news from?[/QUOTE]
Multiple sources.
As far as mainstream newspapers go, I generally prefer reading Washington Post and WSJ.
Multiple sources.
As far as mainstream newspapers go, I generally prefer reading Washington Post and WSJ.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
Seems to me that they want to tax the news aggregators to help support the normal mainstream newspapers. While I don't necessarily think that it's the government trying to take over, it seems that the mainstream papers are trying to get people to read print newspapers instead of using new technologies, which is still stupid, but not quite what you're trying to say. Seems to be a money issue to me.
Rex_Banner
Banned
Where headed towards absolute tyranny. Just watch.
[quote name='camoor']Multiple sources.
As far as mainstream newspapers go, I generally prefer reading Washington Post and WSJ.[/QUOTE]
For me it's currently mainly Washington Post, New York Times and Politico.com, with the Atlanta Journal Constitution for local news. Also listen to the podcasts of Meet the Press.
Had a Newsweek subscription last year, but I let it lapse as I just didn't have time for a weekly magazine anymore, even though I did like it.
As far as mainstream newspapers go, I generally prefer reading Washington Post and WSJ.[/QUOTE]
For me it's currently mainly Washington Post, New York Times and Politico.com, with the Atlanta Journal Constitution for local news. Also listen to the podcasts of Meet the Press.
Had a Newsweek subscription last year, but I let it lapse as I just didn't have time for a weekly magazine anymore, even though I did like it.
[quote name='docvinh']Seems to me that they want to tax the news aggregators to help support the normal mainstream newspapers. While I don't necessarily think that it's the government trying to take over, it seems that the mainstream papers are trying to get people to read print newspapers instead of using new technologies, which is still stupid, but not quite what you're trying to say. Seems to be a money issue to me.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that newspapers and magazines have been giving away their content for free online for years and it's gotten tougher for sites to get by on Ad revenue these days--especially a newspaper that has to pay reporters, editors etc.
And by giving the content away for years, people won't pay for access to the website, or e-versions on their Kindle's etc. in great numbers, as they're used to getting it for free. And if not that content, there are numerous blogs etc. with the same info for free--maybe not as well written. But at the end of the day people just wan the info. So they've kind of dug their own graves.
The problem is that newspapers and magazines have been giving away their content for free online for years and it's gotten tougher for sites to get by on Ad revenue these days--especially a newspaper that has to pay reporters, editors etc.
And by giving the content away for years, people won't pay for access to the website, or e-versions on their Kindle's etc. in great numbers, as they're used to getting it for free. And if not that content, there are numerous blogs etc. with the same info for free--maybe not as well written. But at the end of the day people just wan the info. So they've kind of dug their own graves.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
None other then the Washington Post to the rescue:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fe...vernment_pushing_a_dr.html?hpid=news-col-blog
So if I have a website, and all I do is to immediately republish stories from the Washington Post, NYT, or WSJ verbatim in a crass effort to drive ad revenue without paying the author/owner of those articles a dime, I guess in bmulligan world it is a violation of freedom of the press to even look into the question of whether this is a fair business practice.
I suppose that kid in college who gets an F for turning in a term paper that was simply downloaded from wikipedia is having his free speech violated too.
Like I said, there is an issue here, you just have to cut through all of Washington Times and Bmulligan's bullshit to find it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fe...vernment_pushing_a_dr.html?hpid=news-col-blog
So if I have a website, and all I do is to immediately republish stories from the Washington Post, NYT, or WSJ verbatim in a crass effort to drive ad revenue without paying the author/owner of those articles a dime, I guess in bmulligan world it is a violation of freedom of the press to even look into the question of whether this is a fair business practice.
I suppose that kid in college who gets an F for turning in a term paper that was simply downloaded from wikipedia is having his free speech violated too.
Like I said, there is an issue here, you just have to cut through all of Washington Times and Bmulligan's bullshit to find it.
I'm with you on that Camoor.
I've always hated the blog sites that do little but post summaries of articles to other sites with links to the full article.
They're making add money by regurgitating other people's work. I don't know if a tax is the way to go though. I'd be more for tougher copyright laws that could hit such sites, come down harder on people pirating copyrighted material etc.
I've always hated the blog sites that do little but post summaries of articles to other sites with links to the full article.
They're making add money by regurgitating other people's work. I don't know if a tax is the way to go though. I'd be more for tougher copyright laws that could hit such sites, come down harder on people pirating copyrighted material etc.
Chuplayer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm with you on that Camoor.
I've always hated the blog sites that do little but post summaries of articles to other sites with links to the full article.
They're making add money by regurgitating other people's work.[/QUOTE]
That actually sounds a lot like those papers we used to write in school. Remember citations? And remember how your teachers told you "remember, in the future, other people will be citing your work"?
We learned this in school, folks.
I've always hated the blog sites that do little but post summaries of articles to other sites with links to the full article.
They're making add money by regurgitating other people's work.[/QUOTE]
That actually sounds a lot like those papers we used to write in school. Remember citations? And remember how your teachers told you "remember, in the future, other people will be citing your work"?
We learned this in school, folks.
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm with you on that Camoor.
I've always hated the blog sites that do little but post summaries of articles to other sites with links to the full article.
They're making add money by regurgitating other people's work. I don't know if a tax is the way to go though. I'd be more for tougher copyright laws that could hit such sites, come down harder on people pirating copyrighted material etc.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that basically what digg does? They're just giant link sites with comment boxes.
Citing sources isn't the same things, unles you're an expert yourself, all you can do is cite the work of others. Plus it isn't stealing because citing it gives them credit. Sites that do nothing but post others work do it because they produce no content themselves and are basicllay giant repositories of articles. I guess you could argue they're providing a service by making things easier to find.
I've always hated the blog sites that do little but post summaries of articles to other sites with links to the full article.
They're making add money by regurgitating other people's work. I don't know if a tax is the way to go though. I'd be more for tougher copyright laws that could hit such sites, come down harder on people pirating copyrighted material etc.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that basically what digg does? They're just giant link sites with comment boxes.
Citing sources isn't the same things, unles you're an expert yourself, all you can do is cite the work of others. Plus it isn't stealing because citing it gives them credit. Sites that do nothing but post others work do it because they produce no content themselves and are basicllay giant repositories of articles. I guess you could argue they're providing a service by making things easier to find.
Exactly. A lot of these sites aren't writing a parphrase of the article--they're just posting part of it with a link to the full story, and adding little to nothing of their own.
It's not like citations. I'm a professor, I write articles all the time--the majority of them is my own work, the citations are just brief paraphrases of the existing work I'm adding to and/or challenging etc. in my research.
That's how citations are meant to work. Not to just post a full version of someone else's work, cite it with a link to the original, and then make ad money by posting it on your site. And I think there's little doubt that such sites cut down on the readership/add views of newspapers, magazines etc. as people rely on these blog sites instead of going to the newspaper sites themselves etc. So that's the real issue here--newspapers, magazines etc. are losing money as people are just reading blurbs of their content on other sites.
I just loathe these sites--too many people are just too
ing lazy to read newspapers and magazines (even web versions) anymore and just rely on other people with their own biased interests to aggregate news for them so they can just skim short blurbs.
It's why the discourse in forums like this one is generally not worth reading. Everyone has super strong opinions on everything, but very few put in any effort into being informed and giving anyone a reason to give a crap about those opinions.
It's not like citations. I'm a professor, I write articles all the time--the majority of them is my own work, the citations are just brief paraphrases of the existing work I'm adding to and/or challenging etc. in my research.
That's how citations are meant to work. Not to just post a full version of someone else's work, cite it with a link to the original, and then make ad money by posting it on your site. And I think there's little doubt that such sites cut down on the readership/add views of newspapers, magazines etc. as people rely on these blog sites instead of going to the newspaper sites themselves etc. So that's the real issue here--newspapers, magazines etc. are losing money as people are just reading blurbs of their content on other sites.
I just loathe these sites--too many people are just too
ing lazy to read newspapers and magazines (even web versions) anymore and just rely on other people with their own biased interests to aggregate news for them so they can just skim short blurbs.It's why the discourse in forums like this one is generally not worth reading. Everyone has super strong opinions on everything, but very few put in any effort into being informed and giving anyone a reason to give a crap about those opinions.
News from wire services though is basically meant to be reposted and reported on though, isn't it? Articles from the AP, Reuters etc. usually gets picked up and reported on even by other news organizations. I usually skim yahoo's front page for articles and they're mostly from the AP.
[quote name='Clak']News from wire services though is basically meant to be reposted and reported on though, isn't it? Articles from the AP, Reuters etc. usually gets picked up and reported on even by other news organizations. I usually skim yahoo's front page for articles and they're mostly from the AP.[/QUOTE]
The wire services are fine--but sites, newspapers etc. have to pay the AP, Reuters etc. a subscription fee for access to them and rights to use their stories, pictures etc. in their publications. I assume aggregate sites have to as well to legitimately post those stories.
The problem is sites that post parts of actual say NY Times articles written by their reporters or freelancers with links. As it kills the incentive for people to actual to to NY Times.com when they can just see the "best" articles on the blog sites. Thus the newspaper sites lose page views and ad revenue.
The wire services are fine--but sites, newspapers etc. have to pay the AP, Reuters etc. a subscription fee for access to them and rights to use their stories, pictures etc. in their publications. I assume aggregate sites have to as well to legitimately post those stories.
The problem is sites that post parts of actual say NY Times articles written by their reporters or freelancers with links. As it kills the incentive for people to actual to to NY Times.com when they can just see the "best" articles on the blog sites. Thus the newspaper sites lose page views and ad revenue.
Last edited by a moderator:
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
I thought they've been doing that since I don't know, those wonderful eight years.
[quote name='phantasyx']I think they should just let newspapers die out, then websites will have to hire there own reporters and stuff and we can bring on a new digital media age.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that it's hard for websites to make enough add money to pay a full staff of reporters and editors etc.
If we get to the point that people are no longer willing to pay to stay informed, we're going to see a pretty big drop in the quality of reporting, quality of writing in our news reports etc.
But I think that's just inevitable. We have generations raised on the internet, facebook, twitter, text messaging etc. that are used to just getting all their info in short blurbs rather than reading long articles and really putting effort into staying informed etc.
But again, that's just me being a grumpy old man with a journalism degree and just not being all ingrained in the new media like the younger crowd. I use it, but only as a supplement to traditional media.
The problem is that it's hard for websites to make enough add money to pay a full staff of reporters and editors etc.
If we get to the point that people are no longer willing to pay to stay informed, we're going to see a pretty big drop in the quality of reporting, quality of writing in our news reports etc.
But I think that's just inevitable. We have generations raised on the internet, facebook, twitter, text messaging etc. that are used to just getting all their info in short blurbs rather than reading long articles and really putting effort into staying informed etc.
But again, that's just me being a grumpy old man with a journalism degree and just not being all ingrained in the new media like the younger crowd. I use it, but only as a supplement to traditional media.
xxDOYLExx
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is that it's hard for websites to make enough add money to pay a full staff of reporters and editors etc.
If we get to the point that people are no longer willing to pay to stay informed, we're going to see a pretty big drop in the quality of reporting, quality of writing in our news reports etc.
But I think that's just inevitable. We have generations raised on the internet, facebook, twitter, text messaging etc. that are used to just getting all their info in short blurbs rather than reading long articles and really putting effort into staying informed etc.
But again, that's just me being a grumpy old man with a journalism degree and just not being all ingrained in the new media like the younger crowd. I use it, but only as a supplement to traditional media.[/QUOTE]
How long before the 24/7 news service backlash? Do you think responsible news outlets can wait it out?
If we get to the point that people are no longer willing to pay to stay informed, we're going to see a pretty big drop in the quality of reporting, quality of writing in our news reports etc.
But I think that's just inevitable. We have generations raised on the internet, facebook, twitter, text messaging etc. that are used to just getting all their info in short blurbs rather than reading long articles and really putting effort into staying informed etc.
But again, that's just me being a grumpy old man with a journalism degree and just not being all ingrained in the new media like the younger crowd. I use it, but only as a supplement to traditional media.[/QUOTE]
How long before the 24/7 news service backlash? Do you think responsible news outlets can wait it out?
IAmTheCheapestGamer
Banned
I get all my important news of the day from TheOnion.com and the very edumacated gentleman known as Jon Stewart, so who needs a stinkin' newspaper.
Last edited by a moderator:
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is that it's hard for websites to make enough add money to pay a full staff of reporters and editors etc.
If we get to the point that people are no longer willing to pay to stay informed, we're going to see a pretty big drop in the quality of reporting, quality of writing in our news reports etc.
But I think that's just inevitable. We have generations raised on the internet, facebook, twitter, text messaging etc. that are used to just getting all their info in short blurbs rather than reading long articles and really putting effort into staying informed etc.
But again, that's just me being a grumpy old man with a journalism degree and just not being all ingrained in the new media like the younger crowd. I use it, but only as a supplement to traditional media.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't pretend to know how much it would cost to run a newspaper business, but you could probably cut out some of the fluff that is in traditional newspapers to keep costs down. I personally like reading on the internet, but I still read the NY Times online, and would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to keep it. I did for a while when they were charging to read the editorials. I dunno, newspapers just need to figure out a way to adapt to the changes that are going on.
If we get to the point that people are no longer willing to pay to stay informed, we're going to see a pretty big drop in the quality of reporting, quality of writing in our news reports etc.
But I think that's just inevitable. We have generations raised on the internet, facebook, twitter, text messaging etc. that are used to just getting all their info in short blurbs rather than reading long articles and really putting effort into staying informed etc.
But again, that's just me being a grumpy old man with a journalism degree and just not being all ingrained in the new media like the younger crowd. I use it, but only as a supplement to traditional media.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't pretend to know how much it would cost to run a newspaper business, but you could probably cut out some of the fluff that is in traditional newspapers to keep costs down. I personally like reading on the internet, but I still read the NY Times online, and would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to keep it. I did for a while when they were charging to read the editorials. I dunno, newspapers just need to figure out a way to adapt to the changes that are going on.
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
If you haven't noticed, the market driven newspaper and media industry has led to extreme consolidation and the industry is dying. The market cannot support real journalism and hasn't. It can support the Paris Hilton, who's on American Idol, who's divorcing who and what Apple is coming out with infotainment news corp.
Really OP, if you want to get into a discussion of media, you need to read Media Monopoly.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaMonopoly_Bagdikian.html
This sums up our esteemed market-driven US news corp.
http://tipggita32.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cnn-vs-aljazeera.jpg
Really OP, if you want to get into a discussion of media, you need to read Media Monopoly.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaMonopoly_Bagdikian.html
This sums up our esteemed market-driven US news corp.
http://tipggita32.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cnn-vs-aljazeera.jpg
[quote name='docvinh']Well, I don't pretend to know how much it would cost to run a newspaper business, but you could probably cut out some of the fluff that is in traditional newspapers to keep costs down. I personally like reading on the internet, but I still read the NY Times online, and would be willing to pay a reasonable fee to keep it. I did for a while when they were charging to read the editorials. I dunno, newspapers just need to figure out a way to adapt to the changes that are going on.[/QUOTE]
I hate reading on the internet as I just hate reading anything of length on my desktop or laptop.
But I'd pay for newspaper or magazine subscriptions on a tablet device for sure. Much easier to hold and read on--not much different that reading a thick magazine or a hardcover book etc. Vs. a bulky laptop that's putting out heat etc., or wasting yet more time at my desk reading on the PC monitor etc.
I'm just holding out for something with larger screen than the iPad, as 9.7 inches is a bit small for the 8.5x11 documents I'd also want to read on a tablet (to save having to print them all out to read like I have for years).
I hate reading on the internet as I just hate reading anything of length on my desktop or laptop.
But I'd pay for newspaper or magazine subscriptions on a tablet device for sure. Much easier to hold and read on--not much different that reading a thick magazine or a hardcover book etc. Vs. a bulky laptop that's putting out heat etc., or wasting yet more time at my desk reading on the PC monitor etc.
I'm just holding out for something with larger screen than the iPad, as 9.7 inches is a bit small for the 8.5x11 documents I'd also want to read on a tablet (to save having to print them all out to read like I have for years).
[quote name='dmaul1114']I hate reading on the internet as I just hate reading anything of length on my desktop or laptop.
But I'd pay for newspaper or magazine subscriptions on a tablet device for sure. Much easier to hold and read on--not much different that reading a thick magazine or a hardcover book etc. Vs. a bulky laptop that's putting out heat etc., or wasting yet more time at my desk reading on the PC monitor etc.
I'm just holding out for something with larger screen than the iPad, as 9.7 inches is a bit small for the 8.5x11 documents I'd also want to read on a tablet (to save having to print them all out to read like I have for years).[/QUOTE]
While I agree that its not always pleasant to read on the computer, I think that there soon will be digital distribution like kindles and ipads more so in 10 years. Who ever takes control of this market will undoubtedly take control of most of the media. Thats why I think the government is trying to step in to have first choice of what is news. Plus if the government takes over there could potentially be more jobs made and it would be similar to the post office as it only slightly has government ties.
But I'd pay for newspaper or magazine subscriptions on a tablet device for sure. Much easier to hold and read on--not much different that reading a thick magazine or a hardcover book etc. Vs. a bulky laptop that's putting out heat etc., or wasting yet more time at my desk reading on the PC monitor etc.
I'm just holding out for something with larger screen than the iPad, as 9.7 inches is a bit small for the 8.5x11 documents I'd also want to read on a tablet (to save having to print them all out to read like I have for years).[/QUOTE]
While I agree that its not always pleasant to read on the computer, I think that there soon will be digital distribution like kindles and ipads more so in 10 years. Who ever takes control of this market will undoubtedly take control of most of the media. Thats why I think the government is trying to step in to have first choice of what is news. Plus if the government takes over there could potentially be more jobs made and it would be similar to the post office as it only slightly has government ties.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='joeboosauce']If you haven't noticed, the market driven newspaper and media industry has led to extreme consolidation and the industry is dying. The market cannot support real journalism and hasn't. It can support the Paris Hilton, who's on American Idol, who's divorcing who and what Apple is coming out with infotainment news corp.[/QUOTE]
I think it's the perfect time to go back and see that prescient movie "Network"
I think it's the perfect time to go back and see that prescient movie "Network"
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
[quote name='camoor']I think it's the perfect time to go back and see that prescient movie "Network"[/QUOTE]
You know, I've been meaning to see that as I keep hearing good things about it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll put it in my queue. I posted an article in another thread that showed that Americans know more about pop culture "facts" than US history.
You know, I've been meaning to see that as I keep hearing good things about it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll put it in my queue. I posted an article in another thread that showed that Americans know more about pop culture "facts" than US history.
[quote name='phantasyx']While I agree that its not always pleasant to read on the computer, I think that there soon will be digital distribution like kindles and ipads more so in 10 years. Who ever takes control of this market will undoubtedly take control of most of the media. Thats why I think the government is trying to step in to have first choice of what is news. Plus if the government takes over there could potentially be more jobs made and it would be similar to the post office as it only slightly has government ties.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Like I said, I'm all for digital content in that format. I have a Kindle, and want a tablet when I find one that fits my needs.
I do think the paranoia over government trying to control the media here is over blown.
This is a copyright issue, with trying to find a way to keep Newspapers from losing views to the loser blog sites that just steal their content and get ad views from the sheeple that are too lazy to go to actual newspaper sites and just want to scroll through a page of blurbs once or twice a day.
Again, I think the tax is a stupid idea. Copyright laws just need updated severely as they just don't really work in the 21st century when content is moving to being digital. Copyright violations are a much bigger threat to newspapers with websites compared to back in the day when it was just print version. Same thing with games, movies, music, books etc.--piracy is a much easier task with digital versions than back when the only option was making illegal physical copies, bootlegs etc.
So we need copyright laws specific to digital content, and with more teeth. Be it realistic civil punishments and not the silly absurd settlements the RIAA gets, or making copyright violations a criminal rather than civil matter etc.
Agreed. Like I said, I'm all for digital content in that format. I have a Kindle, and want a tablet when I find one that fits my needs.
I do think the paranoia over government trying to control the media here is over blown.
This is a copyright issue, with trying to find a way to keep Newspapers from losing views to the loser blog sites that just steal their content and get ad views from the sheeple that are too lazy to go to actual newspaper sites and just want to scroll through a page of blurbs once or twice a day.
Again, I think the tax is a stupid idea. Copyright laws just need updated severely as they just don't really work in the 21st century when content is moving to being digital. Copyright violations are a much bigger threat to newspapers with websites compared to back in the day when it was just print version. Same thing with games, movies, music, books etc.--piracy is a much easier task with digital versions than back when the only option was making illegal physical copies, bootlegs etc.
So we need copyright laws specific to digital content, and with more teeth. Be it realistic civil punishments and not the silly absurd settlements the RIAA gets, or making copyright violations a criminal rather than civil matter etc.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']I think it's the perfect time to go back and see that prescient movie "Network"[/QUOTE]
I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!
I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. A lot of these sites aren't writing a parphrase of the article--they're just posting part of it with a link to the full story, and adding little to nothing of their own.
It's not like citations. I'm a professor, I write articles all the time--the majority of them is my own work, the citations are just brief paraphrases of the existing work I'm adding to and/or challenging etc. in my research.
That's how citations are meant to work. Not to just post a full version of someone else's work, cite it with a link to the original, and then make ad money by posting it on your site. And I think there's little doubt that such sites cut down on the readership/add views of newspapers, magazines etc. as people rely on these blog sites instead of going to the newspaper sites themselves etc. So that's the real issue here--newspapers, magazines etc. are losing money as people are just reading blurbs of their content on other sites.
I just loathe these sites--too many people are just tooing lazy to read newspapers and magazines (even web versions) anymore and just rely on other people with their own biased interests to aggregate news for them so they can just skim short blurbs.
It's why the discourse in forums like this one is generally not worth reading. Everyone has super strong opinions on everything, but very few put in any effort into being informed and giving anyone a reason to give a crap about those opinions.[/QUOTE]
While this site doesn't post anything on the story except the headline which is a link itself if I didn't have www.lynnsamuels.com/ to go to I would have to likely go to so many sites it would make one's head spin.
I know you might call me lazy but LYNN's site has the most valid news for me, being paramount news which threatens my and your civil liberties. We have similar concerns.
Some of these other sites, even political, may have some Pop Culture GARBAGE I don't give a shit about on the front page, trying to distract me and WASTING my time.
Lynn has a bit of Pop Culture stuff as she likes it a bit but it's in the minority. Lynn's site is, quite frankly, the most important political site on the Internet imo even if it is an aggregator. She links to stuff from WSJ, Drudge, Independent, The Guardian(I believe), etc. Whatever credible news source is out there she'll likely link to if it's posted an important story, Conservative AND Liberally biased. She has linked to Infowars.com/ stories but those tend to be very much in the minority.
It's not like citations. I'm a professor, I write articles all the time--the majority of them is my own work, the citations are just brief paraphrases of the existing work I'm adding to and/or challenging etc. in my research.
That's how citations are meant to work. Not to just post a full version of someone else's work, cite it with a link to the original, and then make ad money by posting it on your site. And I think there's little doubt that such sites cut down on the readership/add views of newspapers, magazines etc. as people rely on these blog sites instead of going to the newspaper sites themselves etc. So that's the real issue here--newspapers, magazines etc. are losing money as people are just reading blurbs of their content on other sites.
I just loathe these sites--too many people are just too
ing lazy to read newspapers and magazines (even web versions) anymore and just rely on other people with their own biased interests to aggregate news for them so they can just skim short blurbs.It's why the discourse in forums like this one is generally not worth reading. Everyone has super strong opinions on everything, but very few put in any effort into being informed and giving anyone a reason to give a crap about those opinions.[/QUOTE]
While this site doesn't post anything on the story except the headline which is a link itself if I didn't have www.lynnsamuels.com/ to go to I would have to likely go to so many sites it would make one's head spin.
I know you might call me lazy but LYNN's site has the most valid news for me, being paramount news which threatens my and your civil liberties. We have similar concerns.
Some of these other sites, even political, may have some Pop Culture GARBAGE I don't give a shit about on the front page, trying to distract me and WASTING my time.
Lynn has a bit of Pop Culture stuff as she likes it a bit but it's in the minority. Lynn's site is, quite frankly, the most important political site on the Internet imo even if it is an aggregator. She links to stuff from WSJ, Drudge, Independent, The Guardian(I believe), etc. Whatever credible news source is out there she'll likely link to if it's posted an important story, Conservative AND Liberally biased. She has linked to Infowars.com/ stories but those tend to be very much in the minority.
bread's done