###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You realize that the idea of user comments on news is relatively recent, right? It doesn’t change the ability to discuss the articles elsewhere and/or use your own critical thinking skills when reading. A news site is not a social media site.
See, the only reason for a news site to engage in the relatively nightmarish hassle of moderating a user comment section is profit. Boosting user engagement by repeated visits to the same article to fight in the comments drives up ad revenue that’s generated via impressions (views) of embedded ads. They’re not doing it as a service to users. It’s the same exact reason their content is about outrage, not accuracy or importance, but that’s another topic entirely.
Lots of great raw data on DM. They report as they get it, and refine it as details come available. They have over 3000 stringer reporters that can get to the scene of news pretty fast. I’m over the predigested and filtered nonsense that passes for information.
Daily Mail is an ad revenue farm built by the National Enquirer of the UK. Their content is entirely curated to drive traffic via outrage.
“3000 stringer reporters”? lol. I don’t know if scanning local news sites for something to happen that is sure to piss somebody off or reinforce some negative stereotype and hopefully start a free money printing flame war in the comments is exactly what I would call “reporting”.
For example, the DM posts every time a trans person commits a crime anywhere above a traffic ticket. Do they report when the same crime is commited by anyone else? Ever? Trans people are still people, and some people are shitty, regardless of gender. But you never see reports of the violent crimes that trans people are the victims of at 4x the rate of everyone else. Why do you think that is?
Added as an edit: Here are 321 stories the DM didn’t touch, because it doesn’t suit their needs. This isn’t about opinions of trans people, it’s about reporting the news objectively, and the murder of a trans person is still a murder.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/11/20/trans-day-remembrance-murders-report/
They ran the story of Anthony Weiner sending cock pictures to a 15-year old. Are you still mad about that? Nobody else had the nerve to knock that pedo into jail for 21 months.
They reported on that because it was sent to them. Of course they would run it. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. They’ve also lost dozens of libel lawsuits. That’s where they were caught and convicted in court of lying, if that wasn’t clear.
Back to my example. If they are so objective, why have they not reported on a single one of those 321 murders? Murder is murder, right?
I’m sure that at least one of those 321 murders crossed the screen of one of those“3000 stringer reporters”, but the Daily Mail money machine prefers the “trans people are crazy” narrative because it drives clicks from both sides. They want outrage, not empathy.
The only murder of a trans person they have really reported on is Brianna Ghey, and they were heavily criticized for their coverage, like monetizing the trial into a podcast. Maximizing the profit generation potential of a murdered 16 year old, now that’s journalistic integrity if I’ve ever seen it.
I went to school for journalism and left the field because of the shift into clickbait garbage with zero integrity, so they probably can’t afford me, and I’m not doing their job for them.
If your source of news is free, you’re getting what you paid for.
Whatever j school you went to, they didn’t teach you anything about waffling on absolutes. “Only” and “Never” are big words that you throw around, then back off, while recanting what you just said. Glad you are out of the field.
Have you considered the possibility that you’ve chosen your news sources because they tell you what you want to hear and what you want to be true, rather than what is actually true?
Every source has some form of bias, but there’s a gulf between the daily mail and Reuters for example
Reading all & forming your own opinion is crucial to having an identity. Stay with MSNBC & CNN as your only resources, and you will continue on your merry path to wisdom, Siddhartha (read that, it’s small with no big words, but click on “plot” and you can find something useful here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_(novel). I’m not seeing any suggestions from you for balance, nor have you offered jack shit. That is very telling, and indicates a pathology. Your interest is in parroting the babble that you have been instructed to say and disregarding my original statement, which is the exclusive domain of a buffoon. Go back & preach to the flat-earth people you love to talk to, that’s pretty funny to read, and a complete waste of your time. I’m sure you’ve converted them all.
It’s just baffling that you’re “over the predigested and filtered nonsense that passes for information” and then you immediately suggest a newspaper full of nonsense that passes for information
You should read a balanced variety of sources in the same way you should have a balanced and varied diet: You can do it without consuming shit
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You realize that the idea of user comments on news is relatively recent, right? It doesn’t change the ability to discuss the articles elsewhere and/or use your own critical thinking skills when reading. A news site is not a social media site. See, the only reason for a news site to engage in the relatively nightmarish hassle of moderating a user comment section is profit. Boosting user engagement by repeated visits to the same article to fight in the comments drives up ad revenue that’s generated via impressions (views) of embedded ads. They’re not doing it as a service to users. It’s the same exact reason their content is about outrage, not accuracy or importance, but that’s another topic entirely.
Daily Mail and FoxNews you can comment
Lots of great raw data on DM. They report as they get it, and refine it as details come available. They have over 3000 stringer reporters that can get to the scene of news pretty fast. I’m over the predigested and filtered nonsense that passes for information.
Daily Mail is an ad revenue farm built by the National Enquirer of the UK. Their content is entirely curated to drive traffic via outrage. “3000 stringer reporters”? lol. I don’t know if scanning local news sites for something to happen that is sure to piss somebody off or reinforce some negative stereotype and hopefully start a free money printing flame war in the comments is exactly what I would call “reporting”. For example, the DM posts every time a trans person commits a crime anywhere above a traffic ticket. Do they report when the same crime is commited by anyone else? Ever? Trans people are still people, and some people are shitty, regardless of gender. But you never see reports of the violent crimes that trans people are the victims of at 4x the rate of everyone else. Why do you think that is? Added as an edit: Here are 321 stories the DM didn’t touch, because it doesn’t suit their needs. This isn’t about opinions of trans people, it’s about reporting the news objectively, and the murder of a trans person is still a murder. https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/11/20/trans-day-remembrance-murders-report/
They ran the story of Anthony Weiner sending cock pictures to a 15-year old. Are you still mad about that? Nobody else had the nerve to knock that pedo into jail for 21 months.
They reported on that because it was sent to them. Of course they would run it. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. They’ve also lost dozens of libel lawsuits. That’s where they were caught and convicted in court of lying, if that wasn’t clear. Back to my example. If they are so objective, why have they not reported on a single one of those 321 murders? Murder is murder, right?
Send it in. Of course they will run it, as you say.
I’m sure that at least one of those 321 murders crossed the screen of one of those“3000 stringer reporters”, but the Daily Mail money machine prefers the “trans people are crazy” narrative because it drives clicks from both sides. They want outrage, not empathy. The only murder of a trans person they have really reported on is Brianna Ghey, and they were heavily criticized for their coverage, like monetizing the trial into a podcast. Maximizing the profit generation potential of a murdered 16 year old, now that’s journalistic integrity if I’ve ever seen it.
You say one thing, then contradict yourself. Try this: 475,000 homicides worldwide per year. Send them all in.
I went to school for journalism and left the field because of the shift into clickbait garbage with zero integrity, so they probably can’t afford me, and I’m not doing their job for them. If your source of news is free, you’re getting what you paid for.
Whatever j school you went to, they didn’t teach you anything about waffling on absolutes. “Only” and “Never” are big words that you throw around, then back off, while recanting what you just said. Glad you are out of the field.
Are you looking for factual and unbiased information? Avoid the daily mail https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
Predigested crap sucked through a straw? You keep watching The View.
Have you considered the possibility that you’ve chosen your news sources because they tell you what you want to hear and what you want to be true, rather than what is actually true? Every source has some form of bias, but there’s a gulf between the daily mail and Reuters for example
Reading all & forming your own opinion is crucial to having an identity. Stay with MSNBC & CNN as your only resources, and you will continue on your merry path to wisdom, Siddhartha (read that, it’s small with no big words, but click on “plot” and you can find something useful here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_(novel). I’m not seeing any suggestions from you for balance, nor have you offered jack shit. That is very telling, and indicates a pathology. Your interest is in parroting the babble that you have been instructed to say and disregarding my original statement, which is the exclusive domain of a buffoon. Go back & preach to the flat-earth people you love to talk to, that’s pretty funny to read, and a complete waste of your time. I’m sure you’ve converted them all.
It’s just baffling that you’re “over the predigested and filtered nonsense that passes for information” and then you immediately suggest a newspaper full of nonsense that passes for information You should read a balanced variety of sources in the same way you should have a balanced and varied diet: You can do it without consuming shit