LogFAQs > #946431475

I glanced at it. The article mentions it's a bipartisan issue, although the highlighted company is larger than a lot of the other guys doing it... granted, the NYT's metrics for size are potentially misleading because it's specifically looking the number of sites without any consideration for the size or influence of the sites in question.

The complaint is basically about more credible-looking alt-news, on the grounds that it's deceiving people into thinking these outlets carry more authority than they do while also hiding the fact that they're sometimes paid to make certain claims. Some of the elements sound more controversial or unusual than they are (such as editors asking journalists to write puff pieces on certain subjects or slanting the direction of a story).

Then there's a long profile piece on the creator of that one network, which goes into some of the practical elements like the fact that -- in some cases -- his publications convey public information to readers in smaller communities via automated systems (where the question of bias is less a problem).

Honestly, the kinda bigger issue isn't the reach that it has directly to readers -- who should scrutinize stuff like that -- but instead news organizations who use that reporting for the basis of their work. My NPR affiliate frequently has representatives from supposedly "independent" publications like CTNewsJunkie who might be on the take and receiving a degree of credibility by funneling their content through a larger name like NPR.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.