Re:How The U.S. Marshals Are Trying To Break My Hunger Strike
by danso on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @05:03PM
(#13313560)
The comment I responded to suggested that the OP was not credible because it appears on a website in which the top story is "Fitness Star Proves There's Nothing Wrong With Stomach Rolls".
I brought up the Pulitzer example because, under the commenter's reasoning, that story too should be dismissed because of the clickbait links that are published along side of it.
In fact, you can check this for yourself. Here's the direct link to the lead story in the Pulitzer series:
As you can see, the top trending story is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years". So here's a remix of u/boona's argument:
> Considering that one of the top stories on the site is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years", I have a hard time taking this anti-American-military article seriously. Are we not better than HuffPo?
I read over my comment. Still don't see where I said claimed that the Huffington Post's Pulitzer Prize meant that Pulitzer-level (or even just "serious") journalism was the "norm". My argument was that an article being on Huffington Post was not itself a decisive reason for dismissing the article. You are the one who interpreted that as a glowing endorsement of all of Huffington Post's editorial content. Somehow you missed the part where I said, "even if it runs clickbait to help pay the bills." (though to be fair, I could have said, "even though clickbait probably pays most of the bills"...but I honestly don't have access to their analytics to make that an assertion)
I brought up the Pulitzer example because, under the commenter's reasoning, that story too should be dismissed because of the clickbait links that are published along side of it.
In fact, you can check this for yourself. Here's the direct link to the lead story in the Pulitzer series:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/beyond-the-battlefi...
I've taken a screenshot to preserve what it looks like for me at the moment:
http://imgur.com/a/GQw5Z
As you can see, the top trending story is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years". So here's a remix of u/boona's argument:
> Considering that one of the top stories on the site is "Baby And Beagle Pose For Adorable Monthly Photos Over Course Of 2 Years", I have a hard time taking this anti-American-military article seriously. Are we not better than HuffPo?
I read over my comment. Still don't see where I said claimed that the Huffington Post's Pulitzer Prize meant that Pulitzer-level (or even just "serious") journalism was the "norm". My argument was that an article being on Huffington Post was not itself a decisive reason for dismissing the article. You are the one who interpreted that as a glowing endorsement of all of Huffington Post's editorial content. Somehow you missed the part where I said, "even if it runs clickbait to help pay the bills." (though to be fair, I could have said, "even though clickbait probably pays most of the bills"...but I honestly don't have access to their analytics to make that an assertion)