Re:Facebook blocks sharing of critical Guardian article
by brianmcc on Saturday September 29, 2018 @06:57PM
(#18103443)
It's one of the UK's leading broadsheets with nigh on 200 years behind it. Reasonable and valid complaints about mainstream media aside, this is about as legit as it gets!
Re:Facebook blocks sharing of critical Guardian article
by ahakki on Friday September 28, 2018 @07:40PM
(#18097868)
It is deemed a legit source on the matter because the info in the article is correct.
Re:Facebook blocks sharing of critical Guardian article
by stcredzero on Saturday September 29, 2018 @02:46PM
(#18102054)
Then why not take the evaluation down to that level? Why do we even need brand level proxies in 2018? It would probably be best if we evaluated down to the article level of granularity, at least.
Re:Facebook blocks sharing of critical Guardian article
by liftbigweights on Saturday September 29, 2018 @11:17AM
(#18100830)
> What does legit source even mean?
It used to mean something that was professionally run and trusted. Something that had earned people's trust.
Unfortunately, now it means "those who I agree with" because we live in a highly partisan environment - which the "trusted sources" had a hand in creating.
Re:Facebook blocks sharing of critical Guardian article
by MrsPeaches on Saturday September 29, 2018 @02:34PM
(#18101983)
It seems like The Guardian is actually trying out new things that seem to be working. Interesting article about them here: https://digiday.com/media/guardian-improbably-put-way-path-p...
Re:Facebook blocks sharing of critical Guardian article
by gaius on Saturday September 29, 2018 @02:31AM
(#18099021)
Is The Guardian a legit source?
It’s readership numbers have been declining and some of its writers churn out complete gibberish but it has been around for a long time and is generally considered to be a serious newspaper in the U.K.
Disclaimer: worked on their website in the late ‘90’s
Is The Guardian a legit source? What does legit source even mean? As far as I can tell, it means, "Has a strong brand." Given what we know about brand decay and bait and switch, are our criteria even remotely useful and valid? From what I've seen, I don't think so. It seems like many "legit" news sources with failing business models are cashing in their brand reputation, while it lasts, for some link-baiting and public manipulation.