ppl. please dont post rawstory links.

[mopinko]

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2020, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

i wont click them. many here wont.
the place is full of malware. but worse, it rips of the writers and the publications.
just click through to the original article, and post that.
please.

eta- it's not the malware i hate. it's the rip off of the writers and the original publishers.
it's flat out stealing.

[FarPoint]

1. Good information...

I rarely do because I know their information is mediocre...now...I have a valid reason...

[underpants]

2. Page doesn't load. Politics USA too please but that's just because it's a hyped rag

Their headlines are purely for clickbait. Sensationalism.

[yellowcanine]

4. I haven't had any problem with Rawstory malware. Maybe you need a new security program.

You will get malware from lots of places. The only way to avoid it is not to be on the internet at all.

Regarding Rawstory, they do a good job of giving summaries of stories which would not otherwise be available because they are hidden behind pay walls, etc. I nearly always clip and paste a few paragraphs so no one has to click on the link if they don't want to. The only time I don't is when I am using my phone and it is a breaking story. I do not favor excluding sources just because I might not like everything which appears there. I don't like everything which appears in the Washington Post either, particularly some of the opinion pieces they print, but I am not going to stop reading the good stories and opinion pieces which are printed there.

[mopinko]

6. if you dont want to pay for a subscription,

you can always use an incognito window.
it's the rip off part that bothers me.
my firewall is fine, thanks.

[yellowcanine]

11. Sorry I am not doing hijinks just to read a story. If RS is a problem, tell the mods.

Let them be the judge. If they haven't banned it, there must be a reason. Again, I do not go along with censoring sites just on a whim.

[mopinko]

12. there are no mods. when there were, rs was banned.

i was one for many years. maybe that's why it sticks in my craw.

[yellowcanine]

16. If there are no mods who takes the "Alert abuse" reports?

[mopinko]

20. juries.

or group hosts.
mods have been gone for years.

[Bev54]

23. Well obviously we all read

Rawstory to get to the original link anyway. I find it good to use it to go to those stories I want to read, without having to read every publication. I have had absolutely no problem with spam ware from their site.

[left-of-center2012]

30. I totally agree

I have had no problem with the site.

[mopinko]

5. back in the day, rs was on the banned sites list.

pity that isnt a thing any more.

[BrightKnight]

43. It was not banned during the Bush administration.

Most of the people there were also on DU.

[mopinko]

45. no, it wasnt even around till the later years.

it was banned at first, but since one of the founders was a du'er who fought for it, it was taken off.

i wasnt even a mod til 08.

[BrightKnight]

52. Raw Story came out about the time Air America was founded.

They were very useful for getting stories into other MSM. They broke a lot of stuff. We have resources like Rachel Maddow now. She came out of the same push for media outlets to counter the right wing message machine.

I am not sure they are as relevant as they were. I am not going to turn on a proven ally without a really compelling reason.

“A house decided against itself cannot stand.”

- Jesus and Lincoln

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I don't think it was ever 'banned'; it may have been not allowed as an LBN source

at some time. But hosts appear to allow it there now. It's quite a long time since I was a host, but I don't remember a rule against in it LBN.

Sometimes, the 'original article' is behind a paywall. Raw Story seems to survive OK, so I think their approach to reuse is reckoned legal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Very early on, then. It was founded in 2004, and by Jan 26, 2005, a writer there was a DUer

by the name of lala_rawraw: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=163804

For all that they published a horrible op-ed advocating chucking atheists out of the Democratic Party (by a writer who went on to elsewhere attack Obama and advocate voting for McCain and Palin in 2008), anyone saying they were ever in the category of rense was wrong.

[octoberlib]

7. You should include politics usa in your op. Exact same thing.

Raw Story does have some original pieces but I rarely go there.

[mopinko]

9. well, there are plenty of them out there.

it's just that i think 4-5 of the posts i clicked on so far today are from rs.

[Jirel]

8. I click Rawstory all the time.

Zero malware, zero ads thanks to an adblocker.

Sorry you don’t like it. I hate it when people post paywalled material or sports trash, but I don’t feel the need to complain.

[mopinko]

10. it's the ripping off of the writers that bothers me most.

[Jirel]

14. I have seen nothing about it "ripping off writers."

Link?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

15. They routinely take stories from outlets that have done actual reporting and then spin them up to

(a) avoid doing the hard work and (b) spice up the actual takeaway of the article by intensifying words and building hype. It's their bread and butter.

[Jirel]

18. You can say that of half the news media out there.

You get NPR quoting articles from WaPo and similar sources constantly (including by interviewing the journalists rather than booking the relevant guests), Yahoo News and others doing it constantly, local news stations subsisting on that practice... That has become a norm, as news rooms get cut, whether you like it or not. It’s hardly a reason to get upset specifically at Raw Story.

[mopinko]

19. it's the 'get cuts' part that is the problem.

[womanofthehills]

53. Raw Story has the best headlines - for reposting news on Facebook - Dramatic

I have no problem with Raw Story.

[mopinko]

17. well,

maybe look harder. there is always a link back to the original publication.
that means they just stole the click.

[Jirel]

46. That's garbage.

By the way, by that standard DU steals the click too.

DU (and many other online news media and discussion sites) all work by links back to original articles. It is expected that some people will do a tl;dr and ignore the link, and that many will USE that link to click back to the original article. You have made no argument that distinguishes Raw Story from Yahoo News, virtually every local news channel or newspaper, specialty news sites like Krebs On Security or Ars Technica, etc.

[mopinko]

48. du follows fair use copyright laws.

i assume other do too.
rs, not so much. they post whole articles. i guess the fact that they link back to the original makes it seem ok. but...

[Jirel]

50. They don't copy whole articles.

Raw Story is a tabloid. Its sections are short, the language often on the far end of opinionated. While they base their articles on one or multiple other journalistic sources that do the hard work and have serious reporting budget, that is the antithesis of "posting whole articles." They always post links to their sources. If you want to see whole articles virtually copied and pasted, go to virtually any hometown newspaper or local TV news' website. Ditto Yahoo news and multiple other "news" orgs.

As far as I can tell, all I'm seeing here is that you don't like Raw Story, which is fine. But it's pretty absurd to single them out for turning to AND CREDITING multiple other news outlets' stories as source material, as if they invented that modern "reporting" convenience.

[BainsBane]

28. I don't read politics usa or the palmer report

Their sole purposes is to cash in on making Democrats feel good.

[LeftInTX]

47. What???

Raw Story forces me to to disable my adblocker...it's full of ads...I wouldn't call it malware, but the ads are worse than most sites.

[onenote]

13. they also often post misleading and hyperbolic stories.

Not a reliable source, imo.

[themaguffin]

27. Agreed. I stopped following several of these sites years ago-their FB posts read too much as

hyperbole and well, juvenile at times.

I would cringe when I would see a liberal publication post on FB with "boom" or some other crap.

[RoadRunner]

21. I agree mopinko

I won’t read posts sourced to RS anymore. RS is good at writing headlines, which seldom match the content.

If I recall correctly, RS was started by a DUer back in the day. Don’t know what happened after that.

[mopinko]

22. correcto

that is why it got taken off the banned sites list.
that du'er didnt stick around much longer, tho.

[Lunabell]

24. You can go to the original article and post it.

But some opinion pieces by their writers are excellent.

[mopinko]

29. yup. 1 more click.

and folks get their rightful reward.

[Indykatie]

25. I Avoid RS Like the Plague for Both Reasons - My Computer Used to Freeze When I Went to Site

[mopinko]

26. sooooo many ads.

yup, took forever to load.

[left-of-center2012]

31. I've used Raw Story for years with no problem

If they are to be criticized for using news from other sources,
Yahoo News, MSN News, Google News, AP, etc should be included.

Add local newspapers and local TV & radio who get their news from around the world.

If you're getting 'malware' from Raw Story (which I do not) I suggest updating or replacing your security software.

[mopinko]

34. those publications pay the originators.

the malware is just the icing on the cake.

[left-of-center2012]

36. Again, I have never had malware from RS

never

[yellowcanine]

32. I will choose what I post, you choose what you click on.

Okay?

[mopinko]

33. that's fine.

you're good w ppl not getting what they earned, fine. but if you want ppl to read what you post...

[LanternWaste]

58. Are you being consistent?

"you're good w ppl not getting what they earned, fine..."

Yet you also suggest people work around paywalls by going incognito w/ their browsers. Are you "good w ppl not getting what they earned..."?

[mopinko]

59. no. i admit i'm not.

i'm bowing to reality. i dont do it myself. but other ppl do. it's a solution.

personally, i bumped into the wapo and esquire paywalls so many times, i subscribed.
but i'm a privileged person. i dont expect poor folks to make the same decisions.

[left-of-center2012]

37. I agree

[obamanut2012]

35. Second this!!!

[USALiberal]

38. You are not the boss of me! nt

[Baked Potato]

39. When I go there it's just to read the comments.

😬

[BrightKnight]

40. Raw Story has been useful for a long time.

I am not aware of any malware issues but I have not used my account for years. I am very skeptical of anyone telling people to avoid it.

[mopinko]

44. again. the malware is not the point.

[leftyladyfrommo]

55. I read Raw Story every day. nt

[catbyte]

41. If you don't want to click on Raw Story links, don't, but it does generate original content

like David Cay Johnston, etc. and I will continue to post.

I also post stories that are behind paywalls but are important nevertheless. If I post a Raw Story article, I always include a link to the original story, just like they do. I don't see any "ripping off." They always cite and link the original source.

So, if you don't like it, don't click on the link, or put me on ignore.

Thank you.

[SCantiGOP]

42. Agree completely

Little more than clickbait stories, many are later found to be overhyped or just plain false.

[Demsrule86]

49. Some can't afford pay walls...and If you have proper protection, you will be fine.

[cry baby]

51. I won't go to rawstory either. Thank you for saying something.

Rawstory almost always gets their story from other news sources. Please find the original story and reference it, not rawstory.

[tandem5]

54. It's an aggregator with sensational headlines and questionable banner ads, but so is DU.

Scroll through GD and count the number of thread titles worded to get you to click and then count the number of times those links lead to a snippet and an outside sourced article or worse an embedded tweet. Every click and new banner refresh drives revenue to the DU owners that are, most times, unaffiliated with the sourced article.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

56. We post large numbers of summarized stories from various sources at DU every day.

And we post links to the original source, just like Raw Story does.

Rawstory frequently publishes news that MSM media outlets ignore, and also publishes original pieces. Writers and publications don't seem to have a problem with Raw Story spreading their work around. Apparently, they don't share your concern.

I have never gotten a single malware bug during the many years and many times I've been reading Raw Story.

Maybe you could go to the DU admins with your concerns, and ask them to censor RawStory from DU.

[mopinko]

57. admins dont do that.

they used to. bad sources arent even covered in the tos short of kook sites. even then, it's up to juries.
du respects copyrights and isnt more ads than content.
it also doesnt change headlines to get more clicks. in fact, in lbn, it has to be exact.

no comparison.

it's not the malware. it's the theft of writer's work.

[Lars39]

63. Remember Buzzflash?

You got the title of the article and attribution right there with it. You didn’t have to dig to find who originally wrote the article. Rawstory buries the attribution.

[Generic Brad]

64. All articles I see there are sourced

They have links to the original article. When they summarize a video, it is always available to watch. I find their site light years better than Huffington Post.