Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Elizabeth Warren can snatch the candidacy from Hillary" [View all]demmiblue
(39,948 posts)15. Interesting
Examiner.com is a multiuser blogging site that presents itself as a news site. Don't be fooled.
Examiner.com pays its writers based (among other things) on pageviews.[1] As a result, a lot of Examiner material tends to be sensationalistic to attract attention positive or negative doesn't matter, it's all clicks. Headlines such as "U.S. to bomb moon on UFO witness John Lennon's birthday"[2] and "Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life is imminent"[3] are par for the course. You will see enthusiastic Examiner bloggers linkspamming furiously on other sites (to the point of being in Wikipedia's spam blacklist[4] since 2009[5]), often touting their work as "media coverage" (and themselves as "journalists" or "the press"[6]) rather than just a blog post they themselves wrote. Not that it pays very well Writers Weekly considers it "just another pay-per-click meat market,"[7][8] exploiting writers to attract people to their site by paying them pennies.
Cranks and those with really bad critical thinking skills will link Examiner articles as if they're edited journalism rather than just some guy blogging. If you use an Examiner page as a reference for anything whatsoever, treat it with great caution. Not all Examiners are rubbish, but it's the way to bet.
Examiner.com pays its writers based (among other things) on pageviews.[1] As a result, a lot of Examiner material tends to be sensationalistic to attract attention positive or negative doesn't matter, it's all clicks. Headlines such as "U.S. to bomb moon on UFO witness John Lennon's birthday"[2] and "Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life is imminent"[3] are par for the course. You will see enthusiastic Examiner bloggers linkspamming furiously on other sites (to the point of being in Wikipedia's spam blacklist[4] since 2009[5]), often touting their work as "media coverage" (and themselves as "journalists" or "the press"[6]) rather than just a blog post they themselves wrote. Not that it pays very well Writers Weekly considers it "just another pay-per-click meat market,"[7][8] exploiting writers to attract people to their site by paying them pennies.
Cranks and those with really bad critical thinking skills will link Examiner articles as if they're edited journalism rather than just some guy blogging. If you use an Examiner page as a reference for anything whatsoever, treat it with great caution. Not all Examiners are rubbish, but it's the way to bet.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What was done to Libya by NATO was to create a hell on earth for a people who lived in
sabrina 1
May 2015
#70
I seem to have upset a member or two. But the message holds true. Voters are a discerning lot.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#8
Sad, isn't it? They are prepared to let the Citizens United ruling chose their candidate.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#27
Well, at least nobody can accuse us of pulling the wool over their eyes.
Jackpine Radical
May 2015
#40
She won't endorse any candidate until a nominee is chosen, and then she will support the nominee
still_one
May 2015
#52
Examiner.com is run by a wingnut who wants to be the 'Fox News Of The Internet.'
onehandle
May 2015
#17
I'm supporting any real Democrat willing to run. Warren, Sanders, they both rock.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#30
Because I want to win in the General Election, I have to prevent Clinton from being the nominee.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#44
It is obvious the RW wants somebody other than Hillary to run. Sure they do not Hillary to run.
Thinkingabout
May 2015
#29
Sanders, very much like Warren, is running, I think, I'm pretty sure. Yeah, he's in.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#28
Not everybody, but many people....but she'll never run and if she does, she'll never win.
George II
May 2015
#48
HUH? How can a person who has proclaimed DOZENS of times she's not running "snatch" the candidacy?
George II
May 2015
#45
You have to imagine what a thrill it is to be sitting in the audience of a California Democratic
JDPriestly
May 2015
#49
Then let us shift our support to Sanders. I will start with a sigline shift and reTweet:
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#88