Is Rawstory.Com A Legitimate News Source? Or...

[arwalden]

... is it just repackaging, re-headlining, and/or editorializing news that's already available from other sources?

[Spazito]

1. You mean like how all the mainstream copy and paste AP

articles?

[Mabus]

121. Or like what we do here on DU

with everything that's fit to talk about? If it is printed or said somewhere, someone on DU will point to it or refer to it and all of us have a chance to give our editorial spin on it? Once in a while we find an article, usually originally found by a source that other DU'ers have suggested in the past, and post here in hopes that others find it interesting too. So, we usually post something that someone else has printed and the we talk about it, giving our own individual editorial spin on what someone else has printed. I think I'm getting dizzy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yes as legitinate as AP and UPI

look they have had their own breaks ok...

Why oh why do people compaint, we have no outlets... now that we have, oh my are they legitimate?

By the way to those who say but it is the Drudge of the Left, surprise, surprise, if you have been around these parts long enough, that is exactly what they wanted to be... an answer to Drudge... with REAL news thought

[Maddy McCall]

5. You are calling their "BREAKING" story today "Real News?"

Hmmm. I fail to see anything new, much less "breaking," about it.

And, on edit: As legitimate as the AP? I can't even respond to that. It's just so wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Tell me how legitinate is a main stream media

that catapults the propaganda that takes a country to war?

[arwalden]

6. It seems I've touched a nerve...

<< Why oh why do people compaint, we have no outlets... now that we have, oh my are they legitimate? >>

:shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. It's a Fantasy Repository

Don't fuck with people's hopes and wishes.

It makes them cry.

[Maddy McCall]

8. What got me was "as legitinate [sic] as the AP."

:silly:

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Ok how about Moonie news better known as UPI?

Better now?

Again people were bemoning the fact that we had no outlets now that we have them, all people can do is go, they are crap?

Ok maybe yuo want to go back tot he times of no net, and all news controled by five corporations.... hey that is not difficult to do. Just turn your puter off and turn on ABC, that is obviouly good news and good news reporting.

[Garbo 2004]

83. I know Helen Thomas quit UPI when Moonies took over, but occasionally

(unless my cynical self is simply naive) they actually have some decent reports IMO. Did a major series a year or so ago on mad cow and US FDA's bending over for the beef industry as I recall. Much noted Feb 2004 article on Hannah being squeezed by FBI to get him to flip was by a UPI reporter.

It's not my impression that they've simply been blatantly borged by the Moonies as I had previously expected. But again I don't particularly follow UPI as a news source.

[miss_kitty]

39. and don't forget "as legitinate [sic] as...the UPI."

The MOONIE UPI? The news service Helen THomas quit when the Moonies bought it? I am still trying to figure out if post #2 was a joke post, either way, I *am* laughing my ass off.
:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. No it was not a joke

the point is, right now the US Media, alternate or otherwise, IS A JOKE


Clear for you now? and to think that the AP (u8sed to propel the propaganda) or the NYT, (Of Judith Miller fame) are more legitimate at this time... is just down right ridicolous

Once people raelize we don't have an independent press then they start to realize that Raw is starting to nibble on the edges... but hey if you want to believe the AP is legitinate or the UPI or the NYT... go for it... at this time I look for confirmation for ANYTHING they print abroad

[miss_kitty]

54. Um-I don't read RAW or watch TV News

Or read the NYT and I don't see how you would conclude from my post that I find AP OR UPI acceptable as News Delivery options or legitimate sources. So I won't be going for it, as you suggest. M'kay?

[Taxloss]

19. But they just tease and give empty promises.

They've cried wolf about 800 times too often.

[seabeyond]

42. this is what turned me off. the a story is coming......gonna break the

house, stuff..... bothers me. so i dont miss with it much. still read what comes, just never get sucked in

[demobabe]

20. No, they are NOT as legit as AP or UPI and are causing DAMAGE

Case in point: there are currently people running all over the DU making posts like "I'm so disappointed the Plame case isn't going to yield in anything" and "It sucks there are only going to be 2 indictments."

None of that is true! We don't know the truth and Raw Story doesn't either, and shame on them for printing this leading junk.

THIS KIND OF CRAP makes us harbingers of disinformation, passed along half-baked rumors, and is akin to the disinformation the Republican party spreads.

REAL JOURNALISM is where you go and interview TWO SOURCES, QUOTE PEOPLE, and report FACTUALLY and OBJECTIVELY.

At least that's what it USED to be.

We're looking more stupid by the minute becoming the thing we dislike the most... it's just the same as posting OMG! THIS IS HUGE!

But all the time, Raw Story only gains, lots of ad impressions, lots of ad revenue with each page view... and if they can con you into going there three times a day, then hey! you're a repeat visitor, and that's another nice stat to sell to potential advertisers to raise your revenues.

Somebody PLEASE make this crap stop.

[beam me up scottie]

46. "We're looking more stupid by the minute"

You nailed it.

Bravo!
:applause:

[K-W]

52. We look downright human.

Right before big news comes out people are speculating and overreacting to rumors.

Does anyone think this wouldnt be happening if Rawstory didnt exist?

[beam me up scottie]

55. Why is it better to get your rumours from a left wing news source?

One tabloid's just as bad as another.

[K-W]

61. Who needs specific facts when you have generalizations.

One tabloid's just as bad as another.

"All things that are similar are the same." - Its an argument I see way too much of these days.

If you dont see the difference between Rawstory, a site setup by grassroots progressives that does print rumors, and Drudge, a conservative operative who's site is setup in order to spread conservative misinformation, your understanding is beyond my help.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Rumours hurt our cause so, no- I don't see a difference.

If they cared about their credibility they wouldn't be feeding the rumour mill.

[K-W]

69. Reality doesnt comform to such absolutism.

If you dont want to hear rumors, that is your business, but contrary to what you have said, they arent some kind of evil that must be avoided at all costs. If handled properly rumors are harmless and can actually be useful. Sometimes rumors are true, or at least point towards the truth.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Oh brother.

The reality is truth is better than fiction and I prefer to rely on sources that know the difference.

If I want to read rumours and speculation I go to Weekly World News, at least they are honest about it.

[Garbo 2004]

129. I know what you mean about the teasers, but in fairness we have some

folks who get all excited and post up a storm over a tom flocco story, regardless of all the blatant factual inaccuracies and claims that only the most credulous would accept (Chicago grand jury indicts Tony Blair, for example).

I don't blame rawstory in itself for some of their readers' handling of what they read especially if some of those readers don't appear to be particularly discerning readers regardless of what news source they peruse.

People should take it all with a grain of salt, no matter what news source they're reading. Even when it's original reporting, sources can spin or be less well informed than they purport to be. And if people don't like breathless "breaking news developing hard" stuff there are other news sources. Rawstory doesn't have a lock on the news or the "left."

I regard rawstory primarily as a news portal with some original reporting and sometimes a headsup on stories to be featured by other news outlets. Some folks understandably object to the hype and adverts (those can be blocked btw) but making a go of an online news site with reporters ain't easy or cheap. Look at Salon. They have some good stuff IMO, but nearly went under several times financially and still people bitch because one needs a subscription or has to see an ad to access the stories.

[Maddy McCall]

3. The latter.

[geek tragedy]

4. The leftwing version of Drudge. eom

[SoCalDem]

29. My theory too

If someone goes out and interviews people, gets their story, THEY are the originatorof the story. When they do what we do here (search for already printed stories) and then comment on them, they are "Drudging" them..

If it does not originate with you, it's not "your" story :)..sorry to be so blunt, but we all can opine on WaPo stories, but the fact remains that WE did not interview the source so the "story" is not ours.. The opinion we offer on it it valid, but should not be presented as "original".

my 2¢

[librechik]

87. close analogy--and like Drudge, RS is often used by MSM as

a source, with caveats.

Sometimes their scoops are right on. I like to watch how their scoops evolve, and how they get picked up by MSM, just out of curiosity. Seems like some more or less legitimate sources (Huff Post for one) think Raw is worth reading and linking to.

[Balbus]

89. Bingo! - eom

[Donailin]

94. BuzzFlash is the leftwing version of drudge

and is comparable in hits. Rawstory is a liberal news source and the owner of the site posts here on occasion and was most helpful with Andy Stephenson's plight.

[meganmonkey]

9. I think there are occasionally good articles on RawStory that aren't

covered well in other places - e.g. election reform and other legislation that we DUers obsess about but other news sources ignore since the stories aren't 'sexy'.

BUT - I could most certainly do without the teasers and pseudo-breaking-news, especially like today's - when the story hit, not only was there no REAL news, it obviously misled the hordes of people into thinking this was THE news of indictments. I realize that it isn't RawStory's fault that people have problems with reading comprehension but I find it reckless and irresponsible.


And before anyone says this is 'RawStory bashing' - most companies PAY people to do focus groups like this. This is FREE market research, and let's face it, DU is the primary market for them.

[Stephanie]

10. Have they been wrong yet?

They seem to get the scoop before it hits the MSM. I appreciate them.

[arwalden]

11. I don't know... you tell me... *have* they been wrong yet?

But I'm curious now... exactly what scoop have they gotten "before it hits MSM"?

I assume that when you use the word "scoop" you're using it the common way that it's applied to journalists--as in being the reporter or outlet that is the VERY FIRST to break a story, or by having exclusive inside access to a witness or principle who knows about a current event or breaking news story.

I also assume by "MSM" you mean "corporate media".


edit: punctuation

[Stephanie]

28. Are you correcting my acronyms? You're free to assume whatever you like.

I mean that over the last few days they have alerted us to stories that were about to come out - and they had it first. The Wurmser story, for instance.

[arwalden]

33. Correcting You? No. -- Trying To Understand What You Mean? Yes!

Wouldn't you prefer that to simply giving me the freedom to assume whatever I like?

[Mabus]

88. They published Sibel's "Vanity Fair" story before it hit the news stands

Admittedly, it was a scan of the article before its final revision in "Vanity Fair" but I thought it showed that their "tentacles" can be deep.

[K-W]

16. Yes, of course they have.

But so has everyone else, all the time.

Im finding this thread a little bit funny considering what we now know about the reliability of 'legitimate' news services.

[WA98296]

26. Not long ago they reported a possible 22 Indictments, now 2

[K-W]

44. Notice the word "possible"

Everyone knows that its all rumors at this point.

[Mabus]

90. Not to mention that lay persons don't understand the difference btw

an indictment and a charge. Lay people use the words interchangeably. One indictment can contain both multiple charges and multiple defendants.

[bertha katzenengel]

12. Excellent question, Allen. I don't know, but I'll offer my opinion:

I don't trust anything posted on rawstory.com any more than I trust anything from Drudge. To me they're two sides of the same coin: LALALALA I'M RIGHT I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA

[Midlodemocrat]

18. You took the words right out of my mouth, Bertha.

I will read rawstory, but I don't trust it anymore than I trust Drudge.

[K-W]

23. And Randi Rhodes is Rush Limbaugh.

I dont understand why people feel a need to equate everything they dont like on the left with something on the right.

These comparisons are of little constructive value and really only serve to poisen the discussion.

[bertha katzenengel]

24. Hi, K-W

I don't feel that need. I equate these two. I am poisoning nothing.

Don't take my statement and turn it into a blanket to toss over everyone who questions.

:hi:

[K-W]

43. Hi

I did not turn your statement into a blanket. I compared it to another such equasion. While Rawstory and Drudge, like Randi and Rush, may have things in common, the fact that Drudge and Rush are conservative operatives makes them a bad comparison.

Compare these two statements:

1. Rawstory often puts hype and sensationality above accuracy.
2. Rawstory is the left-wing Drudge.

All statement number 2 does, is obscure the specific failings of Rawstory, by equating it with Drudge who is bad for so many reasons other than the fact that he too overhypes and sensationalizes things.

Basically there is no reason to make the comparison you have made, except to smear Rawstory by association with a conservative site.

Limbaugh and Randi are hardly the only two loud abrasive personalities on the radio, and rawstory and drudge are hardly the only two websites that hype and sensationalize.

The reason Limbaugh gets compared to Randi and Drudge gets compared to Rawstory is because they are conservatives, and it adds rhetorical oomph to criticisms.

[ArkDem]

63. Seems to me that she hit the nail on the head!

[K-W]

65. Seems to me you cant back that up with an argument.

I do however find it funny that you would describe equating two very unlike things as hitting the nail on the head.

Even if you find some value to the comparison between Drudge and Rawstory, it is hardly exact.

[bertha katzenengel]

72. Sweet doggy with a bone, what is your name?

;)

Have a lovely evening, and remember: We rightfully jump all over right-wingers who insult us, calling us un-American, for questioning President Bush. We rightfully defend ourselves.

Who will defend lefties when other lefties jump all over them for questioning each other?

[ArkDem]

77. I guess I'm just not as 'smart' as you are!

[bertha katzenengel]

25. double post

[arwalden]

36. How do those comparisons "poisen" the discussion?

Should such comparisons be off-limits? Is it impossible that the left has its own over-the-top moments and personalities? If not, why not? If so, then why isn't it leg imitate to make comparisons to over-the-top personalities of the right?

Are these things so sacrosanct that we can't even take a critical look at them?

[hfojvt]

82. you might owe attention some money

They poison the discussion because they are hyperbolic and inflammatorily insulting. A Tom Tomorrow cartoon poked fun at the idea that Michael Moore is a left-wing Ann Coulter. Michael Moore said "The Iraq war was based on lies." Ann Coulter said "Wouldn't it be funny if terrorists blew up the NY Times." And a Republican said "I don't see any difference". Another difference would be that the local group of Republican women donated a copy of Treason to the local public library. The local group of Democratic women is not going to donate a copy of "Dude, where's my country?" and even if they did, I do not believe that book would say that all elected Republicans are traitors.

There may be some similarities, but there are also significant differences, and the comparisons are labels rather than descriptive critiques. As K-W wrote:
"If you dont see the difference between Rawstory, a site setup by grassroots progressives that does print rumors, and Drudge, a conservative operative whose site is setup in order to spread conservative misinformation,"

[arwalden]

85. ~

<< They poison the discussion because they are hyperbolic and inflammatorily insulting. >>

Hiding behind that one, eh? Although I'm not exactly certain WHO is being insulted here--Isn't that pretty much a given fact that no matter whose ox is being gored... someone is always going to be "insulted"? Can't we just about guarantee that someone is always going to cry "foul" and demand that others immediately cease because the comparisons are such and affront to their delicate sensibilities?

You criticized the Pope, I'm insulted.
You criticized Peta, I'm insulted.
You criticized astrology, I'm insulted.
You criticized Amway, I'm insulted.

<< There may be some similarities, but there are also significant differences, and the comparisons are labels rather than descriptive critiques. >>

I think the comparisons are helpful and I welcome them. This is an interesting discussion and those comparisons are helpful to me. If people such as yourself are compelled to give more detailed information, and point out whatever it is that makes them different, or special, or better, then I welcome that too.

But I think that it's a bit presumptuous for people to demand that people not make those comparisons because they are "insulted" for some reason or another.

<< "If you dont see the difference between Rawstory, a site setup by grassroots progressives that does print rumors, and Drudge, a conservative operative whose site is setup in order to spread conservative misinformation," >>

Other than the motivation and the side of the political spectrum that they represent, I'm certain that there are many who do not see much difference between the two.

[hfojvt]

98. I am insulted that you jeered at my hiding place.

Just kidding. However, you wrote: "Can't we just about guarantee that someone is always going to cry "foul" and demand that others immediately cease because the comparisons are such and (sic) affront to their delicate sensibilities?"

Of course, we can, but I am not saying that all cries of 'foul' are legitimate. It is one thing to criticize, it is another to call names.

Then again, maybe the name has been earned and the discussion proving that is old news, and pretty obvious to the person calling the name.

But you seem to be saying that motivations and sides of the political spectrum do not matter. That there is no difference, except direction, between a CEO looking for power and profit and a working person looking for justice and respect. There is no difference between those who try to speak truth to power and those who are shills for the power?

[arwalden]

104. ==

<< Of course, we can, but I am not saying that all cries of 'foul' are legitimate. It is one thing to criticize, it is another to call names. >>

Has name-calling been going on? I must have missed it.

<< But you seem to be saying that motivations and sides of the political spectrum do not matter. >>

That is correct. A lie is a lie no matter which side tells it. Hype and puffery and exaggeration look just as bad coming from a liberal as it does coming from a conservative.

It seems that Rawstory is sending out mixed signals. They want to be respected as being some sort of reliable and trustworthy news source, yet they continue to engage in the behavior, reporting and writing styles that earns them comparisons to Drudge. Why?

They can't have it both ways.




PS: Loved your subject line. LOL

[hfojvt]

124. Only to us, apparently

Do they really lose sleep about this at Free Republic? Do they have threads over there comparing Rush to a rightwing Bartcop? Do they worry about the lies, hype, and puffery of their Hannitys, O'Reillys, Coulters, Safires, etc?

Not that we should be like them, but they do not seem to forget which side they are on, and do not do our work for us.

A lie is not a lie. It is like the way the news media analyzed the ads of Bush and Kerry. They felt compelled to be non-partisan, and to find something wromg with each side. Nothing wrong with that, except they seemed to ignore matter of degree. I think Krugman said they were comparing jaywalking to first degree murder, or as Somerby wrote: "Yes, your “press corps” micro-nitpicks Kerry, searching for single words to examine. But Cheney? He commits the world’s most laughable blunder and all of them know that it mustn’t be mentioned!"

[arwalden]

131. What Does That Say About Us When We Have Become...

... that which we despise?

<< Not that we should be like them, but they do not seem to forget which side they are on, and do not do our work for us. >>

Oh, that's nice. Real nice. What a piece of work. Very cleverly worded.

[rucky]

13. It seems to be when they report good news. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

14. The latter.

AFAIC they are Drudge's evil twin.

[Ksec]

15. Its our answer to Fox.

[kid a]

17. go pick on drudge, faux, limbaugh, hannity

are you out RW hacks to discredit?

[Taxloss]

21. The entire point is that our reporting should be above that.

Assembing a left-wing version of the right-wing noise machine will do nothing but polarise America further and drive those on the right to more extreme measures, having had their tactics endorsed. We should be above that. And I've seen arwalden criticising the media of the right often enough.

[K-W]

27. Our reporting?

Assembing a left-wing version of the right-wing noise machine will do nothing but polarise America further and drive those on the right to more extreme measures, having had their tactics endorsed. We should be above that. And I've seen arwalden criticising the media of the right often enough.

Would you care to provide a single bit of evidence that Rawstory has attempted to construct a left-wing version of the right-wing noise machine?

Why are you equating sloppy journalism and propaganda?

Rawstory is a startup website that became popular because it filled a demand in the progressive blogosphere. There are two solutions to thier sloppiness.

1. Get them to change thier policies.
2. Start/Find a site that does what they do more reliably.

Pretending they owe you something because you happen to be a progressive too probably wont accomplish much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Exact,ly, raw story is a start

not the end... but people complain when there were NO outlets, and now they complain because there are some... and by the way Raw Story has had some breaks, a few, very few of them... but they have

[arwalden]

50. How Is My Question "Picking On" Them?

When you use the words "pick on", it implies that I'm being unfair or unduly harsh? Is that correct? Is this how it appears to you?

If so, I do not know how, as this is the first time I've asked a question about Rawstory.

Perhaps others been asking the same (or similar) questions? Has this been going on for a long time? Are there others who think as I do who are also "picking on" Rawstory?

[enigmatic]

22. I read Raw Story every day

along w/ DU, KOS, AMERICAblog, and Atrios. I'll continue to do so.

Larisa is jake w/ me.

[sniffa]

30. RS is responsibLe for the heartbreak on DU

i mean, first they're getting everyone's hopes up, and then dashing them, and then raising them, and then causing rectaL bLeeding.

i've grown to Love rawstory threads since it seems to bring out the biggest dicks, DU has to offer.

Legit news source? yes, in regards to their actuaLLy writing their own articLes.

and yes, in Linking to other news articLes they didn't write. i go to other simiLar sites to get my fiLL of wacky news every day (daiLyrotten).

the sensationaLism aspect seems to be the upsetting factor.

[kid a]

37. "ALERT" ALERT

"biggest dicks, DU has to offer."
,
I find that sexist, offensive and unnecessary!!!!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[bicentennial_baby]

41. well said

on all counts :thumbsup:

:loveya:

[K-W]

48. DU would just get its rumors somewhere else,

if Rawstory stopped posting them.

I think the main problem is many DU'rs not critically evaluating rumors they read, not Rawstory, but regardless, Rawstory does have a very real problem with overhyping things, but it is a well meaning grassroots site that can hopefully improve.

[Midlodemocrat]

53. sniffa, you da' man.

[Fla Dem]

100. Is that some kind of code or is your L key stuck on caps? n/t

[sniffa]

103. it is code

[Fla Dem]

119. Oh crap, now I'll have to find my secret decoder ring...LOL n/t

[Octafish]

31. Is The New York Times a legitimate news source?

They helped lie the United States into an illegal war.

At least RawStory tries to tell the truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Yep, that is why I said waht what I said

nor do they pretend to be something they are not... they were created as a rapid response to Drudge and in that sense they do exactly what they were meant to do.

Right now they are having their test by fire, but hey... will see how well they do

[Octafish]

40. They got the 'Hadley in Italy' story right...

Most interesting times, eh, Nadin?

Grabbed this confirmation from Buzzflash:

La Repubblica's Scoop, Confirmed

Italy's intelligence chief met with Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley just a month before the Niger forgeries first surfaced.

By Laura Rozen
Web Exclusive: 10.25.05

With Patrick Fitzgerald widely expected to announce indictments in the CIA leak investigation, questions are again being raised about the intelligence scandal that led to the appointment of the special counsel: namely, how the Bush White House obtained false Italian intelligence reports claiming that Iraq had tried to buy uranium "yellowcake" from Niger.

The key documents supposedly proving the Iraqi attempt later turned out to be crude forgeries, created on official stationery stolen from the African nation's Rome embassy. Among the most tantalizing aspects of the debate over the Iraq War is the origin of those fake documents -- and the role of the Italian intelligence services in disseminating them.

In an explosive series of articles appearing this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002. Sismi had reported to the CIA on October 15, 2001, that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger, a report it also plied on British intelligence, creating an echo that the Niger forgeries themselves purported to amplify before they were exposed as a hoax.

Today's exclusive report in La Repubblica reveals that Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9, 2002, with then–Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones confirmed the meeting to the Prospect on Tuesday.

CONTINUED...

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10506

Let alone Cheney, this spells trouble for the monkey house and the whole BFEE.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. yes most interesting times

it looks like the NYT is going down in a ball of flames

[Garbo 2004]

107. Did rawstory break a Hadley in Italy story? The big news here is that

Pollari met with Hadley in DC.

[madrchsod]

49. think sludge of the left

nothing that can`t be found elsewhere

[hippiechick]

76. I tend to agree with you ...

n/t

[dutchdemocrat]

51. Well.

If Jason Leopold is writing for them. Then, as far as I am concerned - they are more legitimate than most.

Don't know who Leopold is?

Jason Leopold – Shafted By The New York Times

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00063.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00052.htm

[Walt Starr]

56. It's a legitimate news source

they don't do anything Wolfie or the rest of the media won't do.

[terrya]

57. My question is: how did they "scoop" the best kept secret in Washington?

Right now?

Something is very fishy with this "story" and the whole site.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

59. Are you serious?

Raw Story actually employs journalists -- actual journalists, with journalism backgrounds, and journalistic ability. It's not a one-man operation like Drudge. They come up with "scoops" because they take the news seriously, and they're a serious news organization.

[terrya]

60. Yes, I am serious.

What indictments may or may not be handed down is known by no other news outlet in the world.

It just strikes me as odd that of all the newspapers, cable outlets, etc, only Raw Story has managed to announce these indictments. And again, this is the best kept secret in Washington right now.

[arwalden]

64. Do The Daily Horroscope Columns Have More Reliable Information?

[sniffa]

you couLd have said the same about drudge back in 97/98

someone purposefuLLy got that info out.

[Maddy McCall]

125. LOL. They must employ the D-level "journalists: who skipped class...

or who graduated at a diploma mill.

[Ellen Forradalom]

62. As with any other source, I read with a big dish of salt by my side.

It's one of many sources to be weighed in putting together an approximate picture.

I'd say read it with a healthy skepticism for a while and form your own opinion.

[arwalden]

86. Too Much Salt Is Bad For Your Blood Pressure.

[Angry Girl]

73. Raw Story has good sources and connections

While I don't like their in-your-face advertising, I definitely appreciate their site and their reporting. They have reported lots of good articles about election "irregularities" and other important issues.

These folks, as well as folks like Brad of BradBlog.com, are out there kind of on their own, without the safety net of a large "news corporation" and that can't be easy! They don't even get big salaries. I know I wouldn't want their job!

And I never cared so much if they take other people's headlines and stick them up on their website because that's exactly what Yahoo! News does or any other place that gets their Reuters or AP or UPI feed....

edited for the clarity, typos, gremlins...

[Tace]

92. John Byrne Hired Jason Leopold To Help

[garybeck]

58. I trust Raw Story. PERIOD.

Every news agency makes mistakes from time to time. That's why the have corrections. However, Raw Story has been the only news source really investigating and reporting on the truth and what is going on. From election fraud to the investigations, they have been right on. I trust them, from experience.

[Coexist]

75. Well said, garybeck

I love Rawstory, and am really irritated by the constant barrage of threads today trying to villianize them.

Enough already, people. We get it, you don't like them, so DON'T READ THEM.

[beam me up scottie]

79. You mean like you can choose to not read this thread?

:shrug:

[Coexist]

80. Yeah, exactly - but I got tired of ignoring the bashing and decided

to add my .02 to the debate.

I sat back all day and watched it happen - enough was enough for me.

[demobabe]

110. It's fine they have their own site - it's the pollution on the DU

I have no problem with them having their own site.

I have no problem with them mentioning their stories on the DU for the most part.

I do have a problem with them hyping non-stories or plain old hype or someone else's stories and with multiple Rawbots posting the same headline over and over in all the forums linking Raw Story.

I've even seen them post Washington Post or New York Times in the subject line (not Raw Story) and then the link at the thread is - you guessed it, rawstory.com.

How do I know which threads are legit and which ones aren't?

The way they go about posting links is just one big scheme to routinely funnel traffic off the DU. I bet they could tell you how many hits they expect off of each thread...

Buzzflash doesn't do this. MarKos doesn't do this. AmericaBlog doesn't do this. Atrios doesn't do this.

[Maddy McCall]

126. Amen. Best post on the thread.

[garybeck]

138. I don't think that's happening...

I think there are just a lot of people here that read RS. So when somehting big is going on at their site, several people post links to it here. I don't think it's a conspiracy to get DUers to go there.

[Cults4Bush]

67. No worse than any other outlet and much better than sludge...

as he wil actually photoshop up lies.

Sorry but in this day and age anyone who thinks that they can completely trust any media outlet needs to do the paranoia dance a wee bit more often.

Also Congressman Conyers constantly tips to RS, that is a pretty good endorsement in my book.

[lithiumbomb]

68. sort of, just use your head

Just trust it as much as you'd trust many of the blogs, and even some of DU. Many of their stories are summaries from other publications, and they include links. Obviously these are as good as whatever their source material is. They also publish rumors, which seem to be obviously reported as rumors, to me. They're often right on the rumors, and they're also often wrong or anticlimactic. I wouldn't agree that they are not to be trusted, just read their material for what it is.

[Generator]

70. My take

Before Plame, overhyped and not so much there there. (though I appreciate their sincere effort) Since Plame, they have actually been ahead and correct. I say somebody at Raw Story has a source close to the Plame investigation that's leaking to them first. That's the essence of it all-a source that gives you the real deal.

[sandnsea]

71. They do both, like every paper

Get press releases, like every other newspaper and at about the same rate. And they do some of their own digging too. The only difference is they put a left wing spin on what they report, which means it's not always precisely accurate. But neither is any other news outlet. They're as legitimate as any other news source.

[robbedvoter]

74. They broke several stories BEFORE Daily News "broke" them

That confers them some credibility with me.

[understandinglife]

81. See Steve Clemons:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html


Peace.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

84. I'm glad you posted this.. I was recently wondering the same thing.

I guess the question is, which, if ANY, of the "left" blogs actually have reporters in the field getting news, rather than harvesting things from the net or print/broadcast media?

Reading the headline story today:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Fitzgerald_has_decided_to_seek_indictments_1025.html

it cites "sources close to the investigation". No one named... It does imply that someone is interviewing someone, but not much to go on...

[RSchewe]

91. I think they do a very good job. They often sensationalize, but so what.

It does not take away from the work they do. If anyone feels like they are not credible, I think it would be their job to prove to affirmative and show where they have been inconsistent. And even to that end, no news source is 100% accurate.

That is my take.

[lostnfound]

93. I agree. It is a very handy site to get the day's news.

Occasional errors are frustrating but none of us are perfect.

[arwalden]

96. I Would Think That Hyping And Sensationalizing Would INDEED...

... "take away from the work they do". Is that the reputation they desire? If so, then why do their supporters complain when the comparisons to Drudge are made?

Others have asked questions along the lines of "If they do not want to be continually compared to Drudge, wouldn't they try to actively do things that would *differentiate* themselves from Drudge?"

Apparently for many observers, this seems not to be the case.

[Coexist]

97. Who is "continually" comparing them to Drudge? Today is the first

(and second, and tenth) time I have heard it. Please provide links to threads from other days to support this argument.

[arwalden]

99. I Do Not Know Who Is Making This Comparison...

... the fierce reactions from Rawstory supporters suggest that this is the case.

[Coexist]

101. that doesn't make sense. People who like to get their news

from RawStory defend their news source after the obnoxious bashing of that site all day, and therefore, it must be a Drudge parallel????

[arwalden]

109. Well, The Very 2nd Post In This Thread...

... immediately starts off with the suggestion that comparisons to Drudge are fairly common. I had not previously mentioned Drudge in my original post. The 1st poster had not mentioned Drudge. And on her entry into the thread, she brings up Drudge.

Hmmm. What would you think?

That poster is obviously defending Rawstory, and that poster obviously takes exception to my post... so seeing that she's a fan of Rawstory and seeing that she's motivated enough to defend Rawstory, and seeing that she's the one who first brings up the comparisons to Drudge, the question really ought to be what reason do I have to doubt her?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "obnoxious bashing of that site all day".

[Coexist]

113. No, the second post in this thread says,

"to those who would say it is the Drudge of the left" - that could mean those who have said that today. Again - I have never read about RawStory being compared to Drudge, except for the bashing today.

I have no idea how you read that into that sentence.

[arwalden]

118. Then You'll Just Have To Continue To Be Puzzled.

<< "to those who would say it is the Drudge of the left" - that could mean those who have said that today. >>

Grasping at straws? So you want me to believe that NOBODY, NOWHERE had EVER criticized Rawstory or compared it to Drudge before today? I'm smarter than that. I think that any rational reader would come to the same conclusions about that statement that I did.

<< Again - I have never read about RawStory being compared to Drudge, except for the bashing today. >>

I do not know how to account for anything that you might have missed previously.

<< I have no idea how you read that into that sentence. >>

Of course not. It's a great big mystery.

[Coexist]

122. I'm fairly rational, and I didn't come to that conclusion

post me links to prove your point if its so common (other than threads from today)

[arwalden]

130. I do not know what else I can say to you to help you to understand.

Until I had read that post (and other similar posts) I would not have thought that myself. I have seen no evidence of these things.

But why should I fail to trust someone who so passionately defends Rawstory, and whose own words leave rational readers with that impression?

It sounds as though the argument you have is with someone else, rather than with me, I'm just the person who's taking her at her word.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maddy McCall]

139. I am, and I have been doing so for a year or more.

Even have an old private message from lala rawraw asking me why I dis RawStory all the time.

I've been calling RawStory the left version of Drudge for a year or more. You have the ability to search the archives, if you like.

I'm not going to post that private message, because it would be against DU's rules.

[RSchewe]

108. Sensationalizing has nothing to do with accuracy. How that "takes away...

from what they do" is a matter of perception, comparing Raw Story to Drudge looks like an attempt to smear them by association. If there are similarities I would like some examples not generalities. It is simple to criticize something, not back it up, and hope something sticks. Ask the RNC...

Besides the fact that the word "Drudge" is getting paired up with the Raw Story, I have yet to see anyone make any case showing them to be not credible or a bad news source.

All news sources sensationalize their scoops and I don't see Raw Story doing it in a tastless or irresponsible way.

As for comparisons to Drudge, someone would need to show some examples on both sides where, for example, the "inaccurate reporting" Drudge does (to put it lightly), would be done by The Raw Story.

[arwalden]

112. Yeah... That Would Be Like Comparing The National Enquirer...

... and Weekly World News. Eh?

[RSchewe]

114. No. The National Enquirer is a tabloid publication. All news sources...

have sensationalized to sell papers or to get publicity. That is what getting scoops is all about. Just because news sources may hype stories don't mean they are wrong.

I just don't get the whining about The Raw Story. There is no substance to it but just labeling them something with no elaboration.

[arwalden]

115. The Hype And Sensational Headlines Suggest To Me...

... that they are trying to compensate for something that's lacking in their story, or their sources, or their credibility, or their accuracy.

And the Weekly World News is also a tabloid... just like the Enquirer. (Haven't you ever heard of Batboy? Didn't you know that Bill Gates was going to buy MARS?)





http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/technology/60809

[RSchewe]

132. The comparison is pretty silly. Comparing supermarket tabloids to...

The Raw Story says everything you need to know about the main point of this thread, mostly unsupported.

Many blogs, liberal radio programs, and other places cite The Raw Story's pieces.

The only place I hear any complains about the site in any way, from a Democrat side, is from a few here in DU. I have yet to hear any well articulated, civilized points supporting the criticisms I have heard. All I hear are condescending opinion and a wide range of labels.

That's about it.

[arwalden]

133. Actually, I Was Comparing Supermarket Tabloids To Each Other...

... I wasn't comparing them to Rawstory. I was using that comparison to illustrate similarities of how Rawstory was being compared to Drudge. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear about that.

Rake is to shovel, as... fork is to spoon.
Enquirer is to WWN, as... Rawstory is to Drudge.

For anyone to deny the unmistakable similarities between Drudge and Rawstory is more silly than any imagined comparison to a supermarket tabloid.

<< That's about it. >>

Promise?

[RSchewe]

134. I misunderstood. Now I get your point. I would not compare RS to Drudge

though. Drudge has been debunked many times over and I have not seen a record of that with The Raw Story. I don't mean perfect, but no where close to the garbage that Drudge puts out there. And that has nothing to do with left of right, but instead right and wrong.

[arwalden]

135. Those Things May Be True...

... but--if we can continue the tabloid metaphor--the National Enquirer is mostly true, certainly more respected than the fictional and hilarious Weekly World News. Yet, there they are displayed side-by-side, both supermarket tabloids, both catering to the same readers. They may not be identical, but they are very similar.

Drudge and Rawstory are not identical, but they are awfully similar. They are (essentially) displayed on the same rack, side-by-side, and they both attract the same type of hard-core partisan reader (from both the right and from the left, respectively.)

[RSchewe]

136. Well, maybe on it's face but not content. n/t

[Griffy]

95. YES .. it is more real than most outlets.... I have met the owners...

and they have connection to people that are in the know. The real key is I believe that they awnt the truth, I dont buy this left vs. right , red vs. blue CRAP... its about FACT vs. FICTION!!! I think Bill Moyers said it best "the best way to get labeled a liberal is to tell the truth" THATS what this is all about.. propaganda , and control of the public opinion!

[NashVegas]

102. To Me? An Annoyance, Mostly

As far as I can tell, the single largest reason Raw Story articles exist on DU seems to be for the sake of promoting that site and driving visitors over. I've seen instances where those posting an RS story include a graphic of their banner, even.

There are plenty of organizations, both alternative news and mainstream, that get used for sources on DU and I can't ever recall anyone - not even Will Pitt & Truthout - being so blantantly self-promoting.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a Raw Story article that wasn't based on things we were already saying here on DU.

I don't mind that they exist; if they can build and gather more credible journalists to their organization and make a buck, hats off. I mind that using DU to promote themselves is such an integral part of their publicity strategy. They should be donating heavily (I'll assume they are) to DU in exchange for the service DU is providing them.

Oh, and the pop-ups that defeat my Mozilla software are as annoying as all get-out.

[beam me up scottie]

105. Uh oh.

Are we going to be on another list now?

[seemslikeadream]

142. Or taken off another list now

[beam me up scottie]

149. I thought you left.

[seemslikeadream]

150. Now why would you think that?

after 3 1/2 years and 15,000 posts do you think I'd give up that easily?

[brettdale]

106. I use to Love rawstory

But now I have serious doubts about that site.

[Ksec]

116. All media make mistakes. Just look at the NYTimes.

Is it biased news reporting? Yes, it focuses on stories that interest us and help our side.

Does it just make up shit? No I don't think they do but they do focus on stuff that our side benefits from. Making up their own facts is not something Ive seen.

Does it remind you of the National Enquirer with the emphasis on bold headlines and sensationalizing. In a way. Thats the way free market news makes their money.

Take news outta the free market if you want straight news without the drive to up readership and therefore profits.

IMO news should be a not for profit business. That would fix alot of the slanting and sensationalizing.

[brentspeak]

111. RawStory should change its name to RawHeadline

It's not real news.

[Maddy McCall]

140. Their methodology reminds me of Bev Harris'

All tease, no action.

[arwalden]

146. Yowza!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

143. I still can't get over...

...their "Cheney aide leaves country!" headline.

As if nobody in the administration ever leaves the country for any reason. :eyes:

[arwalden]

147. "Cheney Aide Leaves Country!" .... Good Example.

That was a very odd headline.

[bleever]

120. Rawstory.com has rarely steered me wrong, and often had the first

good look at a story that broke soon thereafter.

I disagree with any comparison to Drudge, and if people call it "sensationalism" when they post notice of a story soon to come, that's their right. To me, previewing an upcoming story is just fine.

[xynthee]

123. I don't remember them ever being wrong about anything . . . .

Sure, they link to a lot of existing media articles, but for the latest scoop, I go to Raw Story first. They're always (based on my experience) ahead of everyone else for "scoops". Granted, I don't look far beyond DU, Yahoo!, Talking Points Memo, DailyKos, etc. for news, but I keep a tab open with Raw Story's home page at all times.

I think they're doing a wonderful job. They could use a less Drudge-like web design and a proofreader, but I'm grateful they're in existence.

I should really donate some money to them.

[sadiesworld]

127. Is Rawstory now on the DU chopping block?

LOL

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

144. I don't know if "chopping block" is the correct phrase.

But a lot of people here are quite irritated at the constant barrage of THIS IS HUGH!!11 BREAKING N00Z teasers coming from RawStory, myself included.

There's also the issue of their hypocrisy. They will constantly tell you how horribe the mainstream media is, how it can't be trusted, and how they and their ilk are the only true source of information... Then they'll link a piece from AP that contains the same information as their story, as if this vindicates them. So the MSM is bad... unless it agrees with them.

So yeah. A lot of people are annoyed that they're pushing rumor and half-truths and generally taking advantage of everyone's lust for new information on Plamegate as a moneymaking scheme. There are very few other sources that engage in these tactics on DU, and I can fully understand why it pisses people off. If RawStory really wants to be considered a reputable source, they should stop engaging in behavior that is damaging to their reputation.

[arwalden]

151. Excellent Post.

:thumbsup:

[Roland99]

128. RawStory is just that...a Raw Story. Unfiltered early reports.

Many times they hit the nail on the head, other times they miss.

[Liberty Belle]

137. Lots of independent investigation by Raw, with a big network of sources.

They do link to stories on other sites, but also do a heckuva job scooping the MSM on many occasions.

[seemslikeadream]

141. Yes by all means let's limit the sources even more here at DU

I always love to be told what I can, should read. It's so much easier that way. :sarcasm:

[arwalden]

145. You're Letting Your Imagination Run Wild...

... I've suggested no such thing.

[seemslikeadream]

148. My imagination has fertile ground