Hey, be respectful.
The Dean Of Bloggers "contributes" there.
Posted on 11/25/2016 7:09:22 PM PST by rhett october
Actually, have you ever watched a news channel? Or read Breitbart? They report on what people, groups, and other news channels say. Most of their articles begin with “The AP reported,” or “According to the Washington Post,” etc. Here’s an example of them using an AP story and not even linking to the original source. http://www.breitbart.com/news/ohio-state-tweets-that-active-shooter-is-on-campus/ In fact, if you applied the same level of scrutiny to Breitbart, you could search Google and see that they use the exact wording and images as hundreds of other websites. Are you going to move all posts that excerpt or link to Breitbart to the “Bloggers” section? Or call them a “RE-Blogger”? Like Breitbart, a lot of our stories are the same stories run by other websites. Or else you’d have only one news website posting a story that no one else could. Then, we have other stories that are originals or are commentaries of news. Again, just like every news website out there. Search most stories on Fox, MSNBC, Breitbart, and others and you’ll find that many of their posts are stories, often the exact wording, used by all the other news websites out there.
Well.. no, if the blog is trying to pass itself off as a news site
in order to get hit revenue by recycling other folks material...it's still a blog.
A blog built on theft and subterfuge, trickery and dishonesty.
It’s interesting how people will twist things and ignore common sense when they decide that they are against someone.
I'm glad you're interested.
It's also cute when some n00b shows up to pimp his blog and gets
all outraged and indignant when he's outed for it. News site indeed.
So, the take-away from all this:
Your stuff was moved to the blog section. Learn from that and post accordingly.
You'll still catch crap for excerpting, but some folks are slower than others.
Actually, have you ever watched a news channel? Or read Breitbart? They report on what people, groups, and other news channels say. Most of their articles begin with “The AP reported,” or “According to the Washington Post,” etc. Here’s an example of them using an AP story and not even linking to the original source. http://www.breitbart.com/news/ohio-state-tweets-that-active-shooter-is-on-campus/ In fact, if you applied the same level of scrutiny to Breitbart, you could search Google and see that they use the exact wording and images as hundreds of other websites. Are you going to move all posts that excerpt or link to Breitbart to the “Bloggers” section? Or call them a “RE-Blogger”? Like Breitbart, a lot of our stories are the same stories run by other websites. Or else you’d have only one news website posting a story that no one else could. Then, we have other stories that are originals or are commentaries of news. Again, just like every news website out there. Search most stories on Fox, MSNBC, Breitbart, and others and you’ll find that many of their posts are stories, often the exact wording, used by all the other news websites out there. They also have original stories and commentary - like Resistance Feed does. If you bothered looking at the site you’d see that some stories are the news stories covered by many other websites (are those websites blogs too because they cover the same story as other websites?) and that other posts on Resistance Feed are originals or commentaries.
And you said I create none for myself - referring to content? Again, you apparently haven’t even gone to the website. There are original reports and commentaries. But like other websites like Breitbart, Newsmax, etc, sometimes we report the same story as other people. Breitbart will make a story on what politicians Tweet - they don’t just link to the Tweets and call it a day - they report on what other people say. They do the same with videos. All news websites do that and have original content as well and that’s what Resistance Feed does. You are using a double standard by attacking me for it.
I suspect that these will be no more successful in changing the results as Stein’s will be.
Isn’t that scene from the Corbomite Maneuver kind of trite?
It’s a matter of scale and scope.
Suppose some bum cooks a hamburger and comes onto your property,
knocks on your door and slurringly begs you to buy his hamburger.
Is he a restaraunt chain? Is he on par with McDonald’s? They both made
burgers and want you to buy them.. so are they the same because of that?
No and no.
Scale and scope and brand recognition and risk.
So I’m a slurring bum now?
Why not take a look at the content of the site (both original and syndicated) and see if it deserves being described as “slurring.” See if maybe we’re trying to do something that is good.
There are websites who’ve had links posted in your news section that look amateurish (extremely so), have no name recognition at all, have absolutely no original content, and who rarely update their content but they were not even questioned.
In fact, we report first on a lot of things and have had sites whose links breeze through your forum use a syndicated-type of post of ours where they link back to US as the source. How’s that for irony?
At this point, it seems like you’re so biased against me that it doesn’t even make sense. Again, all I’m asking for is for you to look at our content and make an honest, fair decision on its quality. We are owned by an LLC, and have paid staff. We will have a story this week on a local restaurant who is part of a national chain who has done something that will, no doubt, draw the attacks of the political left. We’ll be first to break the story - and have worked very hard to ensure that. An interview will be posted, images, etc. Is that going to be treated by Freerepulic as content from a slurring bum?
Post it all right here and that will happen.
We will have a story this week on a local restaurant who is part of a national chain who has done something that will, no doubt, draw the attacks of the political left.
We will see if you post it.. or if you just post an advertisement for it.
Is that going to be treated by Freerepulic as content from a slurring bum?
That depends upon how you present it and the quality of the material.
Don't screw up quality of the material by begging at someone's door.
Ah yes, again, other groups can have an excerpt posted with a link to their websites with news that’s on thousands of other websites, but me, if I do that with an original story we’ve worked hard on and spent money on, you call it an advertisement and will move it to the “Bloggers” section. You say that when I post an excerpt to one of OUR stories, that it’s stealing traffic from your site - BUT you’re fine for people to do that with other news sites.
Actually, traffic is not stolen from you at all because people discuss the story here. If anything you get content that generates discussion. But why would I post a full article here that we spent time and money on? Either way, you receive content that generates discussion. But we have nothing to gain. Other sites do though, because you let them post excerpts with links to their sties (and if you think they’re not doing that and that it’s just your members, you’re wrong). How can you not see my point? I don’t understand why you’re not being fair to us.
By the way, how I even heard about this place was from another writer with another news website who posts here. She’s never been questioned, called a blog pimp or anything like that.
Maybe she does more than promote her own material.
You know, like that bum knocking on your door with a cold hamburger.
I happen to be of the opinion that Breitbart has lost it's integrity as a news source.
When Andrew was alive he used to post here on FR. He posted self-authored threads (along with many from other sources) in full. He was engaged in real investigative journalism, as a forerunner of folks like James O'Keefe.
The website that bears his name today is a shallow, re-blogging hit farm. A real pop-up, pop-under, click bait haven. It has protected status here mostly because of its founder's legacy and the fact that it's been the most prominent source of pro-Trump news over the last year.
I am a fan of Trump. (I didn't start out that way, but he convinced me.) I'm not a big fan of the Breitbart website.
So essentially the answer to your question - "Actually, have you ever watched a news channel? Or read Breitbart? " is "No." So-called "news channels" couldn't less relevant if they tried.
Several days ago I gave you a quote for reference from FreeRepublic's owner and founder. Did you read it?
Here it is in its entirety. Read and learn padawan.
Hey, be respectful.
The Dean Of Bloggers "contributes" there.
I did read it. But you saying what you said about Breitbart and news channels not being relevant still apparently allows them plenty of direct links from here. And another person told me that Breitbart had brand respect so it was allowed here. And apparently the usual suspects (msnbc, Fox News, cnn, etc.) have that same level of respect. My site doesn’t use popovers or try to sell branded hats and tee shirts. However, in defense of Breitbart, not every website can survive (and thrive) off of donations. Traffic is expensive and often leads to diminishing returns. BTW, is there a Facebook page for FR?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.