Why do people post Rawstory?

[Renew Deal]

Rawstory is basically a clearinghouse for other people's work. Their ads are intrusive to say the least. I'm also pretty sure they slightly modify stories from other outlets and post them. I'd rather see the original story than risk reading manipulated articles from their ad infested site.

[MineralMan]

1. That's one site I never click through to view.

[kstewart33]

17. I have a cookie blocker.

I just clicked on the Raw Story website. 48 cookies were blocked. I've never seen that many blocks on any website.

[RedWedge]

2. I agree. It's all over LBN and I can't figure out why it's allowed.

[LAS14]

8. What's LBN?

[Wounded Bear]

9. Latest Breaking News Forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1014

One quirk of the forum is you have to post the original headline of the article as your subject line, no matter how subversive or sensationalized it is.

Can be a place to get the "latest" but can get overrun sometimes with crap from alternative sites.

[HAB911]

3. While most stories there have attribution

they never proved a link to the original

[NurseJackie]

4. I hate it! And their pages are FILLED TO MARGINS with clickbait.

[demmiblue]

5. I can't say that I have never posted anything from there, but

I usually read/post the links in their articles.

And yeah, they have a TON of scripts on their site.

I also don't think they should be allowed as a source in LBN.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

6. I prefer sources that are respected, well established newspapers and magazines

New York Times, Washington Post... for Maine some local papers like Portland Press Herald... maybe Time magazine, etc. I don't bother to read it if I don't trust the source. I might read stuff off MSN or Yahoo News that is just AP articles too. I never been to Rawstory site.

[sweetloukillbot]

7. Confirmation bias?

Seriously though, until about 10 years ago they were a decent aggregator. Then they got click bait-ey and the ads got worse. Now they're pretty close to fake news for me.

[Tatiana]

11. The ads and click-bait are ridiculous.

I stopped going there a long time ago and I wish that site was banned from LBN as well.

I'd rather just see the original Reuters or AP story they re-posted.

[MrScorpio]

12. Raw story may be somewhat click baity

But its commenters are solidly liberal and in the know. It's also has one of the best moderated comment sections on the net. Their own produced material is always on point.

You say "clearinghouse" like it's a bad thing. It's not. Scouring the net for different stories is helpful for an overall big picture, look at Buzzflash.

Outside of DU, the only people that I've ever seen have a problem with Raw Story are wingers. Because of Disqus, I've discovered that these people are usually way into Breitbart.

[Renew Deal]

13. Are you invested in them?

[MrScorpio]

15. They don't don't owe me any money

But I do comment there frequently. I like it there a lot. I'm on the site way more than I'm on Alternet, Mother Jones, Kos, Media Matters or Crooks and Liars. Raw Story's moderators are way better at screening out winger trolls than any of them.

[Judi Lynn]

14. I especially appreciate your last comment. Thanks. n/t

[MrScorpio]

16. Thanks.

And some don't appreciate that click bait pays the bills. It's either that or paywalls.

I'd rather gloss over the click bait because I can recognize it as such.

[kstewart33]

19. Liberal is good but.

Not so liberal that it becomes way too much bias. I question the objectivity of some of the articles. Too much slant.

And the website just looks tacky. Maybe not a concern for many, but for me, it reflects on the editorship's priorities.

[ananda]

18. That's one of my go to sites.

I like it.

[Maru Kitteh]

20. Um, then don't click on it? It's spammy, but not malicious, and it's a liberal source.

I never see the ads because I have layers of ad-blockers.

If you don't like the site, just, you know, don't go there?