Here's your chance to weigh in on the great Raw Story debate

[Miles Archer]

This isn't "meta discussion," this is me, once again, trying to do a temperature test in the name of doing quality posts on DU.

I'm not sure if Raw Story existed when I first became a DU member (as some of you remember I was Amerigo Vespucci before my computer died and took all of my data with it, so I became Miles Archer). What I do know is that as long as both sites have existed, I've used Raw Story as a source.

The most consistent negative feedback I've gotten is that the over-sensationalize some of their headlines, tabloid-style, and that much of their content is simply poached from more established news site, with additional commentary of varying quality.

Lately, if I see that an article was lifted from WaPo or Politico or Newsweek (as examples), I'll go to the source instead and post the original content. Other times, I'm too busy or distracted with other things and just post the Raw Story content.

So if you have an opinion on that and would like to share it, here's your opportunity. I did a similar post regarding Twitter, and since receiving your feedback, I have made an effort to post the content of the tweet as well as the link itself. That's what I'm looking for...doing posts that best serve the this community.

[Twitler]

1. It is getting bad

IIRC, it was once an actual news site, now it is just a leftist version of Drudge Report.

[LeftInTX]

2. Raw Story provides a synopsis for those that don't subscribe to the WaPo

Otherwise, I find their headlines to be a bit of clickbait.

A typical headline will say:
"Trump Voters Devastated About Obamacare Repeal"

Yet there are no Trump voters interviewed.
The article only points out that Trump voters are likely to lose coverage if the ACA is repealed.
None of them are devastated.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. It's crap and why anyone relies on it is beyond me.

[Metatron]

4. I prefer the primary source article rather than Raw Story

I never click on Raw Story links and usually only skim the OP to see which news source(s) Raw Story is using so I can go find it on my own. I really wish Raw Story was not allowed in LBN - I don't think they are a legit news source. I think Raw Story sucks but I don't think anything negative about DUers who post the links here.

[The Polack MSgt]

5. Raw story gives a decent synopsis and links...

If you want to dive deeper it's a good jumping off point.

If i was doing an essay i wouldn't link to it, by it's useful for quick replies.

And yes the clickbait headlines are ass

[MrScorpio]

6. Raw Story has one of the best moderated comment sections on the net

I'm all for using it.

[pbmus]

7. I am looking at all sources and checking at these sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites

http://www.factcheck.org

https://sunlightfoundation.com/

If anyone knows more helpful checking sources ...sometimes at https://www.snopes.com

[Nevernose]

8. Raw story is still fairly good, IMO

For what it is. More than Twitter, less than a research-news site. Heavily biased towards reality but also with a thick layer of left wing snark and left wing curation.

What I LOVE it for is catching stories that I would have otherwise missed. They draw attention to smaller things. From there I can do further research on my own.

I think that in 2017 we all need to be more self-conscious media consumers. We need to either be trained or train ourselves at approaching things with a Critical lens (big C philosophy Critical).

Rawstory I feel is more up front about what it is and what they do. Newsweek is now basically a news aggregator with less overt commentary, but seems to still be pretending that it’s still what it was in the print days.

For instance, in the 16 years I’ve wasted at DU, I’ve had ONE post hidden. It was because I quoted Newsweek — but hadn’t realized they were literally only rewording and linking to a Fox News hit piece. Totally my responsibility, but it still pisses me off.

[mopinko]

9. iirc, someone involved in forming raw story was a member back in the day.

only recall this vaguely, and suspect the brain trust will recall more.
my recollection is that there was some strum und drang about the site, and the writer, and it was fairly intense.

that said, i rarely link to raw story and like others say, look for the actual content.