I know you moderators got profiled by NYT and got free publicity but doesn't mean that this site should be become a traffic generator for NYT fakenews
Rot of journalism ethics at New York Times has turned into leftist plague
https://nypost.com/2019/08/13/rot-of-journalism-ethics-at-ne...
And yet, here it is on the front page of a fairly popular website, probably getting a fair number of hits, some of which will trust the NYT brand, skim over this particular article and then go on to soak up their multimedia content and other [hopefully better] articles. This seems to be a tactic.
Really interesting PR hack in play here. At first glance the article is published at NYT.com and that fact will be milked endlessly. The really curious part is that the article is syndicated up from the SF-area nonprofit "Bay Citizen" [1].
Note to PR-hungry founders: Figure out which blogs are syndicated by the NYT and other big players and then pitch to them directly. They should be much more receptive audiences than first-party NYT staff.
Fairly ironic considering this entire article was basically rewritten in twenty minutes from two or three original blog posts, so that the NY Times could run ads against their own version. This entire article adds exactly nothing to the originals.
And what's more, whenever I check my RSS feed from the NYT I regularly see entries like this:
>The 6th Floor: Sentence of the Week
"Five diverse candidates this week."
It seems like the NYT is just trying to distract Google from the fact that 90% of their own content is not much better than the content farmed stuff they're criticizing.
Someone submits all the relevant nyt stories it seems. It does make for an nyt heavy front page. I too thought it was fishy but just seems that more chances means more wins.
I was wondering why Knuth set aside an entire precious Sunday for the "Denton Daily". Big NYT profile makes more sense.
Googling a sentence from their "David and Victoria Beckham keen to present a unified front!" article reveals the same plagiarism—albeit not from the NYT that time—so we have banned the site.
They acknowledge the New York Times at the end of the article. Perhaps they licensed the content. I don't think that anybody aside from legal staff at the New York Times can determine if anybody was fully ripped off. If you have concerns about copyright and want to do something about it, you could report the issue. I assume that the New York Times is fully capable of hunting down violations without any help.
The site is much nicer than the New York Times. I'd prefer that the New York Times be banned, both for the paywall and for severe political bias.
I think it's important to note that this isn't a New York Times piece but a Read Write Web (and an amateurly written one at that) reposted in the NYT template shell. It's a bit misleading to call it an NYT article entirely, though they should take some responsibility for republishing it.
Something tells me that external media focus on the moderation of this site is going to be something we're all going to wind up regretting.
Is all of this coverage organic, or did someone hire a PR firm?
(none of the above is meant to imply that the mods here are not doing a good job.)
reply