New papers dicussing the ACA and how we got where we are. Jacob Hacker’s NYT’s OpEd and PNHP’s Don McCanne, M.D.’s, rejoinder. Very thoughtful.
The public option in perspective–The Best Way to Save Obamacare
New papers dicussing the ACA and how we got where we are. Jacob Hacker’s NYT’s OpEd and PNHP’s Don McCanne, M.D.’s, rejoinder. Very thoughtful.
The public option in perspective–The Best Way to Save Obamacare
Hopefully it will be less seen here than in one of the active threads.
A couple of hints/suggestions that may spare you some grief.
I recall in one of my comments about how to link to articles that I stated it was a good practice to supply some information about the source. It can be the publication and/or author(s). The date of the publication is also often relevant enough to include as well. I almost always identify the publication. When I just go with the author, it’s because the article appears on numerous cites and therefore, is of far less importance. It’s a judgment call on which one is weightier. I often cite the publication, author(s) and date. ie. The Guardian by Edward Snowden on 1/10/20 followed by the link.
Why? Citing the publication and/or author indicates some respect for it and/or the author. The date helps others to know if it’s new or something old that’s currently relevant or relevant to the comment or diary. It also allows others that may not immediately recall from the title that they may have already seen or read it and therefore, don’t need to waste time on seeing it again. Also, as the NYTimes and WaPo limit the number of articles that a non-subscriber can read, it allows readers to choose whether or not they want to use up one of those freebies on the referenced article. Duncan at Eschaton only supplies a link. I finally learned not to click any of his links and risk squandering a freebie. It’s why I always cite the NYTimes and WaPo before any link in my diaries or comments.
A secondary reason is that it focuses the writer on whether or not this is a source they want to use. For example, I’m fine with much of what appears on RT and have no trouble discriminating between a factually good enough article and one that’s too loaded with bias. Others here apparently have less ability to discriminate between the two and have concluded that everything on RT is Russian propaganda. They’ll happily link to the most atrocious propaganda garbage on WaPo or the NYTimes because they believe those publications are totally credible regardless of how often that’s has been proven to be false.
I got a lot of grief for once grabbing and linking to RT (and the person that gave me that grief is someone I usually get along well with). I don’t need and don’t want to bother with such flack; so, I don’t link to RT even if it’s report is better than what appears in other publications. Even if the other sources border on garbage in which case I don’t bother to mention the issue.
When the wheat to the chaff ratio for a publication is very low, I make a note of what I consider potentially important information but don’t cite nor link to it. Just keep it in mind if it surfaces later in a publication with more credibility, but then only if it includes more verification. This process means that some solid and important reports get overlooked. OTOH, it also means that I’m not citing something that later proves to be complete bs.
An example from today. In an article that details a gathering at HRC’s house, there was one or two sentences that are relevant to the discussions about Abedin’s emails. Unfortunately, it’s a weak source DM and the reporter is almost totally unreliable. As such, I had to pass on that lovely nugget (that I don’t think the reporter included for the purposes I found it illuminating).
Final note — there are operatives here that spend an inordinate amount of time looking for anything in any diary or comment by those not with HER that they can use to trash, insult, etc. us. The diary attacking you for a link in a comment is a POS diary. Sloppy, rude, and to understand it, one had to track down your comment in the other diary to understand the guy’s complaint. As it concerned you, I made that effort. I’m not going to jump into the complainant’s diary thread — mostly because the more comments a thread gets the more attention it gets from others. And the diary is still a POS. However, I’m not going to defend your InfoWars citation. It may be true at this time that these garbage sites have raised their wheat to chaff ratio, but it’s mostly by default because the MSM is censoring some valid negative information about HRC and/or her campaign.
One other thing since I’m sort of on a roll. I’m somewhat discriminating on recommending diaries. Rarely will I recommend a diary the is no more than a reference to an article with a couple of teaser excepts. There are exceptions to my SOP. One being IMO that it’s too important not to miss and it is one of those articles that is easy to overlook. But generally I assume that most here read top line news articles and don’t need to be spoon fed.
I will recommend diaries that cite more than one article and the writer has made the effort to add to those articles from his/her knowledge base, collects and reports related information or data from credible sources, and provides commentary.
Not recommending a diary doesn’t mean that I won’t participate in its thread. Interesting stuff often appears in such threads. But a good thread doesn’t improve the quality of the diary. Although, on some occasions the thread is so good that I recommend the diary to keep the thread alive a bit longer.