Since /news/ is opening tomorrow or the next day, I think we should all agree which sites are the best in terms of actual content but also in how they reflect the core ideologies of 4chan.
In other words, no linking to sites such as kotaku (all Gawker media really), salon, the huffington post, and things like E! news and TMZ, which isn't news, just celebrity gossip. These sites have a history of controversy and agenda pushing, the least objective news sites in the world. Should not be tolerated by /news/. Maybe the mods can allow the posting, but we, as users, should ignore any and all posts linking to articles by these named sites, and others we agree upon.
Reuters should be the go-to source. Guardian have gotten really ridiculous. No Breitbart, because they shill on /pol/.
>>344692
>expecting the community to ignore shitposting
You don't ask shit like that, it just happens
I agree mostly though, but its better to wait so we can see how its going to turn out, i get there are boards who are against some of these sources for their own reasons, but sometimes people hate something for no reason other than "its just how it is", i suggest we not doing any of that, not moving reputations or ideas from other boards and just let /news/ be its own thing, if the questionable sources end up being proved questionable (after the board is made, when threads related to it are made, etc), them its going to be justified, until them, let everything go naturally and let's not influence /news/ with things from other boards
>>344692
here is what is going to happen.
/new/s will become a satellite of /pol/ or it will become a barren wasteland like /leftypol/
>Favored
BBC
Reuters
Yahoo News
>Hated
Breitbart
E! Entertainment
Gawker
Huffington Post
Rolling Stone
Salon
TMZ
>>344718
>no AP
>missing tons of good news sources
>yahoo news
>favored news source
The shit list is good, but your "favored" list needs some serious work.
>>344729
I thought I included AP in the favored.
As for Yahoo, most of their news comes from Reuters.
>>344692
Don't worry, every single link will be to Breitbart.
>>344692
http://guides.library.harvard.edu/hks/think_tank_search
https://news.google.com/news/section?cf=all&hl=en&pz=1&ned=us&q=Albertsons&topicsid=en_us:b&ict=tnv8
These two tools will help you find everything.
why the fug is it taking so long?
>>344697
>Guardian have gotten really ridiculous.
Sweat-shamer detected.
>>344692
Seeing as how brutalized /his/ posters get for expressing not cvckholded opinions, H'm guessing only Vox, Huffpo, Salon, Vice, Time, Vanity Fair, and Jezebel will be allowed. Hell, even The Atlantic is probably too "right wing" for 4Chan.
>>344692
>another fucking board for /pol/ to slowly take over and breed on
I just hope /his/ and /pol/ being created this fast means /pol/ will gte deleted after properly moderated replacement boards without cancer culture are set in place.
>>344960
>without cancer culture
kek, there has been three /news/ boards set up before /pol/ was made. joot always deleted them out of butthurt at all the free speech going on, and hiro will do the same once he realizes this place is not reddit and only those with the wherewithal to call out the jew and the nig have anything interesting to post in regards to current affairs here. You will never have a news/current events board that isn't "/pol/" on 4chan, deal with it.
How does /news/ deal with foreign language news? Not that there are any good German news sites, but reuters has a German version.
>blue news board
ah.
>>344692
>/news/ is opening tomorrow or the next day
Isn't that what /pol/'s for?
I'm going to post Gawker links and y'all will just have to deal with it.
>>345014
Hiro said celeb shit counts.
Plus like it or not Gawker does break news and has good exclusives.
>blue board
Bad luck, /pol/.
Please Hiro, hide /pol/ and advertise /news/ as the place to discuss politics and ban racism, homophobia, and sexism there
>>345024
>Please Hiro, hide /pol/
good idea
>and advertise /news/ as the place to discuss politics and ban racism, homophobia, and sexism there
bad idea
>/news/
Do we really need this?
should probably be made clear in the sticky: Serious news sources only (that means no Gawker, salon, Breitbart, Infowars, etc. unless they are the only news source covering an event)
No flags please, that just leads to endless shitposting.
ID's may be a good idea though to deter shitposters.
I like how the most pressing matter for the glorious new news board is exactly how to censor the news.
Oh well. Best of luck /news/. I'll check it out after the dust settles.
>>345054
anything that c.ucks /pol/ even further is good
>>345059
This is how modern 4chan is, crybabies wanting everything they don't like to be against the rules and bannable.
Just by mentioning gawker I know for a fact OP is a retarded gamergator
>>345058
>ID's may be a good idea though to deter shitposters.
per-thread IDs but no names/trips might be good.
It's dangerous when you try to restrict what is a valid news source, though. Especially now since the state of journalism in general is pretty bleak.
>>345054
Yes
>>345062
or maybe people just want a half decent news board that isn't filled to the brim with blatant shitposting and yellow journalism
>>345067
the issue is that clickbait is a real problem on this site. Maybe no restriction on news stories, but there should be an unspoken rule that every article should be pastebinned or archived no matter what the source is. It solves every problem really, no reason not to archive it and then it's no problem if someone posts a gawker article about a celebrity.
>>345067
>>345095
>people just want a half decent news source that isn't filled to the brim with blatant shitposting and yellow journalism
ftfy
>>345097
I agree with all of this, in principle, though I'm not sure about having a site policy that requires users to copy content from another site. Would that not expose 4chan to some legal liability?
>>345097
>the issue is that clickbait is a real problem on this site
no, it's not
>>344700
this desu
if everyone obnoxiously spams that /news/ will be as great as /his/
>>344729
the ap is too leftist these days
can't wait to post every single article on black crime I can find
>>345130
I'm not sure if you're memeing but /his/ seems excellent so far. I'm kind of shocked.
>>345135
I'm sure you will be sourcing the New York Times on that, right?
>>345129
No, it's not an issue. If you don't like a source than don't click the link. If other people click the link then fucking deal with it.
>>345198
I plan on using local sources so I can be sure never to miss a drive-by
>>345202
It's definitely an issue whether you want to acknowledge it or not. There is nothing wrong with standards of quality and it's obvious which sites are already using 4chan for their own benefit.
>>345214
quality on a news board lmao
A news board is absolutely fucking retarded, what is hiroshima thinking?
>>345215
I don't understand why you think it would be funny. I'm not joking.
>>344692
No Salon, Slate, Huffington Post
>>345338
Also no Infowars, Buzzfeed, Gawker, or Breitbart
>>345215
Each article should stand on its own merit or lack thereof. Even "shitty" sites have good writers and exclusives.
>>345343
Thats fair
![World98[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kNvgKfc.jpg "World98[1].jpg")
>>345344
Do you know what yellow journalism is? It's done for a profit, not to inform people.
>>345354
>It's done for a profit
All news agencies are for-profit corporations, kiddo.
>>345355
These sites put out polarizing material that will inevitably be used for the sole purpose for b8ing and derailing conversation, if you want the board to be complete shit be my guest
>>345354
AHAHAHAHAHA, thats all journalism. Especially those that seem "neutral"
>>345365
>polarizing material
A lot of news no matter how factual and unbiased is polarizing.
>Favored
Associated Press
British Broadcasting Channel
Liveleak
Reuters
>Hated
Breitbart
Buzzfeed
Daily Mail
E! Entertainment
Gawker
Guardian
Huffington Post
Infowars
Rolling Stone
Salon
Slade
TMZ
Vanity Fair
>Recommended Search Engines
http://guides.library.harvard.edu/hks/think_tank_search
https://news.google.com/news/
Thoughts on The Economist, The Independent, and aljazeera?
>>344692
>how they reflect the core ideologies of 4chan
>>344718
Of course, you know it is going to get spammed with "articles" from Newsmax, Drudge, Daily Stormer, Infowars and WND.
>>345388
this, there needs to be a list of approved sources.
>>345388
you left out Breitbart and The Daily Mail, the two that are actually doing it right now on /pol/.
All these butthurt liberals talking shit about Breitbart.
>>345393
Assassinating Breitbart just wasn't enough. Le sigh.
>>345391
Will you support it if sources you don't like are approved?
>>345395
You seem to think it's about what I personally don't like when it's really about objective news content vs. clickbait.
When a "news outlet" does nothing but rewrite other news outlet stories to make them more outrageous just so that people will get outraged for adsense then it shouldn't be included in a list of preferred sources.
>>345410
Do you think people aren't going to be outraged just because the article isn't "inflammatory?"
/r/theredpill
/r/gamergate
/pol/
everything else is degenerate liberal brainwashed shit
>>344996
We already have /pol/ for the nasty stuff.
>>345413
It depends on if the purpose of the article is to outrage people or if it's to inform people about what's going on in the world. That's what click bait is.
>>345502
Do you really think that /pol/ will not infest /news/ just like they have with /int/,/lit/, /biz/, /his/, and just about every other board? There will be fucking stormfront shit starting on the very first thread.
>>345521
stormfront hasn't been active in years and you have no idea what you are talking about
>>345524
Yeah, right. where the fuck do you think all of the 'c-ckservative' crap comes from? That came directly from Daily Stormer.
>>345534
Nah, even Nazis have standards or are getting drunk or doing drugs, something better with their time. Sadly, what your actually seeing is disgruntled Europeans being given freedom of speech.
This incarnation of /news/ will go the same direction as every other /news/ board launched on this site. People will grab links from Stormfront and Niggermania's news threads and then copy paste the replies from them until the board is indistinguishable from those sites. Then the mods will delete the board so that it doesn't embarrass them in front of their Jew York hipster friends.
>>345410
The sad reality is that tabloid-tier rags like Daily Mail, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Breitbart, even fringe blogs, often break news stories the mainstream is afraid to touch. If we can only post stories from corporate sites owned by the handful of jews who control the MSM, /news/ will be a laughing stock.
>>345667
absolutely ebin, anon :^)
>>344692
I remember when moot made /new/
>>344692
Yes let's restrict sources.
>>345720
nice reddit picture have my upvotes
>>345725
Thanks, I made it myself and I absolutely love the website Reddit.
>>345720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVd98F6JLVc
>>345747
I don't follow YouTube links. You can express the idea you meant to convey in text if you like, otherwise this response failed.
>>345751
Money rules. It's just a good scene.
>>345712
>thanks~
What a cunt.
>>345524
>stormfront hasn't been active in years
Of course they haven't because they all moved here.
>>345759
They still send you happy birthday messages if you signed up though.
>>345672
>The sad reality is that tabloid-tier rags like Daily Mail, Gawker, Buzzfeed, Breitbart, even fringe blogs, often break news stories the mainstream is afraid to touch.
This is horribly wrong. Every source you listed there does NOT break stories and in fact only scrapes other sites and wire services for content they can rewrite into clickbait.
>>346035
How do you explain that most of those sites have breaking news sections that do their own research and reporting? Just because you randomly post words inn ALL CAPS does not lend you credibility.
>>346247
Not him but I can vouch that Daily Mail is exactly like he said.
>>346247
>breaking news sections that do their own research and reporting
They don't report on anything that hasn't already been reported on. They take other peoples content and repurpose it for their own partisan audience.
>>346251
How can you "vouch" for that? Daily Mail is regularly breaking stories, just because 60% of them are wrong/misleading/etc. doesn't mean they aren't involved in original reporting.
>>346261
If you make up a bunch of shit and some of it turns out to be true that doesn't make you a legitimate source of news.
>>346261
>regularly breaking stories
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2734566/Facebook-tweaks-algorithms-clamp-misleading-click-bait-articles.html
read the comment section lel
>>346294
Hey asshole, you know those Taboola links aren't actually written or endorsed by DM, right? As mad as it makes you, you are forced to admit that DM breaks more news stories than Salon or Vox (the sites you regularly visit).
>>346321
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2n6rja/why_is_the_dailymail_considered_a_bad_news_source/
>>346321
This isn't about partisan flavoring, Anon. This is about misleading and outraging for dollars.
Salon, Gawker, and Huffpost are just as bad.
WHEN THE FUCK IS /news/ OPENING?
>>346334
I don't know but I just hope Hiro isn't hesitating because of the vocal minority who seem to be buttfurious over creating new boards.
>>346323
Exactly, butthurt liberals are mad that DM dares to criticize their precious radical islamist "immigrants," faggots, women, and other pieces of human debris - but it doesn't change the fact that DM breaks news stories on the regular while the left try to downvote them futilely.
>>346343
I'm glad you like the way the DM skews their coverage but if the consensus of the /news/ userbase is that they prefer more accuracy and quality in their news link posts then I hope you will abide by that and save the DM links for /pol/.
>>346348
>accuracy and quality
get this jew shit out of here, gay degenerate tumblr ceckold
>>346348
Hopefully it will be less of an issue if they force archive.is links or some other archiver/rehoster service.
>>346353
Coming from a guy defending jewish clickbait merchants, that's rich.
Imo there should be a "filter" changing all posted links to archive.is so nobody cares on giving it a view.
>>346391
I agree with this as long as Hiro has no problem with archive.is
>>346348
i think that any kind of link censoring is bullshit
make it automatically create an archive link or any other service, but don't start censoring shit
>>346406
They already spam dozens of links a day on /pol/. I can imagine them devoting a full staff of interns to a future /news/ board.
>>346425
>They
Who is "they" exactly?
>>346425
Don't be an idiot. The entire point of writing 'clickbaity' articles is that you don't need to hire interns to spam them, they spam themselves.
>>346432
The lizardmen.
>>346432
The Daily Mail, Breitbart, The Guardian, and Huffpost, since we're naming names now.
>>346455
And I suppose you have proof of this? Or do you belong on /x/ with the rest of the retards?
>>346461
You challenge that but not the post about lizardmen. You're one of them, aren't you? Aren't you?!
>>346469
I self-identify as a cat, not a subhuman reptile. I am a nice person, so you are allowed to misspecies me once, but if you do it again I will be forced to claw you to death and eat you, because that is what cats do.
>>346479
Just try it, pussy. I'm a bear.
>le /pol/ boogyman
>le every political opinion i dont like isn't allowed
the entire concept of this board is fucking stupid and belongs in the fucking garbage.
we already fucking have a board for news articles and happening threads, and it's called fucking /pol/
you're basically fucking making /pol/ 2.0, and overly moderating and being elitist cunts to everyone demonstrating a fucking opinion or viewpoint that seems remotely right wing or narrative challenging is going to make a fucking shitty board.
this is like making a new board for film and television called /television/ and being all pissy when people from /tv/ start shitposting there. Sure you may not like /tv/ but you're not solving the fucking problem.
>>>/trash/
>>346485
Apparently you don't know how I treat bears
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znZrh4Ts-rc
>>346494
That video is so hilarious that I don't even know what this discussion is about anymore.
Can the Lord of Change stay the permanent banner on there? It already seems oddly fitting.
>>346461
from the other thread:
>>344557
>>346540
>there's no chance people would be outraged by articles written to evoke outrage
>nobody would share the links of articles written to maximize link sharing
>it must be them interns and da shills
Are you sure you're not retarded?
>>346544
Do you know what clickbait is? I don't understand what your point is besides calling people retards.
>>346546
I'm responding to the implications of this post:
>They already spam dozens of links a day on /pol/. I can imagine them devoting a full staff of interns to a future /news/ board
He was asked for proof, and thinks the fact people post links to these sites constitutes proof of his claims.
>>346540
>>346544
>>346546
>>346555
If we can put discussions like this on /news/ and keep them off of /pol/ then I will be a happy man.
Why is this being made? This is a waste of time.
>>346558
>the fact people post links to these sites
Those are only the OP posts, and there are over 5000 just in the past 6-9 months that 4plebs has been counting. Look for yourself how many times in those threads the OP doesn't stick around. That's proof. They aren't even the only site that does this in such a blatant manner, and /pol/ isn't the only board it happens on. /v/, /sci/, /g/, and /tv/ have similar problems.
If you had seen the threads on /pol/ everyday for the past few years then you would already know it's true.
>>346440
Nope, the entire point of click-bait is that each click makes money, so you make up the most outrageous title, and pay people to spam it everywhere
>>346425
so what? archive link then:
-no money for them
-no news source censored by /qa/ powertripping faggots
you can already filter the content of boards by keywords, filter what you don't like if you are so distressed about content you don't agree with
>>346606
Perhaps the difference between you and me is that this upsets you and it doesn't upset me. I've been on 4chan for years longer than the years I've been on /pol/, and the userbase demographic as well as the turnover rate ensures a neverending supply of people who wet their pants everyday about things they don't like and who come up with elaborate ways to magically fix everything back to their own imaginary views of the world. I know people who have had to talk to the police about their problems because it was just too much for them to handle.
So if you want to take this to /qa/ or you want to take this to /news/ or you want to take this to /b/ or /a9k/ or /soc/ or /adv/ or however many other boards you need to wipe your bleeding pussy, then please be my guest. It's a tradition at this point.
>>346624
>archive link then
Couldn't agree harder. I wonder who would argue against such a thing.
>>346630
There is nothing wrong with having community standards. I thought the intent of having this /news/ board was to not be the free-for-all that /pol/ is.
>>346634
I've never been against the idea of a separate /news/ board. My first post in this thread wished /news/ well, and I said I'd check it out after the dust cleared.
Go for it.
>>346632
>so what? archive link then
It should be mandatory.
