20 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 85.8 ms ] thread
> buzzfeed

No thanks.

Have you read the article? If that's not legitimate journalism I don't know what is.
No, I haven't. I don't click on links that give ad revenue to buzzfeed.
Buzzfeed have actually hired some competent journalists and produced some good content lately. I'd highly encourage that you read the linked article before passing judgement.
They've been doing this for a while.

The problem is that serious readers look at the domain name and don't even bother clicking.

They need to spin off a separate site for their long form content.

The entire point of investing in content like this is to start changing the public's perception of the site they already have.
I'm aware of this myself.

I still find it exceptionally difficult to overlook Buzzfeed for the crap they've spewed for years, and continue to spew. Gracing them with my eyeballs, even with my own CSS applied (I call it "UnBuzzed" -- it strips virtually everything other than primary copy from the site).

Oh, seems I've blocked enough of their JS that nothing appears period. Oh well.

I can still fire up a console browser through Tor.

But yes, I care enough about not polluting content that I'm willing to throw these roadblocks in the way of Buzzfeed and its ilk.

(Most are actually blocked, by domain, in my /etc/hosts file, with dnsmasq running to make that a domain-wide block, not just host.)

We need a new term for this type of ad hominem.
Better yet is to break the habit of using 'ad hominem' as some kind of latin spell to be reflexively chanted whenever one encounters anything one dislikes.
Applying an earned label to someone based on reputation priors isn't an ad hominem.

It's a well-earned reputation taint.

I agree. I was reluctant to post it myself due to the origin but I figured that linking to quality is the best way to encourage more to be produced.
Just to try to dispel some of the taint from the domain name:

This is a great longform article about the politics surrounding the discovery of the HMS Erebus. The author summarizes the announcement of the discovery and the various political links and layers, then goes back to the actual discovery timeline itself, complete with quotes, to show how the politically-influenced announcement was completely different from what actually happened.

The quality of the article itself is something I'd expect to see in National Geographic, the New Yorker, or Rolling Stone, honestly.

I was a bit disappointed that it was mostly about politics rather than the discovery itself.
The discovery has been covered extensively elsewhere. The politics, and particularly the fight over credit for the find, was something I wasn't aware of.

It's definitely not what you'd expect from Buzzfeed.

Look everyone knows the tragedy was caused by the Inuit polar bear demon Tuunbaq, I don't understand the fuss.
Those that know don't have a tounge with which to tell the story.