WTF Is UP with RAWSTORY? Is It a Reliable Source? Teasers Always Changing

[Dr. Jones]

This morning somebody advised that Raw Story's teaser headline was the following:
OFFICIALS GIVE DETAILS OF IRAN GROUND OPERATION: DEVELOPING...

This indicates that the U.S. may have started a military ground operation in Iran...which would possibly signal the beginning of a new Iran war.

Now, the teaser has been changed to:
US 'USING IRAQI GROUP' FOR IRAN INTELLIGENCE: STORY SOON...

What the hell is going on with RawStory? Is it a reliable source? Why do they keep changing the teasers? I'm starting to get REALLY pissed off at them.
:mad:

[Balbus]

1. no

[stop the bleeding]

2. The way how I have been told is that they run through a final edit

when the title is up, sometimes it takes an hour or two look at what happened last night with something else, I just think that they are double checking but trying to get the story out ASAP - I know it's frustrating

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x920067

[Marie26]

20. Maybe

Or maybe they're trying to increase their "page hits" by having people constantly click "refresh" on their web site as the story "develops."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. They looooooove to tease, yes. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

4. RawStory is a VERY reliable source, but loves to post teasers...

...for upcoming news.

[carolinalady]

5. They are big on teasers. We had a long discussion with the

Raw story guy on here a while back and complained about that and several other things-most notably pop-ups/unders. Well he took our requests about the pop-ups to heart, but remained fast and firm on the teasers. Whenever you see developing....don't aggrivate yourself by clicking the link. Whenever he gets the full story out, someone always lets us know.

[Taxloss]

6. They nearly always come to nothing.

I'm still waiting for Rove to be indicted, a mere six months or so after RS "broke" it.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. Rove WAS to be indicted, but made a deal at the last minute...

RawStory got it right, the DOJ (& Rove's lawyers) changed it...

What else did RS get wrong, by your estimation?:shrug:

[Taxloss]

8. What have they got right?

They fire off teasers endlessly, and ultimately the story is a damp squib.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. You've answered my question to you with a question...

You've made the charge that RS's stories "nearly always come to nothing." Can you tell me specifically what other stories you're talking about?:shrug:

[Taxloss]

10. Pretty much everything they've "teased" over Plamegate has come to

absolute nil. What did they claim? 20 indictments? Cheney recalled? I'm sure they mean well, but I can't think of a single Raw Story story that has turned out to be anything other than a disappointing pale shadow of what was promised. It's false advertising.

[Cooley Hurd]

13. Plame investigation was fluid - deals were made at the last minute...

Raw Story reported what was told to them (by their sources in the DOJ at the time), and the DOJ made then deals with some of the principals, hence changing the story after the fact.

If you can't think of a single RS story that hasn't come to fruition, then you haven't been reading it much.;)

[Taxloss]

16. Other than the ones I've just mentioned?

Reporting isn't simply blurting out whatever a source tells you, it's verifying things as fact.

[elias7]

15. Very reliable and usually 1-2 days ahead of other sources

I don't remember about the 20 indictment claim, but it has become my daily "other" beside DU for up to the moment and accurate scoops. I have found very little that does not show up a day or two later in the progressive and blog spaces...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. That's pretty silly.

Everybody and their mom was reporting on Rove & Libby. And yes, they were right on that one. Sorta. Halfway. And wrong on all their other fifteen stories about who was to be indicted. They are the journalistic equivalent of Dick Cheney with a shotgun.

[arwalden]

11. They Appear To Be A Repackaging Clearing House...

"RAWSTORY has learned (through this press release available to everyone with an internet connection) that the White House says......"

[H2O Man]

12. I don't think anyone

thinks that the US is going to invade Iran with ground troops, hence there is really no reason for any confusion on this. It seems pretty clear that they were referring to special operations, with very small teams inside Iran. These have been taking place for a long time; RawStory was simply preparing a report on these.

[Dr. Jones]

17. Still I think it's misleading at best.

When I heard this,

OFFICIALS GIVE DETAILS OF IRAN GROUND OPERATION: DEVELOPING...

I and many others took it to mean that the Iran war has possibly started because a "ground operation" is taking place. I still think it's misleading.

[H2O Man]

18. I understand

that you read it one way, and that it meant something different. I would think that they expect that the majority of readers know the US hasn't invaded Iran with ground troops. As bad as the corporate media may be, it seems fair to say that they would make mention of an invasion of US forces. Again, there isn't a single serious source that believes there is any chance -- any -- of the US invading Iran with ground troops. RawStory was reporting in a serious vein.

[Marie26]

19. I don't like them much

The teasers do always change, and a lot of times, the story isn't nearly as explosive as the "Developing..." headline suggests. I've actually stopped visiting because of the bait & switch teasers. They do a lot of good stories, but I think they might be turning off readers w/the misleading headlines. People might just stop believing them.

[wookie294]

21. Raw Story is often correct

I think you're nitpicking. I haven't seen a study proving Raw Story's reporting is often bogus like that nimrod Matt Drudge. You can bet some reich winger would have released a study by now. I kind of think their "developing hard" thing is funny. LOL. I like those guys. They are very ambitious and I salute them!

[KittyWampus]

22. WTF is up with DU'ers who don't care for Rawstory? Don't go to their

f*cking website if you don't like their "teasers".

Don't click on a DU thread that mentions them.

I am not a Rawstory fan, don't go their website but am very sick and tire of DU'ers slammming a news source that is doing their best to make themselves useful and also profitable (get hits).

From where I stand, Rawstory is up against Drudge... a very well funded and connected Rightwing bullshit source.

There's room for Rawstory along with other New sites.

[Cooley Hurd]

24. I have my suspicions about those who doubt RS...

:grr:

[SeattleRob]

23. Raw Story has been a good source of information

If their "teasers" bother you so much, don't go to their page.

[Eric J in MN]

25. I just wrote an aritcle expressing my skepticism

towards Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story:

http://www.speakspeak.org/speak-blog/2006/04/13/larisa-alexandrovna-of-raw-story/

She’s written three explosive stories for the website, “Raw Story,” among her other work.

But none of these three explosive stories have named sources for the actual scoop. It seems like too much, too fast.

Larisa Alexandrovna has recently told us that:

- the Bush Administration had a plan to plant WMD in Iraq which didn’t work out (January 5, 2006)

- Valerie Plame was working on WMD in Iran (February 13, 2006)

- today that the US government is funding a terrorist group in Iran (April 13, 2006).

Maybe all these stories are true. Maybe not.

If I saw more run-of-the-mill stories from her with named sources, I’d be more inclined to trust her on the explosive stories with unnamed stories.

When I wrote Raw Story asking for their policy on unnamed sources, I didn’t receive a reply. I wanted to know if the editor is told who her sources are.

At newspapers published on paper, such as the New York Times, there is generally a requirement that the reporter reveal sources to an editor.

I’m well aware that reporters sometimes have to use unnamed sources. But it’s different when a source chooses to go to the New York Times because of its reach, and the use of the source is subject to the policies of that newspaper. It’s unclear why the sources for these stories chose to speak anonymously to Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story, instead of going to the New York Times.

[SmokingJacket]

26. I would like them better if they didn't tease...

or if their teases always came to something (sometimes they do... but too often they don't).

[cynatnite]

27. Raw Story is a hell of a lot more reliable than others

Also, if you check out the following link, you'll find that the US has had wargames in preparation for a war with Iran since May 2003.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/despite_denials.html#more

[Justice Is Comin]

28. When you are reporting stories in

almost virtual real time, you have to change as the story changes.

They don't have the luxury of 24 hours to go to print. There is no intentional hype on that website and I think it's probably the number one bookmark of most of DU.

The people over there provide one of the best Democrat news alert services in the business bar none.