I believe Breitbart (& Drudge) would belong in the extreme lower right. (Maybe that’s what the “B” is for? hard to read & not familiar with their logo)
Yes, the B is Breitbart.
IMO, Drudge really isn’t worthy of a spot on the chart. As @matt mentioned, they are an aggregator vs an original news source.
1 Like
Never read Drudge, it was cited as a source from someone in an online forum exchange who was spouting really crazy garbage. 
Ironic as it may be, I actually love reading Drudge. I find the entire thing to be fascinating, from the amazingly stubborn design to the consistent content selection. Guy never strays from doing the thing people expect from him. I can respect it. That said, I could care less about most of the stuff he links to. 
1 Like
Standing in a grocery store line a few days ago, the Enquirer headline was something about “Obama and Hillary tapped Trump’s Phone Lines”. What’s sad and frightening for the country is people actually believe the Enquirer in some form or another. They don’t care or recognize the owner has a connection with Trump.
Nobody reads the Enquirer anymore. They go on Facebook instead.
1 Like
Jezzz from the frying pan into the fire, Facebook! Wired has an in depth article on their efforts to clean their act up.
I agree that trash like the Enquirer is harmful…even if it’s only the headlines that gullible people are reading at the check-out stand! Because then they go home & watch FOX “news” & think “see, that story I read in the store really WAS true. And not only that, but did you know…?” 
And so it goes…
I think many do realize that sources like the Enquirer are exaggerated, but (a) they enjoy the salacious stories and (b) they think that if it’s in print, there’s at least SOME truth to it. 
At that point, I don’t think there’s a moral case against turning the magazine backward on the rack just to spare that embarrassment of a headline the light of day.
1 Like
Unfortunately I think you are right, if some see it in “print” to them it has some validity. I have made the comment to some “you believe the Enquirer?” and they respond “well they got the John Edwards story right” so…hey even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then in their minds.
I have thought of carrying some post-it-notes and putting one over the crazy headlines I see…
I’d only caution that the post-it’s are going to garner more attention. The backwards magazine is less likely to look out of place, and will probably last longer, and has plausible deniability.
2 Likes
Good point. Turning it around is a good strategy.
Hi, Amy! I subscribed to the online New York Times for several years till I got disgusted by their 2016 campaign coverage. Now I subscribe to the Washington Post. However, I read whatever NYT stories I want by either right-clicking the link to open it in an incognito window or using a different browser. You can also delete your cookies, so they don’t know how many freebies you’ve used up. (I hope I’m not violating anyone’s ToS by saying this. 
)
3 Likes
Thanks so much for that tip! I’m going to try that immediately. I do prefer the Washington Post but from time to time, I see stuff in the Times that catches my attention. I get really frustrated when I can only access the first paragraph! Now, if I could only find a way to read the WSJ, I’ll be all set
1 Like
Try it with WSJ. I don’t go there as often, but I think I’ve used that trick. The one paper I know of where it for sure doesn’t work is the Boston Globe, but even though I’m in MA I don’t really need the Globe.
1 Like