{"id":53,"date":"2017-02-10T04:16:29","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T04:16:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/chapter\/understanding-syndication\/"},"modified":"2020-03-17T19:52:30","modified_gmt":"2020-03-17T19:52:30","slug":"understanding-syndication","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/chapter\/understanding-syndication\/","title":{"raw":"Understanding Syndication","rendered":"Understanding Syndication"},"content":{"raw":"Syndication--the process by which material from one site is published automatically to another site--can create confusion for readers who don't understand it. It's a often case where something is coming from \"upstream\" but appears not to be.\n\nConsider this New York Times<\/em> web page:\n\n\"New\n\nFigure 11<\/a>\n\nWe see a set of stories on the left (\u201cGermany\u2019s Latest Best Seller\u201d, \u201cIsis Claims Responsibility\u201d) written by New York Times<\/em> staff, but also a thin column of stories in the middle of the page (\u201cUK Stock Market Hits Record\u201d) that are identified as being from the Associated Press<\/em>.\n\nYou click through to a page that\u2019s on the New York Times<\/em> site, but not by the New York Times<\/em>:\n\n\"New\n\nFigure 12<\/a>\n\nIf you are going to evaluate the source of this article, your evaluation will have little to do with the New York Times<\/em>. You\u2019re going to focus on the reporting record of the Associated Press<\/em>.\n\nPeople get this wrong all the time. One thing that happens occasionally is that an article critical of a certain politician or policy suddenly disappears from the New York Times<\/em> site, and people claim it\u2019s a plot to rewrite the past. \u201cConspiracy!\u201d they say. \u201cThey\u2019re burying information!\u201d they say. A ZOMG-level freakout follows.\n\nIt predominately turns out that the article that disappeared is a syndicated article. Associated Press<\/em> articles, for example, are displayed on the site for a few weeks, then \u201croll off\u201d and disappear from the site. Why? Because the New York Times<\/em> only pays the Associated Press<\/em> to show them on the site for a few weeks.\n\nYou\u2019ll also occasionally see people complaining about a story from the New York Times<\/em>, claiming it shows a New York \u201cliberal bias\u201d only to find the story was not even written by the New York Times<\/em>, but by the Associated Press<\/em>, Reuters<\/em>, or some other syndicator.\n\nGoing upstream means following a piece of content to its true source, and beginning your analysis there. Your first question when looking at a claim on a page should be \u201cWhere did this come from, and who produced it?\u201d The answer quite often has very little to do with the website you are looking at.","rendered":"

Syndication–the process by which material from one site is published automatically to another site–can create confusion for readers who don’t understand it. It’s a often case where something is coming from “upstream” but appears not to be.<\/p>\n

Consider this New York Times<\/em> web page:<\/p>\n

\"New<\/p>\n

Figure 11<\/a><\/p>\n

We see a set of stories on the left (\u201cGermany\u2019s Latest Best Seller\u201d, \u201cIsis Claims Responsibility\u201d) written by New York Times<\/em> staff, but also a thin column of stories in the middle of the page (\u201cUK Stock Market Hits Record\u201d) that are identified as being from the Associated Press<\/em>.<\/p>\n

You click through to a page that\u2019s on the New York Times<\/em> site, but not by the New York Times<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\"New<\/p>\n

Figure 12<\/a><\/p>\n

If you are going to evaluate the source of this article, your evaluation will have little to do with the New York Times<\/em>. You\u2019re going to focus on the reporting record of the Associated Press<\/em>.<\/p>\n

People get this wrong all the time. One thing that happens occasionally is that an article critical of a certain politician or policy suddenly disappears from the New York Times<\/em> site, and people claim it\u2019s a plot to rewrite the past. \u201cConspiracy!\u201d they say. \u201cThey\u2019re burying information!\u201d they say. A ZOMG-level freakout follows.<\/p>\n

It predominately turns out that the article that disappeared is a syndicated article. Associated Press<\/em> articles, for example, are displayed on the site for a few weeks, then \u201croll off\u201d and disappear from the site. Why? Because the New York Times<\/em> only pays the Associated Press<\/em> to show them on the site for a few weeks.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll also occasionally see people complaining about a story from the New York Times<\/em>, claiming it shows a New York \u201cliberal bias\u201d only to find the story was not even written by the New York Times<\/em>, but by the Associated Press<\/em>, Reuters<\/em>, or some other syndicator.<\/p>\n

Going upstream means following a piece of content to its true source, and beginning your analysis there. Your first question when looking at a claim on a page should be \u201cWhere did this come from, and who produced it?\u201d The answer quite often has very little to do with the website you are looking at.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-53","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":39,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/53","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/53\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/53\/revisions\/54"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/39"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/53\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=53"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=53"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=53"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}