• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can someone explain a couple Breaking News Non-MSM rules to me, please?

Xelor

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I saw the description for the Breaking News Non-MSM forum and the journal article reference caught my eye, mainly because I tend to read a fair number of journal articles, or more precisely peer reviewed studies published in journals. I checked out the https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...aking-news-non-msm-guidelines-10-29-09-a.html and noticed the following:

All Opening Post threads posted in *BN* must have:

• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization.
• Dateline within the past 48 hours.
• Exact same title as the cited article.
• Quoted short excerpts from the article.
• Your own unique content to spur discussion.

​
My Questions:

  • Do mods here truly expect folks to apply the 48 hour constraint to journal articles, particularly studies? Maybe I'm the odd man on this, but even when I receive a new journal issue, I don't race to read it. Too, the publication frequency of journals, along with the nature of content, makes new information they contain qualify as new for quite some time. Journal content just isn't the same as newspaper and blog content. What's new as goes scholarly research just isn't the same as what's new in terms of current events such as are discussed/published on news programs, Twitter, and other "mainstream" media outlets.
  • "Exact same title as the cited article" -- I don't have any idea of what precisely this is supposed to mean and how to comply with it.
    • Is one expected to somehow force one's OP date to be the same as that shown for a given journal article? If so, how does one do that?

Just so all readers understand why I've asked the questions above, here are some links to some journal articles I've read. (In some of the examples I've posted a link to only the article's abstract because unless the reader subscribes to the journal, s/he won't be able to access it, so the abstract is the best I can give. I have provided some older article links to free/publicly available journal articles for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the nature of content in journal articles.)
 
I've had my balls busted for it B4 & more than once.

My advice; stick to the rules, or don't post .............
 
The section in question is the Breaking News section. If it is over 48 hours old, it really is not breaking news any longer, and belongs in another section of the board.
 
I avoid Breaking News violations by posting threads in the General Politics forum instead.
 
Xelor said:
I saw the description for the Breaking News Non-MSM forum and the journal article reference caught my eye, mainly because I tend to read a fair number of journal articles, or more precisely peer reviewed studies published in journals. I checked out the https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...aking-news-non-msm-guidelines-10-29-09-a.html and noticed the following:

All Opening Post threads posted in *BN* must have:

• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization.
• Dateline within the past 48 hours.
• Exact same title as the cited article.
• Quoted short excerpts from the article.
• Your own unique content to spur discussion.

​
My Questions:

  • Do mods here truly expect folks to apply the 48 hour constraint to journal articles, particularly studies? Maybe I'm the odd man on this, but even when I receive a new journal issue, I don't race to read it. Too, the publication frequency of journals, along with the nature of content, makes new information they contain qualify as new for quite some time. Journal content just isn't the same as newspaper and blog content. What's new as goes scholarly research just isn't the same as what's new in terms of current events such as are discussed/published on news programs, Twitter, and other "mainstream" media outlets.
  • "Exact same title as the cited article" -- I don't have any idea of what precisely this is supposed to mean and how to comply with it.
    • Is one expected to somehow force one's OP date to be the same as that shown for a given journal article? If so, how does one do that?

Just so all readers understand why I've asked the questions above, here are some links to some journal articles I've read. (In some of the examples I've posted a link to only the article's abstract because unless the reader subscribes to the journal, s/he won't be able to access it, so the abstract is the best I can give. I have provided some older article links to free/publicly available journal articles for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the nature of content in journal articles.)
Click to expand...

If possible wait/search and use a recent news story as the OP and add a link to the Journal study.
If not post it in another sub forum
Many of us have no issues with the BN rules, as it is breaking news, not news from 2 years ago.
 
azgreg said:
I avoid Breaking News violations by posting threads in the General Politics forum instead.
Click to expand...

I’m with you here. Too many hoops, too many points.

Is it just me or is the OP awfully narrow in scope for a member with six posts?
 
I avoid the Breaking News forums. General Political Discussion is far more forgiving.
 
Redress said:
The section in question is the Breaking News section. If it is over 48 hours old, it really is not breaking news any longer, and belongs in another section of the board.
Click to expand...

I understand the substance of your comment, but what is far less clear to me, is how anything in a journal article could ever qualify as "breaking news." I asked the OP questions only with regard to journal articles. I didn't compose the description to Breaking News - Non-MSM subforum; I merely read it. It says:
Alternative news sources that include journals, blogs, periodical, online magazine that are not considered as being a primary news source. However, biased/partisan threads unwelcome here. News only.
Click to expand...
All journal research/study articles contain tons of new information, but in the colloquial understanding of what constitutes news, none of it is, yet the "powers that be" included journal content in the subforum description.

Frankly, I wouldn't have noted journal articles as an example of alternative "breaking news" sources -- I would, however, on a site like this, classify them as alternative information sources -- but the "powers that be" did include them as a type of breaking news source. I'm merely trying to understand how to apply the rules to journal content insofar as journal content doesn't generally align with the standard conception of news.
 
JANFU said:
If possible wait/search and use a recent news story as the OP and add a link to the Journal study.
If not post it in another sub forum
Many of us have no issues with the BN rules, as it is breaking news, not news from 2 years ago.
Click to expand...
TY for the actionable suggestion. Technically speaking, I can do that.

I have to admit that I read journal articles, but I don't ever read them and then seek (or keep an eye open for) an news story about a journal article. I can't imagine anyone doing so -- What would be the point of doing that after one's already read the journal article? -- but it is certainly possible to do so.

The article from Nature to which I linked is from three days ago; it's primary findings entail information that was not previously part of the entire body of human knowledge. That can be said of pretty much any research article in a journal. After all, a journal's raison d'etre is to publish new contributions to the body of human knowledge that results from original research into a matter.
 
Rogue Valley said:
I avoid the Breaking News forums. General Political Discussion is far more forgiving.
Click to expand...

TY. Perhaps yours is the actionable suggestion I will be forced to implement, particularly if no moderator responds with a clarification of how to reconcile the constraints noted in the OP and the inherent nature of journal content. It strikes me as far more practical than is the earlier one another member offered.
 
Rexedgar said:
I’m with you here. Too many hoops, too many points.

Is it just me or is the OP awfully narrow in scope for a member with six posts?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's not just you; however, I didn't realize there is a scope constraint associated with requesting a clarification of a forum rule and how many posts one has in the forum. God knows this site a a tome's worth of rules; such a constraint could be one I missed.
 
Xelor said:
TY. Perhaps yours is the actionable suggestion I will be forced to implement, particularly if no moderator responds with a clarification of how to reconcile the constraints noted in the OP and the inherent nature of journal content. It strikes me as far more practical than is the earlier one another member offered.
Click to expand...

Since you are inquiring about where to post journal material(s), I would also suggest the Academia forums.
 
Xelor said:
Perhaps it's not just you; however, I didn't realize there is a scope constraint associated with requesting a clarification of a forum rule and how many posts one has in the forum. God knows this site a a tome's worth of rules; such a constraint could be one I missed.
Click to expand...

Well, I see that you have ten posts under your belt now.......participation is voluntary here and there are rules for a reason. My skepticism comes from the torrent of 'new' posters who have an agenda other than spirited political debate. When I could not swim, I entered the wading pool before heading for the diving board and the deep end. Enjoy your stay here. I look forward to our discussions.
 
Xelor said:
My Questions:


[*]Do mods here truly expect folks to apply the 48 hour constraint to journal articles, particularly studies? Maybe I'm the odd man on this, but even when I receive a new journal issue, I don't race to read it. Too, the publication frequency of journals, along with the nature of content, makes new information they contain qualify as new for quite some time. Journal content just isn't the same as newspaper and blog content. What's new as goes scholarly research just isn't the same as what's new in terms of current events such as are discussed/published on news programs, Twitter, and other "mainstream" media outlets.
Click to expand...

1: Yes, the 48 hour time constraint is strictly enforced. Doesn't matter how old a topic is, just matters how new the article is.
2: Journals are not considered Mainstream Media. As such they are not allowed in the MSM section of the forum. For journals its best to put them in the section that would apply to them. EX: If the article is about abortion, put it in the abortion section. If its about guns, put it in the gun control section. If you're not sure then simply put it in the General Political Discussion section and if needs be a Mod will move it to a more appropriate place (rarely happens so long as all other general forum rules are adhered to).

Xelor said:
[*]"Exact same title as the cited article" -- I don't have any idea of what precisely this is supposed to mean and how to comply with it.
Click to expand...

This means that you copy/paste the title of the article into the thread title with no personal commentary of your own in the title. In other words if the title of the article is "Trump Dies in Horrific Air Force One Crash" you copy paste exactly that and only that. You do not go "Hurray! Trump dies in plane crash!" (not saying that you would cheer such, just an example is all. ;) )

Xelor said:
[*]Is one expected to somehow force one's OP date to be the same as that shown for a given journal article? If so, how does one do that?
Click to expand...

No. The news article simply has to be posted with in the 48 hour time limit.

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. :)
 
I'll speak to the requirement of the exact article title to thread title match:

I suspect it's to force integrity.

Simply copy the article title, and "paste as text" in the thread title field. The field will automatically truncate any title that's too long.

I can't speak to journal posts in the Breaking News sub-forum, but I am very happy for the stringent BN rules. In fact this forum's relatively stringent moderation & rules in general, is one of the major components as to why I chose it over quite a few others political forums!

Good luck!
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: Yes, the 48 hour time constraint is strictly enforced. Doesn't matter how old a topic is, just matters how new the article is.
2: Journals are not considered Mainstream Media. As such they are not allowed in the MSM section of the forum. For journals its best to put them in the section that would apply to them. EX: If the article is about abortion, put it in the abortion section. If its about guns, put it in the gun control section. If you're not sure then simply put it in the General Political Discussion section and if needs be a Mod will move it to a more appropriate place (rarely happens so long as all other general forum rules are adhered to).



This means that you copy/paste the title of the article into the thread title with no personal commentary of your own in the title. In other words if the title of the article is "Trump Dies in Horrific Air Force One Crash" you copy paste exactly that and only that. You do not go "Hurray! Trump dies in plane crash!" (not saying that you would cheer such, just an example is all. ;) )



No. The news article simply has to be posted with in the 48 hour time limit.

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. :)
Click to expand...
Kal, I've got a quick question:

Is it fair to designate the source in a BN thread title?

For example, to place (CNN) or (WaPo) immediately preceding the pasted-in title, if that is the source?
 
My advice: do what I do and just start the thread in General Politics. It's pretty easy to forget one of the sub-rules and walk into a violation in BN.
 
You wouldn't be able to post a link from your print journal, therefore it wouldn't be BN material. As others have stated, you're free to post elsewhere on the forum but without a link.
 
Kal'Stang said:
1: Yes, the 48 hour time constraint is strictly enforced. Doesn't matter how old a topic is, just matters how new the article is.
2: Journals are not considered Mainstream Media. As such they are not allowed in the MSM section of the forum. For journals its best to put them in the section that would apply to them. EX: If the article is about abortion, put it in the abortion section. If its about guns, put it in the gun control section. If you're not sure then simply put it in the General Political Discussion section and if needs be a Mod will move it to a more appropriate place (rarely happens so long as all other general forum rules are adhered to).
I understand that is so. I really was asking only with regard to the non-MSM breaking news subforum.
Xelor said:
I saw the description for the Breaking News Non-MSM forum ...
Click to expand...
Xelor said:
I understand the substance of your comment, but what is far less clear to me, is how anything in a journal article could ever qualify as "breaking news." I asked the OP questions only with regard to journal articles. I didn't compose the description to Breaking News - Non-MSM subforum; I merely read it. It says: Alternative news sources that include journals, blogs, periodical, online magazine that are not considered as being a primary news source. However, biased/partisan threads unwelcome here. News only.
​
All journal research/study articles contain tons of new information, but in the colloquial understanding of what constitutes news, none of it is, yet the "powers that be" included journal content in the subforum description.

Frankly, I wouldn't have noted journal articles as an example of alternative "breaking news" sources -- I would, however, on a site like this, classify them as alternative information sources -- but the "powers that be" did include them as a type of breaking news source. I'm merely trying to understand how to apply the rules to journal content insofar as journal content doesn't generally align with the standard conception of news.
Click to expand...


Kal'Stang said:
This means that you copy/paste the title of the article into the thread title with no personal commentary of your own in the title. In other words if the title of the article is "Trump Dies in Horrific Air Force One Crash" you copy paste exactly that and only that. You do not go "Hurray! Trump dies in plane crash!" (not saying that you would cheer such, just an example is all. ;) )
Click to expand...
Understood. TY for the clarification.

RedAkston said:
You wouldn't be able to post a link from your print journal, therefore it wouldn't be BN material. As others have stated, you're free to post elsewhere on the forum but without a link.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. I don't understand. In my OP I posted a link to a journal article, specifically the abstract portion of it. If that be the limit of the journal's content that is the topic/rubric for thread, would the link to the abstract not be sufficient? It's certainly postable. For example:
​

Thread Title: Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages
Thread OP/rubric:​
Recently published research by Terry Hughes et al has found that "in the aftermath of the record-breaking marine heatwave on the Great Barrier Reef in 20162, corals began to die immediately on reefs where the accumulated heat exposure exceeded a critical threshold of degree heating weeks, which was 3–4 °C-weeks." Their finding, though arcane, is yet more empirical evidence of global warming's specific impacts. Most distressingly, its an impact that happens very quickly, boding poorly for a host of localized environments. Depending on the nature and extent of of the coral die-off, the rising water temps that cause it could have a detrimental impact on the travel industry by materially curtailing divers' desire to visit cities that are traditional points of embarkation for scuba tours.

Which potential risk do you think will be most useful to environmentalists and businesspeople advocating for climate change public policy?​


  • [*=2]The indirect economic one pertaining to tourism? If so, why?
    [*=2]The direct impact on the corals themselves? If so, why?
Can you think of any specific and short term mitigation solutions that may save the coral or at least attenuate the rate of their demise?
​

Am I mistaken in thinking the sample OP above is not one that'd be acceptable here? I have t ask for I am, after all, new here.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Kal, I've got a quick question:

Is it fair to designate the source in a BN thread title?

For example, to place (CNN) or (WaPo) immediately preceding the pasted-in title, if that is the source?
Click to expand...

Just the title of the article please. :)
 
Xelor said:
[*]Do mods here truly expect folks to apply the 48 hour constraint to journal articles, particularly studies? ... Journal content just isn't the same as newspaper and blog content.
Click to expand...

To the first part of that quote, yes. I included the second part because it adds to the explanation. Journal Content often isn't the same as newspaper or blog content. More specifically, it's often not in and of itself "news". It may be informative, it may be useful, it may be interesting, it may be impactful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the reporting of NEWS. The reality is what you're describing would likely be better suited as the basis for a thread somewhere other than the Breaking News section.

[*]"Exact same title as the cited article" -- I don't have any idea of what precisely this is supposed to mean and how to comply with it.
Click to expand...

Lets say the title of your news article is "President Trump approves military strikes against key targets in Syria". That same title should be the title when you start your thread. What you shouldn't do is make the title of your thread "tRump is dropping bombs on Syria".

Just so all readers understand why I've asked the questions above, here are some links to some journal articles I've read. (In some of the examples I've posted a link to only the article's abstract because unless the reader subscribes to the journal, s/he won't be able to access it, so the abstract is the best I can give. I have provided some older article links to free/publicly available journal articles for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with the nature of content in journal articles.)
Click to expand...

These journal articles could make for very interesting discussion of jumping off points; that doesn't mean they're appropriate for breaking news. The first two you posted would be great for a thread started in Econimcs or potentially Government Spending and Debt. Economics or International Politics could be feasible places for your working paper threads.

Whether it's "new" or "news" to "many people" in any given posters estimation isn't how we define "news". The journal article regarding the creation of the universe would likely fit best in Science and Technology.

As to your last one, again this is in no way BREAKING news, and would likely be best placed in Science.

Your confusion seems, from a quick reading of this post, to be born out of the notion that anything important, or relatively unknown, should somehow be in the breaking news section. That's not what those sections are for. The limits placed on them are because they serve a specific purpose and are focused on things that fall into both of the categories of it's. While they are heavily visited sections of the forum, they are not the only parts of the forum. And their heavily viewed nature is partially due to the very strict manner in which they are maintained and curated.
 
Xelor said:
Frankly, I wouldn't have noted journal articles as an example of alternative "breaking news" sources -- I would, however, on a site like this, classify them as alternative information sources -- but the "powers that be" did include them as a type of breaking news source. I'm merely trying to understand how to apply the rules to journal content insofar as journal content doesn't generally align with the standard conception of news.
Click to expand...

Ah. So if I'm reading you right, the whole of the confusion is that in the short hand description of the section found on the main page, it notes that "journals" are one example of an alternative news source.

First time I've heard any issue or confusion on that matter, but we can definitely take a look at the description and perhaps clean it up to more accurately correspond with what the actual more detailed rules are stating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom