{"id":35,"date":"2018-01-22T19:59:41","date_gmt":"2018-01-22T19:59:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-webliteracy\/chapter\/understanding-syndication\/"},"modified":"2018-01-22T19:59:41","modified_gmt":"2018-01-22T19:59:41","slug":"understanding-syndication","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-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 web page:\n\n\"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 staff, but also a thin column of stories (\u201cUK Stock Market Hits Record\u201d) which are identified as being from the Associated Press.\n\nYou click through to a page that\u2019s on the New York Times site, but not by the New York Times:\n\n\"New\n\nIf you are going to evaluate the source of this article, your evaluation will have little to do with the New York Times. You\u2019re going to focus on the reporting record of the Associated Press.\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 site, and people claim it\u2019s a plot to rewrite the past. \u201cConspiracy!\u201d they say. \u00a0\u201cThey\u2019re burying information!\u201d they say. A ZOMG-level freakout follows.\n\nIt always turns out that the article that disappeared is a syndicated article. AP 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 only pays the Associated Press 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, claiming it shows a New York \u201cliberal bias\u201d only to find the story was not even written by the New York Times, but by the AP, or Reuters, 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.<\/p>","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 web page:<\/p>\n

\"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 staff, but also a thin column of stories (\u201cUK Stock Market Hits Record\u201d) which are identified as being from the Associated Press.<\/p>\n

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

\"New<\/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. You\u2019re going to focus on the reporting record of the Associated Press.<\/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 site, and people claim it\u2019s a plot to rewrite the past. \u201cConspiracy!\u201d they say. \u00a0\u201cThey\u2019re burying information!\u201d they say. A ZOMG-level freakout follows.<\/p>\n

It always turns out that the article that disappeared is a syndicated article. AP 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 only pays the Associated Press 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, claiming it shows a New York \u201cliberal bias\u201d only to find the story was not even written by the New York Times, but by the AP, or Reuters, 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\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>