![\"New](\"http:\/\/www.publiconsulting.com\/wordpress\/navegarvela\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2017\/02\/nytimes.jpg\")
Figure 14a<\/a>[\/caption]\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.<\/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[caption id=\"attachment_73\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"2070\"] 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.<\/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. \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<\/em> 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<\/em>, 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","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 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![\"New](\"http:\/\/www.publiconsulting.com\/wordpress\/navegarvela\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2017\/02\/nytimes2.jpg\")
Figure 15a<\/a>[\/caption]\n![\"New](\"\/\/www.publiconsulting.com\/wordpress\/navegarvela\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2017\/02\/nytimes.jpg\")
![\"New](\"\/\/www.publiconsulting.com\/wordpress\/navegarvela\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/54\/2017\/02\/nytimes2.jpg\")