[moneytide1]

I've slowly been developing the opposite habit. Over the years I've become more interested in how articles are digested by people without an agenda (which the modern, salaried digital author may be increasingly pressured to succumb to). Reception is demonstrated in comment sections, and that sometimes feels like a more pure read, stripped of whatever fluff or flair a journalist may feel compelled to add (accelerated portfolio enrichment attempt? Agenda implies bonus payment).

We can assume these may also be populated by automatically generated comments to suggest support or rejection of the content. Sometimes this leads me into [rabbit-hole] investigations through a user's post history if I am significantly moved by their angle(s).

I needn't read anything more than the title, as the meat content would likely just be an assimilation of empirical evidence and/or gossip. I'm not even going to bother turning off ad blocker or using archive.is with this one - in aggregate I just see it as yet another "distrust [insert internet company] with your data" offensive (defensive?) campaign.

[untog]

I think it's dangerous to consider commenters "people without an agenda". Automatically generated comments aside, I'm quite sure that plenty of real human beings have "an agenda" when they're commenting on an article.

I'm also not really sure what agenda the "modern, salaried digital author" is supposed to be succumbing to. Clickbait? If they're salaried then they aren't paid per click. Again, the journalist is a known employee of a known organisation. To think of anonymous commenters as more reliable feels a little baffling to me.

[moneytide1]

I am judging a book by its cover twice by not reading either our parent article or "Only the Paranoid Survive" by Andy Grove.

[brenden2]

Yep, I rarely read the articles, and mostly come for the comments. I'm especially unlikely to click the link when it comes from known clickbait factories.

[dragonwriter]

> people without an agenda

Everyone has an agenda, and everyone taking a voluntary action does so specifically in pursuit of an agenda.

The “impartial observer” is a sometimes-useful analytical fiction, not a thing that exists in the real world.