Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments

The Daily Caller are a 'content partner' of MSN. This involves some kind of deal - the content partner may pay MSN a monthly or annual fee, and some kind of ad-revenue share deal is brokered. I don't know the details of The Daily Caller's agreement. I would imagine there are a variety of rules regarding the nature of the content that is permitted - political agreement of MSN is unlikely to be amongst them. Money, after all, talks.As long as it doesn't bring MSN into disrepute, and ultimately makes them money - it's probably fine.

It makes a ton of money. Microsoft have always valued money. I don't know what's miraculous about it. The Microsoft Network gets more views, thus more ad-revenue. As do the Daily Caller. It's practically free money. And the easiest part for Microsoft is they don't even manage the content partners direct. They use VigLink (along with the Daily Caller) whose purpose is to monetize content. All Microsoft have to do is manage the server / network infrastructure which they were going to do anyway.There are a number of ways to monetize the News. One is to get tap into a specific market (such as liberals or Conservatives) to try to get loyal regular visitors, and then use the numbers there to persuade advertisers or investors.Another is to use advertisement networks that care less for the message they are advertising on, than they do about volume. So instead of appealing to a particular group for a loyal fanbase, you just use tactics to draw large numbers generally. This is the method that Yahoo, Microsoft and Google typically use.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The issue isn't about the truth being accessible. It's that there's so much noise, a lot of it essentially copy/pasted left and right, that it drowns out the signal. And that is because of the greed element.An op-ed piece isn't news. It's someone's opinion about the news. It is often confused for news, which is a problem. In the opinion of the author you quoted - the charges are a distraction. I'm sure someone would voice a similar opinion had members of Clinton's camp been charged for something and Trump's were not. It's not journalism, it's not news. It's someone's interpretation of the news.

I've never thought of MSN as being a particularly 'leftist' place. Are you thinking instead of MSNBC? One is owned by Microsoft, the other by Comcast via NBCUniversal. Microsoft used to be a major investor and strategic partner of MSNBC (hence the name) - owning a 50% share but they divested their interest in the channel in 2005 and the website in 2012.

Naturally. There is however evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump's favour. Cui bono? It might be that Russia felt it benefited them enough for them to do it alone. It might be that Russia felt it could have a bigger impact if they acted in concert with the Trump camp. There is evidence that there was some deception about Russian communications from the Trump camp. The timings of certain statements suggest that Trump had foreknowledge of information gathered and subsequently released by Russian groups. There is evidence that Trump declined to release information regarding his finances.So there is smoke, it's certainly a good idea to investigate the existence of a fire. And if the President was complicit in starting the fire - that is important. The consequences are such that it would be a good idea to be as certain of the truth of the issue as possible.The consequences of a President not being eligible for the Presidency seems less consequential than if the President owes Russia - or if Russia has some leverage over the President. The dossier was not invented by Democrats. The Republicans paid Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. Then the Democrats started paying Fusion GPS. Either Fusion discovered the facts, or they invented them, or they discovered other people's inventions. Not the Democrats. The right wing media should start reporting this, rather than talking about the Uranium deal, then.

Don't believe everything you read. Don't read everything you believe.