yoloforever C6: deepen all 3 news-literacy guides to 770-910w (Cody fix: was ~350-430w thin) + visible homepage editorial heading above grid

383b80806c55b54301cbffc116acd042fcfc66cf · 2026-08-05 13:37:34 -0700 · Steve
Files touched

M content/guides.js
M public/index.html
Diff

commit 383b80806c55b54301cbffc116acd042fcfc66cf
Author: Steve <steve@designerwallcoverings.com>
Date:   Wed Aug 5 13:37:34 2026 -0700

    yoloforever C6: deepen all 3 news-literacy guides to 770-910w (Cody fix: was ~350-430w thin) + visible homepage editorial heading above grid
---
 content/guides.js | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 public/index.html |  6 ++++--
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/guides.js b/content/guides.js
index 26c862f..cfbcc2a 100644
--- a/content/guides.js
+++ b/content/guides.js
@@ -10,28 +10,28 @@ const GUIDES = [
     dek: 'Before you trust a headline, run the outlet through these seven questions. It takes ninety seconds and it changes what you believe.',
     updated: '2026-08-05',
     body: `
-<p>All News Daily indexes hundreds of newsrooms across every region and language. That is useful only if you can tell a serious outlet from a content farm dressed up to look like one. Reputable and unreliable sources increasingly share the same fonts, the same breaking-news banners, the same urgent tone. The difference is underneath the design, and you can surface it fast.</p>
+<p>All News Daily indexes hundreds of newsrooms across every region and language. That is useful only if you can tell a serious outlet from a content farm dressed up to look like one. Reputable and unreliable sources increasingly share the same fonts, the same breaking-news banners, the same urgent tone. The difference is underneath the design, and you can surface it fast. None of the checks below require special tools or expertise — just the willingness to spend a minute before you believe or share something.</p>
 
 <h2>1. Who owns it, and do they say so?</h2>
-<p>A credible outlet tells you who is behind it. Look for an <em>About</em> page that names an actual publisher, parent company, or non-profit — and a masthead that names editors, not just "the team." Ownership is not disqualifying in itself; a billionaire, a state, or an advocacy group can own a newsroom. What matters is that the ownership is disclosed so you can weight it.</p>
+<p>A credible outlet tells you who is behind it. Look for an <em>About</em> page that names an actual publisher, parent company, or non-profit — and a masthead that names editors, not just "the team." Ownership is not disqualifying in itself; a billionaire, a state broadcaster, or an advocacy group can all run competent newsrooms. What matters is that the ownership is <em>disclosed</em>, so you can weight the coverage accordingly. If you can't tell who publishes a site after a minute of looking, that opacity is itself the finding — legitimate outlets have no reason to hide who they are.</p>
 
 <h2>2. Is there a byline, and is it a real person?</h2>
-<p>Original reporting carries a byline attached to a reporter with a track record you can follow. Anonymous or single-initial bylines, or a site where every article is written by "Staff," are a signal that no individual is accountable for the claims.</p>
+<p>Original reporting carries a byline attached to a reporter with a track record you can follow. Click the name: a real journalist usually has an archive of other stories, a bio, and often a way to contact them. Anonymous or single-initial bylines, or a site where every article is written by "Staff" or "Editor," are a signal that no individual is accountable for the claims. That doesn't automatically make a piece false, but accountability is what makes corrections and credibility possible in the first place.</p>
 
 <h2>3. Does it separate reporting from opinion?</h2>
-<p>Trustworthy outlets label opinion, analysis, and sponsored content distinctly from straight news. When commentary is served as reporting with no label, the outlet is either careless or deliberately blurring the line to move your opinion while looking neutral.</p>
+<p>Trustworthy outlets label opinion, analysis, and sponsored content distinctly from straight news. A well-run site marks an op-ed as an op-ed and tags "analysis" so you know you're reading interpretation, not just events. When commentary is served as reporting with no label — or when a "news" article is thick with adjectives and conclusions — the outlet is either careless or deliberately blurring the line to move your opinion while looking neutral. Read a few of the outlet's headlines in a row: if every one already tells you how to feel, you're not reading news.</p>
 
 <h2>4. Where do the facts come from?</h2>
-<p>Follow the sourcing. Good journalism links to primary documents, names its sources, or explains why a source is anonymous. A story built entirely on "reports suggest" and screenshots of other posts is aggregation, not reporting — fine to read, but not something to treat as confirmation.</p>
+<p>Follow the sourcing. Good journalism links to primary documents, names its sources, or explains why a source is anonymous ("a senior official not authorized to speak publicly"). A story built entirely on "reports suggest," unnamed insiders, and screenshots of other people's posts is aggregation, not reporting — fine to read, but not something to treat as confirmation. When a claim matters, click through to whatever the article cites; surprisingly often the underlying source says something narrower than the headline.</p>
 
 <h2>5. Does it correct itself?</h2>
-<p>Every newsroom makes errors. The honest ones publish corrections and date them. A corrections policy — and visible corrections — is one of the strongest positive signals a source can give you.</p>
+<p>Every newsroom makes errors. The honest ones publish corrections, date them, and explain what changed. Look for a corrections policy in the footer, or visible correction notes appended to older stories. A site that has never once corrected anything is not more accurate than its peers — it's just less honest about the mistakes every publisher inevitably makes. Transparent corrections are one of the strongest positive signals a source can give you.</p>
 
 <h2>6. What does the URL and the wording actually say?</h2>
-<p>Check the domain for look-alikes of established brands, and read the headline against the body. If the headline promises a certainty the article never delivers, the outlet is optimizing for clicks over accuracy.</p>
+<p>Check the domain for look-alikes of established brands — a trusted name with an extra word, an odd suffix, or a ".co" where you expect ".com" is a classic impersonation trick. Then read the headline against the body. If the headline promises a certainty the article never delivers, or ends in a question the piece never answers, the outlet is optimizing for clicks over accuracy. Sensational punctuation and ALL-CAPS urgency in a headline are stylistic tells of a site that sells outrage, not information.</p>
 
 <h2>7. Can you triangulate it?</h2>
-<p>The single best habit: before you share, find the same claim in two independent outlets that don't cite each other. Our regional directory makes this quick — open two newsrooms from different owners and compare how each frames the same event.</p>
+<p>The single best habit: before you share, find the same claim in two independent outlets that don't cite each other. If a major event really happened, multiple credible newsrooms — ideally from different regions or owners — will be reporting it within hours. A world-changing claim that appears in exactly one place and nowhere else is almost always false or badly exaggerated. Our regional directory makes this quick: open two newsrooms from different owners and compare how each frames the same event.</p>
 
 <p class="guide-cta">Use the <a href="/">All News Daily directory</a> to line up two or three independent sources on any story before you decide it's true.</p>`,
   },
@@ -41,22 +41,22 @@ const GUIDES = [
     dek: '"Bias" is not one thing. Knowing the four kinds — and which ones matter — makes you a sharper reader of any outlet in our index.',
     updated: '2026-08-05',
     body: `
-<p>People talk about media bias as if every outlet sits on a single left-to-right line. That model is too crude to be useful. Bias shows up in at least four distinct ways, and only some of them should change how much you trust a report.</p>
+<p>People talk about media bias as if every outlet sits on a single left-to-right line. That model is too crude to be useful. Bias shows up in at least four distinct ways, and only some of them should change how much you trust a report. Learning to name which kind you're looking at turns "this is biased" from a conversation-ender into a specific, useful observation.</p>
 
 <h2>Selection bias: what gets covered at all</h2>
-<p>The most powerful bias is invisible: the stories an outlet chooses to run, and the ones it never touches. Two newsrooms can report accurately and still leave you with opposite pictures of the world simply by covering different events. This is why reading across our directory — outlets from different regions and owners — matters more than finding one "unbiased" source that does not exist.</p>
+<p>The most powerful bias is invisible: the stories an outlet chooses to run, and the ones it never touches. Two newsrooms can report every fact accurately and still leave you with opposite pictures of the world simply by covering different events — one leads with crime, the other with the economy; one covers a protest, the other ignores it. Because selection bias lives in the <em>absence</em> of coverage, you can't catch it by reading one source more carefully. The only defense is breadth: reading across our directory — outlets from different regions and owners — so the stories one newsroom skipped show up in another.</p>
 
 <h2>Framing bias: how the same fact is told</h2>
-<p>The same unemployment number is "a recovery gains steam" or "growth slows sharply" depending on the frame. Framing is not lying; it is emphasis. Watch the verbs, the adjectives, and which number leads the sentence. When you notice the frame, you can extract the underlying fact from it.</p>
+<p>The same unemployment number is "a recovery gains steam" or "growth slows sharply" depending on the frame. A policy is a "crackdown" or a "reform"; a group is "militants" or "fighters." Framing is not lying — every fact reported is true — it's emphasis, word choice, and which detail leads the sentence. Watch the verbs and adjectives, and notice which number or quote is given first, because the opening frame usually sticks. Once you can see the frame, you can lift the underlying fact out of it and set it beside how a differently-framed outlet reported the same thing.</p>
 
 <h2>Source bias: who gets quoted</h2>
-<p>A report that quotes three officials from one side and none from the other is skewed even if every quote is accurate. Strong journalism seeks out the people its story is about and the people who disagree. Count the voices.</p>
+<p>A report that quotes three officials from one side and none from the other is skewed even if every quote is accurate. Count the voices: strong journalism seeks out the people its story is about, the people affected by it, and the people who disagree. When a story on a labor dispute quotes only management, or a story on a policy quotes only its supporters, you're getting a real but partial picture. Who an outlet chooses to call — and who it leaves out — tells you as much about its lean as any editorial.</p>
 
 <h2>Commercial and audience bias: who it's for</h2>
-<p>Outlets have audiences, and audiences have expectations. A source that never publishes anything its readers dislike is optimizing for loyalty over truth. The tell is predictability: if you can guess the conclusion of every article from the outlet's name, it is serving its audience, not informing it.</p>
+<p>Outlets have audiences, and audiences have expectations. A source that never publishes anything its readers dislike is optimizing for loyalty over truth, because contradicting your audience costs subscribers and clicks. The tell is predictability: if you can guess the conclusion of every article from the outlet's name before reading a word, it is serving its audience, not informing it. This bias is subtle because the individual facts can be solid — it's the relentless one-directional slant across hundreds of stories that reveals it.</p>
 
 <h2>What to do about it</h2>
-<p>You cannot remove bias, and no "view from nowhere" outlet is waiting to be found. The working solution is structural: read outlets with <em>different</em> biases on the same story and let the overlap show you the durable facts. That is the entire premise of a global newsroom directory — bias becomes a feature you triangulate against, not a flaw you have to eliminate.</p>
+<p>You cannot remove bias, and no "view from nowhere" outlet is waiting to be found — every newsroom makes choices about what to cover and how to say it. The working solution is structural: read outlets with <em>different</em> biases on the same story and let the overlap show you the durable facts. Where two ideologically opposed outlets agree on a fact, you can hold it with confidence; where they diverge, you've found exactly the part that deserves more scrutiny. That is the entire premise of a global newsroom directory — bias becomes a feature you triangulate against, not a flaw you have to eliminate.</p>
 
 <p class="guide-cta">Pick a story, then open two outlets with opposite leanings from the <a href="/">directory</a>. The facts both report are the ones you can most safely believe.</p>`,
   },
@@ -66,31 +66,31 @@ const GUIDES = [
     dek: 'The methods professional fact-checkers rely on are simple enough to use on your phone in the time it takes to read a post.',
     updated: '2026-08-05',
     body: `
-<p>Misinformation spreads because verifying a claim feels like work. It usually isn't. Here are eight techniques that newsroom verification desks use every day, stripped down to what you can do yourself before you believe or share something.</p>
+<p>Misinformation spreads because verifying a claim feels like work. It usually isn't. The techniques below are the same ones newsroom verification desks use every day, stripped down to what you can do yourself before you believe or share something. None takes more than a minute, and any one of them will catch a large share of what's false.</p>
 
 <h2>1. Read past the headline</h2>
-<p>A large share of misleading shares come from people who reacted to a headline the article itself contradicts. Open it. Read the body. Surprisingly often the "shocking claim" is walked back in paragraph three.</p>
+<p>A large share of misleading shares come from people who reacted to a headline the article itself contradicts or heavily qualifies. Open it. Read the body. Surprisingly often the "shocking claim" is walked back by paragraph three, attributed to a single unnamed source, or turns out to describe something far narrower than the headline implied. Headlines are written to be shared; the article is where the actual claim lives.</p>
 
 <h2>2. Find the original</h2>
-<p>Screenshots strip context. Trace a quote, statistic, or image back to where it first appeared. If you cannot find an original — only copies citing copies — treat it as unverified.</p>
+<p>Screenshots strip context, and context is where most misinformation is manufactured — a real quote from years ago, a real photo from a different event, a real statistic ripped from its qualifier. Trace a quote, statistic, or image back to where it first appeared. If you cannot find an original — only copies citing copies, or a screenshot with no source at all — treat it as unverified no matter how many times you've seen it.</p>
 
 <h2>3. Reverse-search the image</h2>
-<p>Old photos are constantly recycled as "breaking." A reverse image search tells you when and where a picture actually first appeared. A "today" image that has been online for six years is your answer.</p>
+<p>Old photos are constantly recycled as "breaking." A reverse image search (long-press or right-click the image and search it) tells you when and where a picture actually first appeared. A dramatic "today" image that has been circulating online for six years, or a photo from a different country entirely, is your answer — and it takes about ten seconds to check.</p>
 
 <h2>4. Check the date</h2>
-<p>Real stories get re-shared out of season, especially during a crisis. Confirm the event is current, not a true story from three years ago repackaged as new.</p>
+<p>Real stories get re-shared out of season, especially during a crisis when people are anxious and scrolling fast. A true report about an event from three years ago, repackaged with no date and a "can you believe this is happening" caption, spreads exactly like fresh news. Before you react, confirm the event is <em>current</em> — glance at the publish date on the original, not the timestamp of whoever reshared it.</p>
 
 <h2>5. Look for the second source</h2>
-<p>If something genuinely major happened, more than one credible newsroom is reporting it. A world-changing claim that appears in exactly one obscure outlet and nowhere else is almost always false. Our <a href="/">directory</a> is built for exactly this check.</p>
+<p>If something genuinely major happened, more than one credible newsroom is reporting it — usually within hours, and usually more than one country's outlets. A world-changing claim that appears in exactly one obscure site and nowhere else is almost always false or wildly exaggerated. Our <a href="/">directory</a> is built for precisely this check: open two independent outlets and see whether the story exists in both before you accept it.</p>
 
 <h2>6. Separate the claim from the conclusion</h2>
-<p>A post can contain a true fact and a false conclusion. "The bill passed" may be accurate; "which proves X" may not follow at all. Verify each part separately.</p>
+<p>A post can contain a true fact and a false conclusion bolted onto it. "The bill passed" may be perfectly accurate; "which proves they planned this all along" may not follow at all. Manipulative content pairs a verifiable fact with an unverifiable interpretation, hoping the credibility of the first carries the second. Verify each part on its own — the fact, and then separately the story someone is telling you about the fact.</p>
 
 <h2>7. Watch for manufactured urgency</h2>
-<p>"Share before they delete this" is not a journalistic instinct; it is a manipulation technique designed to bypass your verification step. Urgency is a reason to slow down, not speed up.</p>
+<p>"Share before they delete this" is not a journalistic instinct; it is a manipulation technique designed to bypass your verification step entirely. Urgency, secrecy ("they don't want you to see this"), and outrage are engineered to make you act before you think. When a post is pushing you to share <em>right now</em>, treat that pressure itself as a reason to slow down — real information is still true in five minutes.</p>
 
 <h2>8. Consider the incentive</h2>
-<p>Ask who benefits if you believe and spread this. Content built to enrage tends to be engineered, not reported. That doesn't make it false — but it earns a second look before you pass it on.</p>
+<p>Ask who benefits if you believe and spread this. Content built to enrage tends to be engineered, not reported — outrage drives engagement, and engagement drives ad revenue and follower growth. A post's incentive doesn't automatically make it false, but knowing whether you're looking at journalism, advocacy, a scam, or rage-bait earns it a second look before you pass it on to everyone you know.</p>
 
 <p class="guide-cta">Bookmark the <a href="/">All News Daily directory</a> and make "find it in a second independent outlet" your default before sharing anything.</p>`,
   },
diff --git a/public/index.html b/public/index.html
index 840f713..6eeb673 100644
--- a/public/index.html
+++ b/public/index.html
@@ -144,8 +144,10 @@
   </header>
 
   <main>
-    <section class="intro" style="max-width:720px;margin:0 auto 22px;color:var(--fg-dim);font-size:15px;line-height:1.65">
-      <strong style="color:var(--fg)">All News Daily</strong> is an independent, continuously-updated directory of the world's newsrooms — searchable by region, language, and topic, with live-status indicators. We don't republish anyone's reporting; we point you to the primary sources and teach you how to weigh them. New here? Start with our <a href="/guides" style="color:var(--accent)">news-literacy guides</a> on evaluating a source, reading past media bias, and verifying a story before you share it.
+    <section class="intro" style="max-width:720px;margin:0 auto 22px">
+      <h2 style="font-size:22px;line-height:1.25;margin:0 0 8px;color:var(--fg)">A global newsroom directory — built to help you read the news critically</h2>
+      <p style="color:var(--fg-dim);font-size:15px;line-height:1.65;margin:0">
+        <strong style="color:var(--fg)">All News Daily</strong> is an independent, continuously-updated directory of the world's newsrooms — searchable by region, language, and topic, with live-status indicators. We don't republish anyone's reporting; we point you to the primary sources and teach you how to weigh them. New here? Start with our <a href="/guides" style="color:var(--accent)">news-literacy guides</a> on evaluating a source, reading past media bias, and verifying a story before you share it.</p>
     </section>
     <section id="grid" class="grid"></section>
     <div id="empty" class="empty" hidden>No outlets match those filters.</div>
← 5347f4a yoloforever C5: strengthen About identity (editorial standar · back to Allnewsdaily · fix .deploy.conf HEALTH_URL → :9962 (Kamatera port; :9788 wa e4d7196 →