2 ms·
I see two sentences of substance in your bizarre response. > Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 signific
by linkregister 10y ago
I see two sentences of substance in your bizarre response.
> Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero.
I found this after 1 second of internet searching: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinto....
> Too much competition from buzzfeed seems to have left the paper toothless and officious.
Buzzfeed has a substantial investigative reporting arm; its depth has been lauded frequently on HN: https://www.buzzfeed.com/news https://www.buzzfeed.com/news
- oldmanjay 10y agoBuzzfeed's sop to actual journalism neither excuses their deliberate damage to the profession nor demonstrates they are less of a competitor to the New York Times.
- grandalf 10y agoYou might find stories buried deep behind the paywall. But the NYT has not run any front page stories in the last 10 days about the content of the email leaks. By contrast there have been 3-5 front page stories about Trump's rude remarks every day. This is basically one story about Trump being repeated in multiple stories, yet hundreds of newsworthy stories deriving from the leaks go unreported.