3 ms·
[edit] I completely misread the comment above as asking Hacker News to link to the original source article, not for the Guardian to have linked it. My bad, and
by camtarn 10y ago
[edit] I completely misread the comment above as asking Hacker News to link to the original source article, not for the Guardian to have linked it. My bad, and I agree with the parent.
For any other reputable news source I'd totally agree - but in this case, it's poor form to give the Daily Mail your ad revenue. This is not any regular newspaper: it is a mouthpiece for an organised hate campaign aimed at stirring up political tensions against immigrants, the disabled and out of work, and other 'undesirables' - which just also happens to be really good at writing social-media-friendly celebrity stories.
- ikeboy 10y agoIf you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. They barely summarised it. The reasons you gave don't rise to that level. If the other critique I made—that they don't actually mention anything wrong with the mail article— wouldn't be the case, it wouldn't be as bad. But the fact that they didn't make any substantive critiques of the article and didn't link it makes it a hit piece.
- camtarn 10y agoI apologise - I totally misread your comment, and thought it was a request for Hacker News to have linked to the Daily Mail article. Yes, I agree that the Guardian should have linked to it.
- ikeboy 10y agoGuess I wasn't clear, I edited my comment above. Thanks for that.
- mst 10y ago> If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. I think "I want to talk about their attitude to fake news, not further spread the salacious details of their only-sort-of-related coverage" is ... a reason. I think saying basically that, and providing a link afterwards that one would hope readers would choose not to click, would've been a better approach from a broadsheet.