3 ms·
The same New York Times who delayed publication of NSA spying until after Bush's re-election, and would have buried the article entirely had the author not thre
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
The same New York Times who delayed publication of NSA spying until after Bush's re-election, and would have buried the article entirely had the author not threatened to publish a book [1]? I think it's great you're willing to pay for news, but I urge you to find a source that's less cozy with those in power, such as The Intercept, of Snowden fame.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publication_of_2005_NSA_warrantless_surveillance_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times#Delayed_publica...
- offa 10y agoWhat would HN recommend for a news source that is worth paying for lately?
- leonroy 10y agoWondering the same thing myself. In the U.K. I can attest to the quality of The Guardian although it does get a little emotionally charged - particularly its editorials - excellent paper otherwise. The Financial Times is another excellent paper and funnily enough regarded by Noam Chomsky as the most accurate. As far as US papers go The NY Times has a pretty spotty history. It is still a very good paper, just gotta be aware of its short comings. I hear The Wall Street Journal is also very good but never really read it personally - usually pickup The Economist instead (despite all its problems). As far as free stuff goes Democracy Now is up there with any news I've seen on television and since it refuses corporate, advertising or government funding is entirely reliant on donations to remain as unbiased as possible. Very good indeed and worth supporting.
- scaryspooky 10y agoDemocracy Now is certainly not an unbiased news source.
- DashRattlesnake 10y agoWho else, then?