3 ms·
That's not how news works. The New York Times generally doesn't publish rumors. Multiple trusted sources told famous, celebrated journalists the same thing in i
by ForrestN 9y ago
That's not how news works. The New York Times generally doesn't publish rumors. Multiple trusted sources told famous, celebrated journalists the same thing in independent conversations. If it's a dupe that has nothing to do with rumors.
- dang 9y agoI used "rumor" in the dictionary sense, which doesn't depend on the factors you mention. But you're right that it isn't necessary to make the point. The point is that, be it rumor or celebrated journalism, there's no significant new information here yet, so no harm in waiting until the thing actually happens (actually for HN purposes it's better). There will be no dearth of celebrated journalism then either. So I've replaced "rumor" with "article" above.
- malandrew 9y agoYour fallacy: Appeal to Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_controversies And these are just the examples that we know about and gained enough notoriety to be included in a Wikipedia article. If the NY Times treated itself with the same scrutiny as it treats Uber, we'd know more about how reliable it actually is. Like all other media companies, the NYTimes at the end of the day is made up of humans like you and I and it's entirely possible for them to publish heresay, conjecture, biased opinions, etc. They may have a better track record than most, but they aren't infallible. Even the golden goose occasionally takes a shit. This article is just presenting the conjecture of supposed insiders as facts. That's not news. That's rumor.