5 ms·

This graphic is out of date and has errors in it. It implies the Huffington Post is owned by Time Warner, which has never owned it. In fact, AOL bought it two f

This graphic is out of date and has errors in it. It implies the Huffington Post is owned by Time Warner, which has never owned it. In fact, AOL bought it two full years after splitting off from Time Warner. Additionally, it should be noted that Time Warner recently split its entertainment properties from its publishing properties [1], and doesn't account for the fact that the print publishing world is quite a bit different. Six corporations may own 90 percent of the world's media, but they don't own The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, or USA Today. Hmm. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/03/11/time-warner-nearing-the-separation-of-its-publishing-business/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/03/11/ti...

tripzilch 9y ago
The article states it has a bunch of things that are no longer up to date, just before the graphic, doesn't it? It says here follows the infographic except this has changed and such and is now owned by this and that. I didn't really feel like looking too deep into that infographic any more after that. I think it's weird, or lazy, given that this is the meat of the article, why not make a correct infographic then? It already looks like a smudgy 3rd generation copy of a JPG sent through whatsapp, so it could use some cleaning. It doesn't need to recreate the "funny" clipart figures, just the bar graphs and the correct numbers. Or they could've just taken the numbers, the correct who-owns-what, and written it as a story, which would've been shorter and easier to grasp than this "keep these errata in mind"-infographic. I strongly suspect that this article got its upvotes because many people on HN feel it is an important topic to discuss, not because the quality of the article itself is that great.

tripzilch 9y ago

The article states it has a bunch of things that are no longer up to date, just before the graphic, doesn't it? It says here follows the infographic except this has changed and such and is now owned by this and that. I didn't really feel like looking too deep into that infographic any more after that. I think it's weird, or lazy, given that this is the meat of the article, why not make a correct infographic then? It already looks like a smudgy 3rd generation copy of a JPG sent through whatsapp, so it could use some cleaning. It doesn't need to recreate the "funny" clipart figures, just the bar graphs and the correct numbers. Or they could've just taken the numbers, the correct who-owns-what, and written it as a story, which would've been shorter and easier to grasp than this "keep these errata in mind"-infographic. I strongly suspect that this article got its upvotes because many people on HN feel it is an important topic to discuss, not because the quality of the article itself is that great.