17 ms·

I wouldn't throw the New York Times and the Washington Post in the same bucket as the Huffington Post and Slate without some good evidence backing it up. It rei

I wouldn't throw the New York Times and the Washington Post in the same bucket as the Huffington Post and Slate without some good evidence backing it up. It reinforces the idea that all news sources are roughly the same which is not true. WaPo and NYT are national newspapers founded in the 1800's who compete with the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, the LA Times, Reuters, etc. HuffPo and Slate are news websites launched in the 90's or 2000's that are competing with sites like Breitbart, Salon, the Daily Beast, etc. I agree that we should call out this kind of article, but I don't like spreading the conception that click-bait based news websites are equally as reliable as more trustworthy sources.

weberc2 8y ago
> I wouldn't throw the New York Times and the Washington Post in the same bucket as the Huffington Post and Slate without some good evidence backing it up. I totally agree. But like I said, the bucket I'm using is "sites that are frequently featured on HN". I also disagree with your taxonomy. HuffPo and Slate are much more reputable (rightly or wrongly) than Breitbart and Daily Beast. For example, how often do Breitbart or Daily Beast articles make the front page here compared to HuffPo or Slate or even Salon? BuzzFeed News probably hits the front page more often than these. In any case, my point doesn't depend on HuffPo or Slate, so I'll happily concede the point.