4 ms·

I'm puzzled by comments that describe this as a well written article. There are no new facts here; nor are there even any guesses as to what actually caused the

by _cs2017_ 8y ago

I'm puzzled by comments that describe this as a well written article. There are no new facts here; nor are there even any guesses as to what actually caused these detentions. There is no amazing investigative work, no deep unexpected insights. What exactly does this article say to stand above the news media noise? I guess it does provide some simple analysis of the general situation in China, but even here it doesn't deviate from the well known story about how Xi Jinping is moving China back towards heavy handed government control.

frontfor 8y ago
Or maybe it's just that: it's a well written article and the subject matter is interesting. An article doesn't need to have "new facts" to "stand above the news media noise". Plenty of submissions on HN doesn't contain "new facts". You may find "there are no new facts" but not everyone does.
yesenadam 8y ago
If you can do better, please do. Or teach us something instead of just complaining that other people liked it. Comments like this add absolutely nothing to HN; it was a total waste of time reading it.
- mayankkaizen 8y ago
  So basically I shouldn't judge or comment on something because I can't do that thing? I mean I can't appreciate/criticize art/poetry because I can't paint or write poetry?
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    You can do whatever you want. But it's not interesting. People aren't coming here for hot take tips on how journalism is bad.
- coldtea 8y ago
  The whole purpose of a HN thread is to share your opinion on linked articles first, and follow the paths that discussions goes, second. It's meta-comments like yours (and now mine) that are a total waste of time.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > The whole purpose ... Perhaps that is your purpose, but I agree with the GP. I'm interested in comments that add value and knowledge; each discussion has predictable sniping like the GGP that is just noise and I'm no wiser after reading it.
norswap 8y ago
It's from the "Daily Comment" section. Basically, an op-ed. A commentary on the situation. It's exactly what someone would expect it to be, and I would say it's an interesting opinion.
tunap 8y ago
Thanks for the observation. I regularly read the HN comments before an article to avoid such detrirus. The child comments, plus The NYer tends to have well written content, lead me to believe it may be worthwhile reading as I am ignorant of the current evwnts,anyway. Lately, I have been experiencing articles short on facts that restate the same couple of points reiterated 3 & 4 times making a snippet of info become several paragraphs saying the same thing in slightly differing ways.That is noise I can do without. Anyway, despite the disagreements below, every opinion/angle is(should be) appreciated.
thrower123 8y ago
It's a New Yorker article. Their schtick is having overwrought and highbrow takes on trite well-trodden opinions.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> I'm puzzled by comments that describe this as a well written article. Welcome to HN. It seems like half the articles posted here immediately have comments praising the article or the writer. Wouldn't shock me if the writers themselves or their social media team is behind it. > There is no amazing investigative work, no deep unexpected insights. That's how 99% of news is. They literally read each others news and then repurpose, rephrase, regurgitate and repackage it. > I guess it does provide some simple analysis of the general situation in China, but even here it doesn't deviate from the well known story about how Xi Jinping is moving China back towards heavy handed government control. All the media is on the same message? I wonder why?
fjsolwmv 8y ago
How are other submitters and commenters support to know which news stories you've already read?

frontfor 8y ago

Or maybe it's just that: it's a well written article and the subject matter is interesting. An article doesn't need to have "new facts" to "stand above the news media noise". Plenty of submissions on HN doesn't contain "new facts". You may find "there are no new facts" but not everyone does.

yesenadam 8y ago

If you can do better, please do. Or teach us something instead of just complaining that other people liked it. Comments like this add absolutely nothing to HN; it was a total waste of time reading it.

mayankkaizen 8y ago
So basically I shouldn't judge or comment on something because I can't do that thing? I mean I can't appreciate/criticize art/poetry because I can't paint or write poetry?
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  You can do whatever you want. But it's not interesting. People aren't coming here for hot take tips on how journalism is bad.
coldtea 8y ago
The whole purpose of a HN thread is to share your opinion on linked articles first, and follow the paths that discussions goes, second. It's meta-comments like yours (and now mine) that are a total waste of time.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > The whole purpose ... Perhaps that is your purpose, but I agree with the GP. I'm interested in comments that add value and knowledge; each discussion has predictable sniping like the GGP that is just noise and I'm no wiser after reading it.

norswap 8y ago

It's from the "Daily Comment" section. Basically, an op-ed. A commentary on the situation. It's exactly what someone would expect it to be, and I would say it's an interesting opinion.

tunap 8y ago

Thanks for the observation. I regularly read the HN comments before an article to avoid such detrirus. The child comments, plus The NYer tends to have well written content, lead me to believe it may be worthwhile reading as I am ignorant of the current evwnts,anyway. Lately, I have been experiencing articles short on facts that restate the same couple of points reiterated 3 & 4 times making a snippet of info become several paragraphs saying the same thing in slightly differing ways.That is noise I can do without. Anyway, despite the disagreements below, every opinion/angle is(should be) appreciated.

thrower123 8y ago

It's a New Yorker article. Their schtick is having overwrought and highbrow takes on trite well-trodden opinions.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> I'm puzzled by comments that describe this as a well written article. Welcome to HN. It seems like half the articles posted here immediately have comments praising the article or the writer. Wouldn't shock me if the writers themselves or their social media team is behind it. > There is no amazing investigative work, no deep unexpected insights. That's how 99% of news is. They literally read each others news and then repurpose, rephrase, regurgitate and repackage it. > I guess it does provide some simple analysis of the general situation in China, but even here it doesn't deviate from the well known story about how Xi Jinping is moving China back towards heavy handed government control. All the media is on the same message? I wonder why?

fjsolwmv 8y ago

How are other submitters and commenters support to know which news stories you've already read?