3 ms·
There's an assumption in this statement that doesn't survive scrutiny. This is original reporting. What makes you think there's an equivalent alternative? † †
by dionidium 8y ago
There's an assumption in this statement that doesn't survive scrutiny. This is original reporting. What makes you think there's an equivalent alternative? †
† This perception is obviously a huge problem for papers like the L.A. Times (and for writers, in general). For better or worse, this is how people see it, now. If you don't like the source, then you just imagine substituting in another one, like you're buying pork futures (or whatever the opposite of original reporting is).
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoThe assumption may be that any worthwhile article will immediately be "reported on" (restated with no new information) by a dozen other sites. Edit: I'm not saying that's a good thing, guys. I agree with dionidium.
- gowld 8y ago"rereported"
- dionidium 8y agoRight, exactly, which is to trivialize original reporting beyond the dictates of fairness. An original piece of reporting and the blog post that summarizes it are not equivalent content.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoIndeed. Just to be clear, I agree with you; I only meant to clearly state the OP's faulty assumption.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- esotericn 8y agoThe equivalent alternative for European browsers is this: " " I suspect we're more than 25% of HN's audience. (Realistically, a mirror is the realistic alternative. Two have been posted and downvoted into oblivion. So it seems the HN community along with the LA Times support censorship. Nice.).