3 ms·

Did you read the comment section? There're examples therein of people confirming the practice, as too at least one person on HN here. El Reg's house style is v

Did you read the comment section? There're examples therein of people confirming the practice, as too at least one person on HN here. El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative. The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on.

laumars 7y ago
> Did you read the comment section? There wasn't any other comments when I typed mine. > El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative. Why? They have been on other occasions and their writing style is intentionally designed to be exaggerative. > The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on. I've found in their effort not to "sit in the pockets of the industry" they're bias has shifted too far to the other side where they too quick to pass judgement. Combined with their inflammatory tones, it creates a feeling reminiscent of those armchair critics that claim everything is shit while failing to appreciate the detail of the problem.
- detritus 7y ago
  That's curious. I'd read the Register article before it was posted here and there were comments to that effect - did you too read it before it was posted on HN? Their writing style is intended to be a bit tabloid in its reading, sure, but i've always figured that's to make otherwise dry reading a bit more engaging. The sum of their analysis is essentially on point. Their cousin, The Inquirer, by contrast is probably less 'exaggerative' as you put, it but is painful to wade through. As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due. I suppose the tone does encourage armchair critics in the comments sections, but then their comments section is second only to HN, I feel, for worthwhile input from people who Know Their Shit.
  - laumars 7y ago
    > That's curious. I'd read the Register article before it was posted here and there were comments to that effect - did you too read it before it was posted on HN? Sorry, I was talking about HN comments. To be honest I didn't even realise El Reg had a comments section (though I wouldn't have read them anyway - HN is the only site's comments I read) > As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due. Their comments regarding OpenSSL weren't. Back when Heartbleed was announced El Reg were heavily critical (as many people were) but they then ratchet up the tone by recommending people use other, largely unproven, cryptography libraries. They've also reported other vulnerabilities as being disastrous - using the same language as they did for Heardbleed and ShellShock - but for vulnerabilities that are purely theoretical and extremely difficult, impractical or even out of scope for 99.999% of consumer devices. El Reg have often been amongst the worst for misrepresenting the real world implications for vulnerability announcements and that's entirely down to the tabloid nature of their reporting.

laumars 7y ago

> Did you read the comment section? There wasn't any other comments when I typed mine. > El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative. Why? They have been on other occasions and their writing style is intentionally designed to be exaggerative. > The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on. I've found in their effort not to "sit in the pockets of the industry" they're bias has shifted too far to the other side where they too quick to pass judgement. Combined with their inflammatory tones, it creates a feeling reminiscent of those armchair critics that claim everything is shit while failing to appreciate the detail of the problem.

detritus 7y ago
That's curious. I'd read the Register article before it was posted here and there were comments to that effect - did you too read it before it was posted on HN? Their writing style is intended to be a bit tabloid in its reading, sure, but i've always figured that's to make otherwise dry reading a bit more engaging. The sum of their analysis is essentially on point. Their cousin, The Inquirer, by contrast is probably less 'exaggerative' as you put, it but is painful to wade through. As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due. I suppose the tone does encourage armchair critics in the comments sections, but then their comments section is second only to HN, I feel, for worthwhile input from people who Know Their Shit.
- laumars 7y ago
  > That's curious. I'd read the Register article before it was posted here and there were comments to that effect - did you too read it before it was posted on HN? Sorry, I was talking about HN comments. To be honest I didn't even realise El Reg had a comments section (though I wouldn't have read them anyway - HN is the only site's comments I read) > As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due. Their comments regarding OpenSSL weren't. Back when Heartbleed was announced El Reg were heavily critical (as many people were) but they then ratchet up the tone by recommending people use other, largely unproven, cryptography libraries. They've also reported other vulnerabilities as being disastrous - using the same language as they did for Heardbleed and ShellShock - but for vulnerabilities that are purely theoretical and extremely difficult, impractical or even out of scope for 99.999% of consumer devices. El Reg have often been amongst the worst for misrepresenting the real world implications for vulnerability announcements and that's entirely down to the tabloid nature of their reporting.