7 ms·

To be fair, the fact that it was published by the New York Post already seriously undercuts the article's credibility. Edit: and also the fact that it was writ

To be fair, the fact that it was published by the New York Post already seriously undercuts the article's credibility. Edit: and also the fact that it was written in collaboration with the President's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

dimitrios1 6y ago
Yet I don't recall anyone questioning Buzzfeed News when they dropped their bombshell story years back. I remember the defenders saying something along the lines of "If the news is newsworthy and constitutes journalism, then the publication it was produced in shouldn't matter" As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed is legitimate, correct?
- cofeecup 6y ago
  Well in that case, let me just clear my schedule to spend all of tomorrow performing an exhaustive fact check of the credibility of this story. /s It turns out that journalism is hard to do correctly. As an "independent thinker" I'm going to independently decide to not trust a publication with the reputation of the NY Post until it's been corroborated.
  - sj3k 6y ago
    So glad I see this sentiment on here. I am still blown away by HN readers inability to critically analyze news sources. If this was some research paper it would have been put under the microscope by HN readers.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      It helps that research papers on scientific domains have relatively easily verifiable data. It is much harder to claim ( not impossible ) that 1 is actually 0 if looked at from the right distance. Once we get to news ( assuming we bypass the whole conversation over how what passes for news is often opinion, or clickbait these days... ) you find out that 1s could indeed become 0s, you might not know all the facts, writers have bias, editors have bias, culture won't allow certain things to be said, polite society won't have a given phrase used.. the list just goes on and on. It is not inability. It is just a ridiculous exercise in futility. Chomsky can barely do it. And he has way better memory, command of language and reasoning skills than I do.
- sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
  Buzzfeed was previously famous for apolitical clickbait articles and quizzes, they practically invented the genre. New York Post, meanwhile, has been a tabloid-level spreader of pro-conservative and anti-progressive misinformation. It's smart to be skeptical of obviously politically motivated reporting from any outlet, but especially so when one has such a concerning track record.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    It's hilarious to me that the Post is now viewed as pro conservative. Framing the Post as pro-conservative is like calling Joe Rogan alt right. Finding some of the progressivism that has performed a hostile takeover of the democratic party hilarious, contradictory, and satire-friendly automatically makes you pro-conservative.
    - rtlfe 6y ago
      How is that funny or surprising? Every source that mentions political leaning of news media says they're right wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-post https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-post https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
      - dimitrios1 6y ago
        Is all of the right wing conservative? Is all of the left progressive? (turns out human beings don't fit neatly into these nice little categories)
        rtlfe 6y ago
        > Is all of the right wing conservative? Yes. That's literally the definition: "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system." https://www.google.com/search?q=define+right+wing https://www.google.com/search?q=define+right+wing
- ehsankia 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you're implying, Buzzfeed News is independent from Buzzfeed (the clickbait site) and they do real journalism.
  - jdminhbg 6y ago
    So real they get themselves into obvious lying situations: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-news-trump-michael-cohen-mueller.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... Buzzfeed News doesn’t have listicles, but it doesn’t have journalistic standards either.
    - ehsankia 6y ago
      How was that a lie? The statement from Mueller's team was vague and hardly a real rebuttal. It just says that it's not accurate and provides no clarification at all. They had two independent government sources, which doesn't even come close to comparing to this story where the entire source is a single repairman who can't even get their story straight. And there's a very big difference between being fed wrong information from two sources and not doing enough to verify it, in a time where said information could be crucial, vs "lying" as you imply, which is what NY Post is doing.
- millstone 6y ago
  Nobody questioned NYPost when they broke the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal either [1]. That's because the reporting was incredibly solid. But this story is incredibly flimsy. 1: https://nypost.com/2016/08/28/anthony-weiner-sexted-busty-brunette-while-his-son-was-in-bed-with-him/ https://nypost.com/2016/08/28/anthony-weiner-sexted-busty-br...
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed is legitimate, correct? I've not read any comments on HN that claims that they have a problem with "this being published by the Post" whether it's legitimate or not. It's possible that I missed such comments, but I don't think so. I would be grateful if you could point me at a few of them.
Amezarak 6y ago
Journalists write and publish (or sometimes don’t) articles in collaboration with campaigns and other "interested" parties with an agenda all the time, and rarely mention it or make it obvious. If anything, that’s the norm. So what's different about this than those stories?
- petee 6y ago
  Because a sitting president has a personal influence and stake in the articles creation and publication, used as a tool to undermine an opposition candidate. Its plain obvious election interference, and the repercussions are staggering, thats the difference.
  - Amezarak 6y ago
    That is not on the slightest bit strange or unusual. It’s what every President, campaigning nominee, and various administration official have been doing with the press for centuries. Indeed if anything, this President and his campaign have been at this rather less than usual, probably because of his extremely adversarial attitude toward the press. I’m really astonished at the reaction to it.
    - petee 6y ago
      Even if it's not strange to you, are you not atleast bothered that it's so common and accepted, as you seem to suggest? You come across as being totally ok with that...an attitude I don't understand
      - Amezarak 6y ago
        How else should it be? Should campaigns be banned from conducting opposition research? Should we demand that journalist sources not have agendas? (Then who would speak to the press?) Should we require journalists to refuse assistance with their work? I'm not a great fan of access journalism, but the reality too is that journalists will publish puff pieces or shaky misinformation pieces to curry favor for more solid news from that source in the future. That's why you see journalists even at institutions like the NY Times repeatedly publish stories from "anonymous" sources that turn out to be completely wrong but which advances some cause of the source - this has become an epidemic in the Trump era, given that a lot of political figures and career civil servants do not like the administration, and mass layoffs in the news industry have meant the replacement of veterans with younger reporters who have to curry more favor. I would prefer they not do that, but as long as you read the news with a critical eye, it's not a major problem.
ehsankia 6y ago
Can someone explain why it even matters. I know HN isn't for politics but I don't understand why having dinner with your son's work friend is that big of a deal. Trump, who is the President (not VP), meets regularly with all sorts of people who spend money at his resort and other businesses and no one cares about that.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > Trump, who is the President (not VP), meets regularly with all sorts of people who spend money at his resort and other businesses and no one cares about that. I hear people (rightly) complain about this all the time. > Can someone explain why it even matters. I think it matters because Joe has denied any participation at all with his sons business dealings. The emails explicitly mention using influence, buying time with the VP, etc. If the emails are real, they would prove joe a liar. You could say "but Trump is a liar" and you'd be right. You'd also be openly admitting that Joe is no better.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > You'd also be openly admitting that Joe is no better. Nah. Everyone lies from time to time, or bends the truth to make themselves look better. Frequency and magnitude are the important factors. Also, Joe could have had dinner with this guy and still never talked with his son deeply about work. Joe having eaten with this dude would call into question his claim, but it wouldn't be proof he was telling a falsehood. However, it sure does look a little questionable.
    - aksss 6y ago
      I don’t know why we give politicians the benefit of the doubt. You and I knew that CGI was a pay for play scheme before the emails confirmed it. We also know that nobody pays a crackhead son of the VP of the US with zero industry or qualifying professional experience $50k/mo. without expecting something in return that said cracky is uniquely positioned to deliver. For the record, I don’t hate crackheads. Also, yeah this cynicism goes for Trump too. It should be how we regard all politicians, as the profession overwhelmingly shows a high preponderance towards deceit, graft, rent-seeking, kickbacks, etc.
dang 6y ago
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780927.)

dimitrios1 6y ago

Yet I don't recall anyone questioning Buzzfeed News when they dropped their bombshell story years back. I remember the defenders saying something along the lines of "If the news is newsworthy and constitutes journalism, then the publication it was produced in shouldn't matter" As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed is legitimate, correct?

cofeecup 6y ago
Well in that case, let me just clear my schedule to spend all of tomorrow performing an exhaustive fact check of the credibility of this story. /s It turns out that journalism is hard to do correctly. As an "independent thinker" I'm going to independently decide to not trust a publication with the reputation of the NY Post until it's been corroborated.
- sj3k 6y ago
  So glad I see this sentiment on here. I am still blown away by HN readers inability to critically analyze news sources. If this was some research paper it would have been put under the microscope by HN readers.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    It helps that research papers on scientific domains have relatively easily verifiable data. It is much harder to claim ( not impossible ) that 1 is actually 0 if looked at from the right distance. Once we get to news ( assuming we bypass the whole conversation over how what passes for news is often opinion, or clickbait these days... ) you find out that 1s could indeed become 0s, you might not know all the facts, writers have bias, editors have bias, culture won't allow certain things to be said, polite society won't have a given phrase used.. the list just goes on and on. It is not inability. It is just a ridiculous exercise in futility. Chomsky can barely do it. And he has way better memory, command of language and reasoning skills than I do.
sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
Buzzfeed was previously famous for apolitical clickbait articles and quizzes, they practically invented the genre. New York Post, meanwhile, has been a tabloid-level spreader of pro-conservative and anti-progressive misinformation. It's smart to be skeptical of obviously politically motivated reporting from any outlet, but especially so when one has such a concerning track record.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  It's hilarious to me that the Post is now viewed as pro conservative. Framing the Post as pro-conservative is like calling Joe Rogan alt right. Finding some of the progressivism that has performed a hostile takeover of the democratic party hilarious, contradictory, and satire-friendly automatically makes you pro-conservative.
  - rtlfe 6y ago
    How is that funny or surprising? Every source that mentions political leaning of news media says they're right wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-post https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-post https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
    - dimitrios1 6y ago
      Is all of the right wing conservative? Is all of the left progressive? (turns out human beings don't fit neatly into these nice little categories)
      - rtlfe 6y ago
        > Is all of the right wing conservative? Yes. That's literally the definition: "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system." https://www.google.com/search?q=define+right+wing https://www.google.com/search?q=define+right+wing
ehsankia 6y ago
I'm not sure what you're implying, Buzzfeed News is independent from Buzzfeed (the clickbait site) and they do real journalism.
- jdminhbg 6y ago
  So real they get themselves into obvious lying situations: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-news-trump-michael-cohen-mueller.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... Buzzfeed News doesn’t have listicles, but it doesn’t have journalistic standards either.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    How was that a lie? The statement from Mueller's team was vague and hardly a real rebuttal. It just says that it's not accurate and provides no clarification at all. They had two independent government sources, which doesn't even come close to comparing to this story where the entire source is a single repairman who can't even get their story straight. And there's a very big difference between being fed wrong information from two sources and not doing enough to verify it, in a time where said information could be crucial, vs "lying" as you imply, which is what NY Post is doing.
millstone 6y ago
Nobody questioned NYPost when they broke the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal either [1]. That's because the reporting was incredibly solid. But this story is incredibly flimsy. 1: https://nypost.com/2016/08/28/anthony-weiner-sexted-busty-brunette-while-his-son-was-in-bed-with-him/ https://nypost.com/2016/08/28/anthony-weiner-sexted-busty-br...
nobody9999 6y ago
>As HN audience mostly claim to be full of "independent thinkers" we should have no problem with this being published by the Post if it indeed is legitimate, correct? I've not read any comments on HN that claims that they have a problem with "this being published by the Post" whether it's legitimate or not. It's possible that I missed such comments, but I don't think so. I would be grateful if you could point me at a few of them.

Amezarak 6y ago

Journalists write and publish (or sometimes don’t) articles in collaboration with campaigns and other "interested" parties with an agenda all the time, and rarely mention it or make it obvious. If anything, that’s the norm. So what's different about this than those stories?

petee 6y ago
Because a sitting president has a personal influence and stake in the articles creation and publication, used as a tool to undermine an opposition candidate. Its plain obvious election interference, and the repercussions are staggering, thats the difference.
- Amezarak 6y ago
  That is not on the slightest bit strange or unusual. It’s what every President, campaigning nominee, and various administration official have been doing with the press for centuries. Indeed if anything, this President and his campaign have been at this rather less than usual, probably because of his extremely adversarial attitude toward the press. I’m really astonished at the reaction to it.
  - petee 6y ago
    Even if it's not strange to you, are you not atleast bothered that it's so common and accepted, as you seem to suggest? You come across as being totally ok with that...an attitude I don't understand
    - Amezarak 6y ago
      How else should it be? Should campaigns be banned from conducting opposition research? Should we demand that journalist sources not have agendas? (Then who would speak to the press?) Should we require journalists to refuse assistance with their work? I'm not a great fan of access journalism, but the reality too is that journalists will publish puff pieces or shaky misinformation pieces to curry favor for more solid news from that source in the future. That's why you see journalists even at institutions like the NY Times repeatedly publish stories from "anonymous" sources that turn out to be completely wrong but which advances some cause of the source - this has become an epidemic in the Trump era, given that a lot of political figures and career civil servants do not like the administration, and mass layoffs in the news industry have meant the replacement of veterans with younger reporters who have to curry more favor. I would prefer they not do that, but as long as you read the news with a critical eye, it's not a major problem.

ehsankia 6y ago

Can someone explain why it even matters. I know HN isn't for politics but I don't understand why having dinner with your son's work friend is that big of a deal. Trump, who is the President (not VP), meets regularly with all sorts of people who spend money at his resort and other businesses and no one cares about that.

dahfizz 6y ago
> Trump, who is the President (not VP), meets regularly with all sorts of people who spend money at his resort and other businesses and no one cares about that. I hear people (rightly) complain about this all the time. > Can someone explain why it even matters. I think it matters because Joe has denied any participation at all with his sons business dealings. The emails explicitly mention using influence, buying time with the VP, etc. If the emails are real, they would prove joe a liar. You could say "but Trump is a liar" and you'd be right. You'd also be openly admitting that Joe is no better.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > You'd also be openly admitting that Joe is no better. Nah. Everyone lies from time to time, or bends the truth to make themselves look better. Frequency and magnitude are the important factors. Also, Joe could have had dinner with this guy and still never talked with his son deeply about work. Joe having eaten with this dude would call into question his claim, but it wouldn't be proof he was telling a falsehood. However, it sure does look a little questionable.
  - aksss 6y ago
    I don’t know why we give politicians the benefit of the doubt. You and I knew that CGI was a pay for play scheme before the emails confirmed it. We also know that nobody pays a crackhead son of the VP of the US with zero industry or qualifying professional experience $50k/mo. without expecting something in return that said cracky is uniquely positioned to deliver. For the record, I don’t hate crackheads. Also, yeah this cynicism goes for Trump too. It should be how we regard all politicians, as the profession overwhelmingly shows a high preponderance towards deceit, graft, rent-seeking, kickbacks, etc.

dang 6y ago

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780927.)