4 ms·
This should be flagged. There is nothing wrong in particular with NYT and this is clearly a political slant. This HN story is an orchestrated attempt of promoti
by jonathanstrange 6y ago
This should be flagged. There is nothing wrong in particular with NYT and this is clearly a political slant. This HN story is an orchestrated attempt of promoting the page.
Ask the people who want to block it what they read and where they get their information from and you'll be in for a nasty surprise...
- ALittleLight 6y agoI think it should be blocked. I don't exactly read specific publications so much as articles that get attention on Twitter, hackernews, or are relevant to my personal or professional interests. I think I read from a wide variety of reputable and official sources as well as more general sources. e.g. my browser history for today shows I read the Free Beacon, an article on CNBC, a couple substack posts by mainstream news figures. What is the nasty surprise?
- jonathanstrange 6y agoThe nasty surprise is that your sources make you less informed than if you'd read the NYT.
- ALittleLight 6y agoHow do you know that?
- jonathanstrange 6y agoBecause "Free Beacon" is a political site funded by an American billionaire hedge fund manager and conservative activist that only aggregates news from other sources and is openly biased in their own mission statement (so they don't even attempt to be fair), Twitter and social media are major sources of disinformation and do not employ journalists at all, and CNBC is specialized in financial news and otherwise draw their news from the same Press Agencies as the NYT, of course.
- ALittleLight 6y agoI don't think the NYT even attempts to be fair. The NYT is also owned by an American billionaire and left wing political activist. I don't see how reading a collection of sources with different perspectives, even if some are unfair or specialized, would be a worse information strategy than focusing on one unfair source.