5 ms·

> People that read HN are absolutely the type that would consider paying for NYT (or at least the two cohorts have great overlap). ?? I automatically assume th

> People that read HN are absolutely the type that would consider paying for NYT (or at least the two cohorts have great overlap). ?? I automatically assume that articles that are written by NYT, NewYorker, and The Guardian are complete BS and should be ignored. 0 journalism found there. Wanna spend money somewhere? Spend it on The Atlantic or Bloomberg.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wycy 6y ago
Interesting grouping. I would've put The Atlantic and The New Yorker in the reputable group, and Bloomberg in the BS group.
- tasubotadas 6y ago
  Cancer: CNN, FoxNews, Vice, The Guardian, Business Insider Bad: NewYorker, New York Times, The Information Not Bad: The Economist Good: The Atlantic, Axios, Bloomberg, The Politico (at least in the EU) Very good: Reuters
LordAtlas 6y ago
> I automatically assume that articles that are written by NYT, NewYorker, and The Guardian are complete BS and should be ignored. Can you please elaborate on why you feel that way?
- mancerayder 6y ago
  The OP's claim is a little strong but in my case, it's a narrative and opinion pieces that melt in with the news. We used to have international and domestic news, and an Opinions section that had the narrative. Now, we have opinions mixed in all three, inflammatory headlines, and missing data (one-sidedness), with more extreme assertions in Opinions. For a younger person, perhaps they wouldn't notice? I have been reading NYT and Guardian since the early 2000s, and canceled the NYT this summer when they failed to report really major events in NYC that didn't match narrative (looting and rioting that was directly observable for two days). I realized at that point we had a real problem. The Guardian has always been more openly activist, and I have a lot of respect for their Snowden work. But Trump being in the front page for four years was a bit much. I'm pretty happy with Reuters and to a lesser degree Bloomberg (whom I pay per month 7 times what I was paying for the NYT subscription).
mancerayder 6y ago
It didn't used to be this bad. The NYT revamped its editorial staff and got some controversial identity politics types (Google "sarah jeong tweets" and be your own judge), and also discovered that much like Fox News, running aggressive and inflammatory headlines and opinion pieces gets clicks. It's depressing because the NYT was more of a mainstream liberal newspaper whose main crimes were a lack of critical attitude towards foreign policy (such as the weapons of mass destruction fiasco). Its domestic reporting was decent. Now the domestic reporting is pitting Americans against one another.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wycy 6y ago

Interesting grouping. I would've put The Atlantic and The New Yorker in the reputable group, and Bloomberg in the BS group.

tasubotadas 6y ago
Cancer: CNN, FoxNews, Vice, The Guardian, Business Insider Bad: NewYorker, New York Times, The Information Not Bad: The Economist Good: The Atlantic, Axios, Bloomberg, The Politico (at least in the EU) Very good: Reuters

LordAtlas 6y ago

> I automatically assume that articles that are written by NYT, NewYorker, and The Guardian are complete BS and should be ignored. Can you please elaborate on why you feel that way?

mancerayder 6y ago
The OP's claim is a little strong but in my case, it's a narrative and opinion pieces that melt in with the news. We used to have international and domestic news, and an Opinions section that had the narrative. Now, we have opinions mixed in all three, inflammatory headlines, and missing data (one-sidedness), with more extreme assertions in Opinions. For a younger person, perhaps they wouldn't notice? I have been reading NYT and Guardian since the early 2000s, and canceled the NYT this summer when they failed to report really major events in NYC that didn't match narrative (looting and rioting that was directly observable for two days). I realized at that point we had a real problem. The Guardian has always been more openly activist, and I have a lot of respect for their Snowden work. But Trump being in the front page for four years was a bit much. I'm pretty happy with Reuters and to a lesser degree Bloomberg (whom I pay per month 7 times what I was paying for the NYT subscription).

mancerayder 6y ago

It didn't used to be this bad. The NYT revamped its editorial staff and got some controversial identity politics types (Google "sarah jeong tweets" and be your own judge), and also discovered that much like Fox News, running aggressive and inflammatory headlines and opinion pieces gets clicks. It's depressing because the NYT was more of a mainstream liberal newspaper whose main crimes were a lack of critical attitude towards foreign policy (such as the weapons of mass destruction fiasco). Its domestic reporting was decent. Now the domestic reporting is pitting Americans against one another.