3 ms·

I dunno. WaPo isn't the best of new reporting agencies [0], but it's certainly not the worst. They do have standards and they don't make up the large majority

I dunno. WaPo isn't the best of new reporting agencies [0], but it's certainly not the worst. They do have standards and they don't make up the large majority of their data. Meaning, they have actually talked to someone that is 'familiar' with the 'deal' at some point 'last week.' It's not pure speculation on WaPo's part, though it maybe pure-unrefined-grade-A speculation on the contact's part. If I had to bet, and many HNers out there are currently in that seat, then I'd bet on their reporting over other forms of pure speculation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#Criticism_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#Criticism_...

slg 4y ago
Yeah, insiders not knowing the full details of Musk's plan because Musk doesn't have a detailed plan yet seems more likely than WaPo just making some stuff up.
- kylecordes 4y ago
  As a casual observer, it appears that he moves very, very quickly. An insider might have read his mind yesterday but not be familiar with his current plan being executed today. Of course this can lead to big results in some cases and erratic chaos in others.
stusmall 4y ago
Honestly, that isn't a super convincing source. Every news outlet has a criticism section. For an almost 150 year old organization, that is pretty sparse. Even better some of things in there are non-issues like "Trump repeatedly railed against The Washington Post on his Twitter account." Who didn't he tweet "fake news" at? News agencies are organizations made of humans that have flaws and we should always treat with a critical eye. But we shouldn't just dismiss one out of hand as not one of the best because of the existence of a "Criticism and controversies" section on Wikipedia especially when it is FAR tamer than many mainstream competitors.
- chihuahua 4y ago
  What you say is true, but you seem to be slightly missing the point of the comment you're responding to. That comment didn't say "WaPo is trash, should not be believed." It says "WaPo is neither perfect or terrible, and the information in this article is most likely somewhat accurate"

slg 4y ago

Yeah, insiders not knowing the full details of Musk's plan because Musk doesn't have a detailed plan yet seems more likely than WaPo just making some stuff up.

kylecordes 4y ago
As a casual observer, it appears that he moves very, very quickly. An insider might have read his mind yesterday but not be familiar with his current plan being executed today. Of course this can lead to big results in some cases and erratic chaos in others.

stusmall 4y ago

Honestly, that isn't a super convincing source. Every news outlet has a criticism section. For an almost 150 year old organization, that is pretty sparse. Even better some of things in there are non-issues like "Trump repeatedly railed against The Washington Post on his Twitter account." Who didn't he tweet "fake news" at? News agencies are organizations made of humans that have flaws and we should always treat with a critical eye. But we shouldn't just dismiss one out of hand as not one of the best because of the existence of a "Criticism and controversies" section on Wikipedia especially when it is FAR tamer than many mainstream competitors.

chihuahua 4y ago
What you say is true, but you seem to be slightly missing the point of the comment you're responding to. That comment didn't say "WaPo is trash, should not be believed." It says "WaPo is neither perfect or terrible, and the information in this article is most likely somewhat accurate"