4 ms·
...BBC? Ars Technica? ...KQED and VOA? You're blocking discussion of some of the most reliably factual reporting on the planet.
by LeoPanthera 3y ago
...BBC? Ars Technica? ...KQED and VOA? You're blocking discussion of some of the most reliably factual reporting on the planet.
- LAC-Tech 3y agoshrugs I don't really feel the need to defend the contents of that list. If the resulting conversations suck, aren't relevant to me, and clog up the HN front page - in they go.
- alex_lav 3y agoThere's something uniquely social-media-y about a person posting a list of websites they don't enjoy the contents of or discussion around, and then posting that they've filtered them out in a way that only impacts them, and then that person getting questioned and challenged on their filtering.
- Terr_ 3y ago> I don't really feel the need to defend the contents of that list. You were quite willing to promote the specific and lengthy list of disliked-sites to strangers. A sudden switch to fatigue and disinterest does not seem genuine to me.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago[flagged]
- gruez 3y agoThe parent poster said >... that seemed to promote low quality discussions My guess is that these domains are responsible for hot button topics that result in 300+ comment threads.
- nonethewiser 3y agoThe point was they tended to have low quality discussion. Probably because it turned into partisan mud slinging.
- evilduck 3y ago> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. The domains in question lead to guaranteed uninteresting and routine political bickering where each side is compelled to recite their talking points. It has nothing to do with the reporting and everything to do with how people comment on those topics. I'd be guilty of it too if I weren't busy flagging those posts.
- Dalewyn 3y agoPlease tell me you're just memeing or being sarcastic.
- MBCook 3y agoI’m mean they’re not wrong that more general news topics (especially if touching on politics at all) tends to produce horrible discussions.
- leesalminen 3y agoIsn't VOA (and BBC for that matter) government owned & funded? That's enough right there for me to doubt their "reliably factual" reporting. It's hardly a political opinion- the owners of these services expect to get some return on their investment. Because they're not in it for the money (they can just create more money basically at will), then why are they in it? Likely to help craft a narrative that suits them.
- developer93 3y agoAt least for the bbc, the government isn't directly involved in the editorial. They have to resort to appointing their friends director general & threatening to abolish the licence fee to try to get what they want.
- Dah00n 3y agoVOA and BBC are not alike at all in my opinion. Many countries in Western/Northern Europe have government funded sites run like the BBC and they are mostly in the top of unbiased and free journalism. They also create a lot of high quality documentaries and crime thrillers. Nothing is perfect and of course there's a certain kind of culture on each of these workplaces that will mske it either more left or right up or down, but they aren't controlled by politicians, just like a hospital isn't told how to treat patients by politicians. I'd rank BBC News above all US news outlets (and I'll just add I'm neither from the US nor UK).