3 ms·
Good for you. Given the article links I see here, I think most HN users prefer the "old media" that abide by a set of ethic rules, have rigorous fact checking
by d3w4s9 3y ago
Good for you. Given the article links I see here, I think most HN users prefer the "old media" that abide by a set of ethic rules, have rigorous fact checking and have professional editing. I would rather see factually correct info that can be corroborated than "better info".
- Clubber 3y ago> I think most HN users prefer the "old media" that abide by a set of ethic rules, have rigorous fact checking and have professional editing. Why do people still believe this? https://effectiviology.com/knolls-law/ https://effectiviology.com/knolls-law/
- d3w4s9 3y agoI didn't say everything in nytimes is "true" (whatever it means) according to that article, but I'll trust nytimes more than a random person on Twitter any day. Even better, I have subscriptions to multiple newspapers, some of which have opposite political positions, and you'll need to work pretty hard to say you have better sources than what I am reading every day. I read/watched a lot about the behind-the-scene stories of these media organizations, and I have faith in their methodology in verifying sources and checking all the details. They have hiccups, sometimes really bad ones, sure, but that doesn't mean alternatives sources are better.
- Clubber 3y ago>you'll need to work pretty hard to say you have better sources than what I am reading every day. Is it some sort of competition? Honestly, you should really stop reading all of it. It's very manipulative. Stick to first hand accounts if you must.