4 ms·

I don't care, I'll judge on the article. This one does not seem to fit the characteristics you describe. I'll trust the community not to upvote drivel too much

by norswap 14y ago

I don't care, I'll judge on the article. This one does not seem to fit the characteristics you describe. I'll trust the community not to upvote drivel too much (they probably will, but it won't be your usual sun drivel).

michaelhoffman 14y ago
Judging the article: it lists no sources and has no quotations from anyone regarding the headline claim. Doesn't seem that The Sun has presented any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  That is hardly "Sun" levels of bad journalism; you see similar from most mainstream publications these days.
  - michaelhoffman 14y ago
    I must disagree with this assessment. I have read dozens of news stories from "mainstream publications" in the past few days and not one of them had the singular lack of sourcing found in this article. Regardless of whether "everyone does it" (which, again, is not true), it's irrelevant to trying to have higher standards for links from Hacker News.
reitzensteinm 14y ago
Do you judge each article from the Onion on its merits? Because the Sun is closer to the Onion than the New York Times. I agree with what you're saying in general, but if a paper makes stuff up for a living, there's absolutely nothing wrong with discounting what they say until a better source comes along.
Pinckney 14y ago
How do you propose to judge factual claims made by the article? Take them to be true on faith? The issue isn't that The Sun's readers are "festering idiots," or that the stories are typically unimportant. If that were all, you could be forgiven for reading the article in a vacuum and proceeding from there. No, the issue is that The Sun lies when it's convenient [1], and that whether or not a given claim is an outright fabrication by The Sun's writers is not something you can deduce from the article and the article alone. [1]: Skimming wikipedia: "In 1987, The Sun falsely accused homosexual pop musician Elton John of having sexual relationships with rent boys. In another story it accused him of removing the voice boxes of his guard dogs because their barking kept him awake. " 'On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled “STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL."' "On 9 December 2010, The Sun published a front-page story claiming that terrorist group Al-Qaeda had threatened a terrorist attack on Granada Television in Manchester to disrupt the episode of the soap opera Coronation Street to be transmitted live that evening."
beefman 14y ago
The story has apparently been disclaimed by Willis' wife http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-dietunes-yippikayee-story-refuted-by-wife/ http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-dietunes-yippikay...

by norswap 14y ago

michaelhoffman 14y ago

Judging the article: it lists no sources and has no quotations from anyone regarding the headline claim. Doesn't seem that The Sun has presented any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

jlgreco 14y ago
That is hardly "Sun" levels of bad journalism; you see similar from most mainstream publications these days.
- michaelhoffman 14y ago
  I must disagree with this assessment. I have read dozens of news stories from "mainstream publications" in the past few days and not one of them had the singular lack of sourcing found in this article. Regardless of whether "everyone does it" (which, again, is not true), it's irrelevant to trying to have higher standards for links from Hacker News.

reitzensteinm 14y ago

Do you judge each article from the Onion on its merits? Because the Sun is closer to the Onion than the New York Times. I agree with what you're saying in general, but if a paper makes stuff up for a living, there's absolutely nothing wrong with discounting what they say until a better source comes along.

Pinckney 14y ago

How do you propose to judge factual claims made by the article? Take them to be true on faith? The issue isn't that The Sun's readers are "festering idiots," or that the stories are typically unimportant. If that were all, you could be forgiven for reading the article in a vacuum and proceeding from there. No, the issue is that The Sun lies when it's convenient [1], and that whether or not a given claim is an outright fabrication by The Sun's writers is not something you can deduce from the article and the article alone. [1]: Skimming wikipedia: "In 1987, The Sun falsely accused homosexual pop musician Elton John of having sexual relationships with rent boys. In another story it accused him of removing the voice boxes of his guard dogs because their barking kept him awake. " 'On 17 November 1989, The Sun headlined a page 2 news story titled “STRAIGHT SEX CANNOT GIVE YOU AIDS – OFFICIAL."' "On 9 December 2010, The Sun published a front-page story claiming that terrorist group Al-Qaeda had threatened a terrorist attack on Granada Television in Manchester to disrupt the episode of the soap opera Coronation Street to be transmitted live that evening."

beefman 14y ago

The story has apparently been disclaimed by Willis' wife http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-dietunes-yippikayee-story-refuted-by-wife/ http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-dietunes-yippikay...