3 ms·

Eh, as much as I want to agree with you (and I do, reddit is a cesspool at times) you still can't argue with this: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/

Eh, as much as I want to agree with you (and I do, reddit is a cesspool at times) you still can't argue with this: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/trapwire/since1851/articles/ http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/trapwire/since1... and this: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/flame http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/flame Trapwire: funded by rich people who don't want to get noticed Flame: software showing off the usa's capability for cryptovirology and basically saying our most public stuff beats your best secret shit

tptacek 14y ago
You can't argue with that because that isn't an argument. Most companies are funded by rich people. Who knows whether Trapwire "wants to get noticed"? They sell to giant organizations, not to the public. Most of what you know about Trapwire probably comes via Stratfor thirdhand via Wikileaks by way of Reddit. Think about that again: your information started at Stratfor. It was then spun by Wikileaks. And then it was analyzed by Reddit. And you trust it more than the NYT. And all the while, Trapwire had a web page describing all this stuff. One reason why the NYT and WaPo and WSJ and Al Jazeera are so much better than Reddit at conveying the news is that they have something to lose when they get the story wrong. All of them trade on reputations that took decades to build. You can literally feel this in action as you race to start typing about how the NYT got Iraq wrong. Notice how you can't say that about any story on Reddit, because it's a howling mob of random people? (FWIW: There are great comments on Reddit; their highs are higher than HN's highs, by a lot.)
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  There is a certain superior feeling people get from getting their news from a non mainstream source. It's cool to rebel against authority, easy to call people who believe established news outlets ignorant "sheep", and it makes one feel as if they're part of an exclusive club for real "truth seekers". This feeling lets people believe some of the nonsense that comes out of these sources. There's something about a small, underground news source that makes people believe whatever comes out of it without vetting whereas the same story out of the NYT would make the same people question it. Everyone wants to root for the underdog and everyone wants to belong. Non-mainstream sources of news give people an outlet for that which is why they get a pass from "truth seekers" who like to claim they have high standards for what they consume. You have a very healthy attitude about news consumption. It's very reasonable and you made a great point. I'm not saying these alternative sources of news don't ever get it right. It's not about that. The important thing is not the source of the news so much as your ability to detect bullshit. Put another way, the important thing is being a smart consumer of news. Making the kinds of connections you make in your comment and asking those types of questions you ask are what is important. If only we could all sharpen our critical thinking skills not only would we be better news consumers but all news organizations large and small, mainstream or not, would be forced to raise the bar on their reporting and journalism as a profession.
- batgaijin 14y ago
  Hmm... You make fair points, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't trust NYT because of stuff like this: http://www.salon.com/2010/10/24/assange_2/ http://www.salon.com/2010/10/24/assange_2/ Out of all those organizations you listed, the only one I trust atm is Washing Post for reporting on the USA gov because they published this: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ I agree, reddit usually has stupid shit second-hand, is run by a publishing corporation, and has numerous terrible mods, but at least alternative opinions have a chance of influencing the claim of an article.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    You don't trust the New York Times because Glenn Greenwald wrote a piece for Salon calling them Nixonian? That piece is too inflammatory for me to take seriously. The New York Times wrote a hit piece on someone? A scurrilous hit piece filled with every possible rumor? Really? Every one of them, you say? When you write something like that, you'd better be able to back it up with something more than moral support from Daniel Ellsberg. You can't say you're a serious consumer of the news if you select the publications you trust based on whether they support your pet causes.

tptacek 14y ago

You can't argue with that because that isn't an argument. Most companies are funded by rich people. Who knows whether Trapwire "wants to get noticed"? They sell to giant organizations, not to the public. Most of what you know about Trapwire probably comes via Stratfor thirdhand via Wikileaks by way of Reddit. Think about that again: your information started at Stratfor. It was then spun by Wikileaks. And then it was analyzed by Reddit. And you trust it more than the NYT. And all the while, Trapwire had a web page describing all this stuff. One reason why the NYT and WaPo and WSJ and Al Jazeera are so much better than Reddit at conveying the news is that they have something to lose when they get the story wrong. All of them trade on reputations that took decades to build. You can literally feel this in action as you race to start typing about how the NYT got Iraq wrong. Notice how you can't say that about any story on Reddit, because it's a howling mob of random people? (FWIW: There are great comments on Reddit; their highs are higher than HN's highs, by a lot.)

bpatrianakos 14y ago
There is a certain superior feeling people get from getting their news from a non mainstream source. It's cool to rebel against authority, easy to call people who believe established news outlets ignorant "sheep", and it makes one feel as if they're part of an exclusive club for real "truth seekers". This feeling lets people believe some of the nonsense that comes out of these sources. There's something about a small, underground news source that makes people believe whatever comes out of it without vetting whereas the same story out of the NYT would make the same people question it. Everyone wants to root for the underdog and everyone wants to belong. Non-mainstream sources of news give people an outlet for that which is why they get a pass from "truth seekers" who like to claim they have high standards for what they consume. You have a very healthy attitude about news consumption. It's very reasonable and you made a great point. I'm not saying these alternative sources of news don't ever get it right. It's not about that. The important thing is not the source of the news so much as your ability to detect bullshit. Put another way, the important thing is being a smart consumer of news. Making the kinds of connections you make in your comment and asking those types of questions you ask are what is important. If only we could all sharpen our critical thinking skills not only would we be better news consumers but all news organizations large and small, mainstream or not, would be forced to raise the bar on their reporting and journalism as a profession.
batgaijin 14y ago
Hmm... You make fair points, but what I'm trying to say is that I don't trust NYT because of stuff like this: http://www.salon.com/2010/10/24/assange_2/ http://www.salon.com/2010/10/24/assange_2/ Out of all those organizations you listed, the only one I trust atm is Washing Post for reporting on the USA gov because they published this: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ I agree, reddit usually has stupid shit second-hand, is run by a publishing corporation, and has numerous terrible mods, but at least alternative opinions have a chance of influencing the claim of an article.
- tptacek 14y ago
  You don't trust the New York Times because Glenn Greenwald wrote a piece for Salon calling them Nixonian? That piece is too inflammatory for me to take seriously. The New York Times wrote a hit piece on someone? A scurrilous hit piece filled with every possible rumor? Really? Every one of them, you say? When you write something like that, you'd better be able to back it up with something more than moral support from Daniel Ellsberg. You can't say you're a serious consumer of the news if you select the publications you trust based on whether they support your pet causes.