4 ms·
There is a reason those are not acceptable sources...
by poppysan 14y ago
There is a reason those are not acceptable sources...
- rpm4321 14y agoMostly agree, in the same way that HuffPo isn't, but they provided direct links to the tweets, and with a little searching on twitter.com, it wasn't hard to find tons of tweets in the same vein.
- crusso 14y agoBah, I read news from as many sources as I can. I find that when people turn up their noses at FoxNews, the Drudge Report, Huffpo, or Salon just because of the source - it's usually because they're insecure about their fragile belief system... scared that they might read something that's true which will force them to re-think their positions.
- rpm4321 14y agoAgreed, but HN has set a pretty high standard for sourcing, much to its credit. I wouldn't feel bad about posting ideological material from the WSJ, National Review, or NYT, but I would never post Drudge, HuffPo, Breitbart, Slate, etc. to HN, even though I check them out regularly just to get the temperature of the national discourse, and get a heads up on those occasional outlier stories that they're ahead of the curve on. Besides, the foaming at the mouth, politics as bloodsport commentary can be a kind of entertaining guilty pleasure, kind of like outsider art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art
- hughlomas 14y agoYeah, I inform my world view with Cosmopolitan and the The National Enquirer as well.