As the OP, I believe this post is consistent with the hacker news guidelines. As it states in the welcoming: Essentially there are two rules here: don't post

As the OP, I believe this post is consistent with the hacker news guidelines. As it states in the welcoming: Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads. It later defines deeply interesting as 'stuff that teaches you about the world.' I would by no means consider this a crap, or superficial article. I don't consider your comment necessarily rude or dumb; however, I do consider it misinformed. The article does not posit the media should be subjective: it is rather objective in stating that the media is failing to state the reality of the situation. Another key example of comparative value is global warming. The global warming debate taking place in the media is almost universally framed as a democrats vs. republicans, liberal conservative debate. It is not. The politicians getting quoted on mainstream news sources are not the experts qualified to be making statements regarding the human induced global warming debate. They are not actively publishing, and doubtfully reading the scientific literature published in dozens, if not hundreds of journals which nearly unanimously acknowledge that there is a high probability of humans having a noticeable impact on climate change. Yet, the scientists denying human induced global warming nearly all have either direct ties with or strong affiliations of companies and people whose interest is to fight global warming for economic gain. This article essentially mirrors that same argument except replacing scientists, you may essentially think of the objective viewpoint having to do with constitution and law, not political divides.