3 ms·

As someone who knows nothing about Pando, I'd love some more insight into why they supposedly suck. (Speaking of shitty high-profile news site, my favourite pi

As someone who knows nothing about Pando, I'd love some more insight into why they supposedly suck. (Speaking of shitty high-profile news site, my favourite pick is ReadWrie. 80% of what I've read on their site is utter garbage.)

wutbrodo 12y ago
Wow, I was actually about to comment the exact same thing as lallysingh until I saw his comment. > As someone who knows nothing about Pando, I'd love some more insight into why they supposedly suck. This may not be a satisfying answer but it's the same reason as the one behind your opinion of ReadWrite: when you read enough of their articles (or at least enough of the ones that make it onto HN) and they're almost _all_ crap, it's a simple matter of numbers. As far as _how_ they got this way, just take a look at their pedigree; the founding members include the boot-scrapings of the tech-press: Sarah Lacy, Michael Arrington, M.G. Siegler, Farhad Manjoo, etc
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  I actually find the Lacy, etc articles to be the good ones. It's the lesser-known writers churning out several articles a day on the site that are consistently laughably wrong about nearly everything. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that's because they churn out several a day. Lacy's interviews are pretty decent quality, and I like the monthly in-depth interviews with the high-profile tech ceos. I think Pando's obsession with "speaking truth to power" has led them to make some poor choices in desperate attempts to create controversy. It's a seductive path for a journalist, but you've got to learn to do it right, and I don't think they have yet.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    You probably have a more nuanced view of the site than I do. I noticed the tendency I described very early on and more or less limited my further exposure to them, so maybe they've matured into what you're describing.
zobzu 12y ago
i actually often see pretty good articles on pando.

wutbrodo 12y ago

Wow, I was actually about to comment the exact same thing as lallysingh until I saw his comment. > As someone who knows nothing about Pando, I'd love some more insight into why they supposedly suck. This may not be a satisfying answer but it's the same reason as the one behind your opinion of ReadWrite: when you read enough of their articles (or at least enough of the ones that make it onto HN) and they're almost _all_ crap, it's a simple matter of numbers. As far as _how_ they got this way, just take a look at their pedigree; the founding members include the boot-scrapings of the tech-press: Sarah Lacy, Michael Arrington, M.G. Siegler, Farhad Manjoo, etc

waterlesscloud 12y ago
I actually find the Lacy, etc articles to be the good ones. It's the lesser-known writers churning out several articles a day on the site that are consistently laughably wrong about nearly everything. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that's because they churn out several a day. Lacy's interviews are pretty decent quality, and I like the monthly in-depth interviews with the high-profile tech ceos. I think Pando's obsession with "speaking truth to power" has led them to make some poor choices in desperate attempts to create controversy. It's a seductive path for a journalist, but you've got to learn to do it right, and I don't think they have yet.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  You probably have a more nuanced view of the site than I do. I noticed the tendency I described very early on and more or less limited my further exposure to them, so maybe they've matured into what you're describing.

zobzu 12y ago

i actually often see pretty good articles on pando.