111–120 of 214 posts
> Gold 2204 [lbs] [0]
[0]: http://images.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environment...
So is the Vice story trying to claim that "take back initiatives" aren't run by Apple? This
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WSJ has floors of smart, trained, inquisitive journalists who assemble real original data and break real original stories, and who try hard–through single, double, and triple verification–to ensure the accuracy of every single figure and fact they report. Which is why it's sometimes annoying to see people treat paywalls as though they were moral disgraces. Source: I help invest for the chairman of the company.
I don't see it as a moral disgrace at all, but it really is an inconvenience. I have no way of creating this myself, but why doesn't the "Netflix" of journalism exist? Or why can't I just pay X$ more to my ISP, who has deals with publications such as the WSJ, to offer me access to their articles? I'd rather just browse and read, not manage subscriptions. EDIT: Apparently I'm replying too fast. Note that I quoted Netf…
Jaron Lanier promoted that same basic scheme in You Are Not a Machine (2010).
It would also eliminate much of the incentive to bypassing paywalls.
What does it say about the world we live in where blogs do more basic journalism than CNN? All that one would have had to do is read the report actually provided. I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the f…
Same goes for what news stories they cover. It has to align with the narrative that the editors are trying to push.
It's arguably a necessary part of the news media because they have to choose which stories to put in front of you and which people to quote given limited space. Pretending that we can experience everything that goes on in the world from reading a paragraph or two on a situation involving hundreds if not more is not entirely realistic.
What does it say about the world we live in where blogs do more basic journalism than CNN? All that one would have had to do is read the report actually provided. I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the f…
WSJ has floors of smart, trained, inquisitive journalists who assemble real original data and break real original stories, and who try hard–through single, double, and triple verification–to ensure the accuracy of every single figure and fact they report. Which is why it's sometimes annoying to see people treat paywalls as though they were moral disgraces. Source: I help invest for the chairman of the company.
Several papers could not even get everyone's name correct.
Going this day from last year I picked a short strait factual story at random. http://www.wsj.com/articles/spanish-teacher-killed-with-cros... and reading the two comments I saw at least two possible innacuracy's vs http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/teacher-killed-... how many wounded and was second teacher shot or stabbed. Thinking about it the spin is the fact they are not rating the attack by a 13 year old as a criminal case. It also starts with "Madrid-" then says the attack is in Barcelona, which is odd but I am willing to let that slide. Feel free to dig into this one or pick something else.
PS: I started this first time around because I had seen several stories I knew about in a few papers and not a single one was completely accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People make the mistake of equating editorials with political news. They are not the same thing. The opinion section, the pages that have OPINION in big bold text at the top, are forthrightly conservative/libertarian, even though they have at least one regular liberal opinion columnist (William Galston) and constantly have guest articles written by politicians and business leaders of all stripes. The news sections ar…
This is precisely what conservatives say about Fox News. Is the editorial firewall more effective at WSJ than at other News Corp properties? If not, you're being duped.
I know someone on staff at the Wsj, and know their political views. I have seen their reporting and it is generally balanced. Yes, the papers always have an editorial line they are following, but it's not necessarily biased to push a view, but more so to match their buyers. Running a newspaper is not a public service for the Wsj.
The big surprise for most people is that people at institutions like Wsj and ny times try and be as professional as possible. They aren't acting like click bait interns at gawker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reuters is not US. AP is pretty good for big news, yea.
AP has its biases, in particular they are seen as anti-Israel with the whole saga of changing a headline from "Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem." to finally "Palestinian kills baby at Jerusalem station." being one of the better know headlines. The original headline remained on many sites.
Also, there's roughly 0 unbiased coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict at this point. You kinda have to just read multiple sides from different news outlets and try to sift through the bias yourself.
E.g. most recently, it's hard to tell from a headline about an IDF executing an unarmed guy lying on the ground with a headshot whether or not it's a fair interpretation of the situation.
This hits the nail on the head in calling out news reporting sites who don't fact check or truthfully report a topic. Its incredible how far from the actually story the Apple recycled gold headline deviates and really makes you wonder if citing so called reputable sources is even valid in some cases.
Somewhat before (but not completely before) the crazy 24/7 internet-news-cycle started, I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal about an activity I participated in. For about two days after it was published, I got calls from various lesser-known news outlets, and in the end, I did two more interviews, one with a local television station, and one with a very small radio talk show. I didn't feel that any of the th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that they posted the summary, it is that they put the link at the end advertising the product. The summary was appreciated.
I was not complaining about the summary, of course.
HN readers can, should, and do read articles, find out what's interesting about them for themselves, and bring the insights they've harvested to others. That's how good conversation works. Not only do we not need a quick-fix substitute for that, we need not to have one.
(This is not a comment on whether a startup of this kind would have value, just on how HN threads are supposed to work.)
What does it say about the world we live in where blogs do more basic journalism than CNN? All that one would have had to do is read the report actually provided. I don't think I'm being too extreme when I say that, apart from maybe PBS, there is no reputable source of news in America. If you don't believe me, pick a random story, watch it as it gets rewritten a million times through Reuters, then check back on the f…
I don't think there ever was a time when news sources were unbiased. In fact, I think in the past journalists were just much less worried about being perceived as biased.
A good post by Aaron Swartz on this subject: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/newobjectivity