151–160 of 207 posts
I feel that NYTimes is the only news organization that has been able to transition to the Digital Era. Does anyone else know of any other old-school news organization that nicely transitioned to the Digital Era?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the thing. The email exchange with Politico actually proves to me that the Clinton campaign has a lot less influence over the press than people assume. Politico sent an article that is very critical of Clinton to her campaign. They were trying to push back. Then Politico published the article anyway. If the Clinton campaign had any influence over Politico they would've been able to stop the article. You have…
That's an interesting spin. Ignore the fact that Politico gave a candidate a "head's up" about a damaging piece and be happy that at least they still published it despite push back. It's less terrible than you thought it was!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nytimes sending out first draft to John Podesta:- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844 Stopped reading there. This is why we need journalism. People like you are unable to interpret the content of these emails. He is subscribed to the NYtimes First Draft blog [1]. Everyone with an NYTimes subscription can get the newsletter. As you can also tell by the sender nytdirect@nytimes.com [2]This isn't an actua…
Good thing, atleast you read this one before ignoring:- https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak... Don't give me your attitude. I got one wrong and admit the mistake on that one. That does not really refute any other emails.
You got the second one wrong as well, so I stopped there instead. He was giving veto on what to use on off-the-record questions, which I hope you agree, is a very good practice.
Someone else can deal with your third, and fourth...
But if you want apples to apples, it's unfortunate that you can't dig through Trumps emails [1].
It's sad that politics is no longer about politics.
[1] http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-...
>The New York Times is inviting readers to take advantage of its reporting, analysis and commentary from the lead-up through the aftermath of the 2016 election. Aftermath? Somehow this smacks of already leading the narrative.
I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped... https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sand...
No news agency anywhere merits trust. Many merit attention nonetheless; a thoughtful reader armed with knowledge of a given agency's bias and style can still derive useful information from its work, and every blue moon or so one finds a story that's actually true at face value. (Never count on it, though.) Keeping up with current events has always been a full-contact sport, never more so than today. Whether you feel…
-------------------------------
>nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle... I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time... general facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will &c &c. but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. he who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Norvell (11 June 1807)
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-57...
Oh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past two weeks? That open access? Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account. Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read…
At the top of the HN page for the submission there is a [web] link. Right click it, and open in an incognito window. That will search the web for the article title, and will normally return the article as the first hit. Clicky that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read what is posted on HN and Twitter. Yikes, all your reading originates from posts on HN and TWTR? Seems like that gives you a limited view of the world, no?
A more charitable interpretation is that they would not end up on nyt pages except via those sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a part of the liberal part of the government It's not actually liberal. In reality it's quite conservative... moneyed, powerful interests shaping the messages that they want the public to consume. The idea that HRC is politically leftist is a bizarre bit of wizardry that is completely false and helps people who would vote for a leftward leaning candidate believe that she is on their side. It's arguable whether HRC…
You're just calling whatever you dislike "conservative." Left/right, conservative/liberal are all relative, there are no absolute points of reference. In modern US, GOP represent the conservatives and Democrats are liberals. Thanks to neoconservatives, some younger people got used to the fact that right wingers are warmongers building global empires* but these are not intrinsically right or conservative views. Plenty…
This is totally inaccurate. There is a small aspect of the parties' rhetoric that evokes liberal and conservative ideals, but no substantial policy differences.
Oh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past two weeks? That open access? Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account. Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read…
>I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read what is posted on HN and Twitter. Yikes, all your reading originates from posts on HN and TWTR? Seems like that gives you a limited view of the world, no?
Oh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past two weeks? That open access? Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account. Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read…
Then don't click on NYT links, or others that require you to subscribe. HN conveniently marks the source.
Something like Brave, but I just wish it was more accepted.