Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't know about the New York Post. Maybe it is guilty of publishing false and dishonest reporting.

But I would also point out that a lot of people here on HN (in past discussions) and elsewhere have noted that the New York Times and the Washington Post also publish creatively interpreted news (or outright creative writing) at times.

Despite this news articles from these sources are considered independently without outright dismissal due to past reporting.



It's a tabloid and it is not left-leaning... and it published true and embarrassing things about the Biden family up to the last US presidential election. It also regularly publishes true things about crime (and about who commits it). This is more than enough to explain why some people distrust it.

In my book, it is much more reliable than the New York Times and the Washington Post.


In my book it’s slightly more reliable simply because it’s a tabloid and any political leaning takes the backseat in favor of headlines and blood.


The New York Times has always been very political and utterly unreliable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

Of course I'll take a tabloid that might be slightly right of center over that.


>takes the backseat in favor of headlines and blood.

Great phrasing. Reporting dirt on a faction will drive clicks to FROM all factions, including the smeared faction.


I'm struggling to see how that would be relevant to the assertion the New York Post is not a credible publication. Seems like whataboutism to me.


Calling for a consistent standard is not whataboutism.


This has to be one of my biggest peeves online. It's such a pervasive tactic to shut down discussion of a topic that's disadvantageous for the "other side". To use a topical example I see pretty much all the time: say there is a reddit thread that has the title "1 in 4 women experience X". There is a pretty heavy implication, and it's there no matter how much people want to deny it, that by extension men don't experience X either at all or to such a degree. Yet, if you point it out that "men experience X just as often though?", you won't be refuted or shown statistics that show they don't, you'll just be accused of "whataboutism" ("what about the men?" - well, the fact that it takes an article like this to start some people saying "woah woah woah... this hasn't been proven yet!!" should tell you something) when what you were pointing out is that aforementioned subtext that men DON'T experience it.

I absolutely despise the word now, to the point I'll cringe a bit even when it's used legitimately.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: