I very much disagree with that.
Let's just take the CBC as an example. It's an excellent news organization that writes top notch journalism. And for any topic even remotely controversial (e.g., anything related to the indigenous population in Canada), they've had to disable the comment section because it's such a godawful cesspool.
Yes, you need a few people willing to go through the filth, but you will get a better online presence out of it.
Demonstrate the cost/benefit advantage of having to police these garbage piles and maybe I'll buy it. But I don't believe that most people read the Times or CBC or WaPo for the comment section. More likely they read those outlets despite them.
I agree with Vice. Leave the discussion to dedicated services like Reddit, HN, Twitter, Facebook, etc, and focus on core competencies: producing top notch content.
Things have changed, you should look at what kind of reporting they are actually doing these days, it might surprise you (in a good way).
Some is heavy, some is not..
Find a mainstream (non-topic-specialized) publication that doesn't do that, and I'll be surprised.
It's disappointing that the only publications willing to tackle heavy issues are things like Vogue, The Rolling Stone and Vice Magazine. The rest seem content to sit back and take a more academic approach if they take one at all.
USA Today, like CNN, is utterly worthless.
The New York Times has suffered hits to its credibility, fake photographers, plagiarism and such, but that doesn't necessarily negate all the work done by their talented staff. There's still good work being done there despite those setbacks. It's a fallacy to instantly discount everything as without merit, putting it on the same level as Breitbart.
Like always you need to regard things with a critical eye.
While other publications have had lapses in journalistic integrity, rolling stones case is especially egregious. Along every step of the way, the writer and her editors violated the basics of journalistic integrity, like not fact checking and trusting one side.
[0]http://www.cjr.org/investigation/rolling_stone_investigation...
Yes. The "story" made specific criminal accusations.
> You must live in a world where nobody is credible.
Publications are held to a different standard.
> New York Times... but that doesn't necessarily negate all the work
It just means you can no longer trust the publication.
> putting it on the same level as Breitbart
Here we go. Tell me what's wrong with Breitbart?
Every story they run on climate change is a pile of innumerate, scientifically illiterate crap? Those are the only stories I see from them as they get quoted for amusement value sometimes on the Sea Ice forums.
But maybe their sports coverage is good or something. Who knows.
You, apparently, since you talked of "the same level as Breitbart", though don't apparently know what that is.
Also, if you have specific knowledge of a subject area, you might be inclined to a kind of reversal of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect: judging a publication on you area of expertise alone, when publications may differ in their relative strengths.
On the other hand.. You answered for them? Only astrodust can know what problem astrodust has with Breitbart...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/breitbart-incendiary-h...
Just to pick one: 'A July article suggested that research revealed "women might just suck at job interviews."'
Is this claim false?
If you want a private conversation, then HN comments are the wrong venue.
I was asking astrodust specifically, and anyone else can see the answer; this would not be the case with a "private conversion".
https://notvice.com/fact-checking-vice-a-fiction-2d482100116...
In my opinion, Vice is nothing more than a clickbait machine that got somehow famous for being "edgy".