Hacker News Reader

Comment by cJ0th | Hacker News Reader

The fact that Vanguard is growing faster than everybody else combined is interesting indeed. The article itself, however, reads like one big ad for Vanguard. The fact that the NYT is somewhat affiliated with them ("They number well over 20 million and include New York Times employees: Vanguard runs the company’s 401(k) retirement plans.") doesn't help either. What I miss is a critical examination of the situation. They're just drinking the Kool-Aid.

Although negativity on HN is often too high I am glad it is here when it comes to articles like this one!

View on HN

>The fact that the NYT is somewhat affiliated with them

So a disclosure that they use a massively popular product is now an advertisement?

Just one time I'd like to open the comments and not have someone saying "fake news" or "this is just an ad" or "stick with the facts".

Vanguard is an interesting company doing big things. They invented the index fund. They are massive. The New York Times profiles companies like this often.

Personally I find this more interesting than a Musk tweet announcing an announcement six months in advance.

> So a disclosure is now an advertisement?

No it isn't. I merely said that the article reads like an advert (not: it is an advert) and furthermore I said the affiliation would not help to shake this impression off. This is merely an aside and still doesn't imply it is an ad. My main problem with this article is that it is not critically examining what it is reporting about. Whether or not it actually is an ad is secondary.

It's not meant to be a critical piece. Those exist too. Why can't an article give a short but interesting summary of how the market is changing?

Pardon my ignorance, but how would NYT directly benefit from a boost in Vanguard popularity? Say this article somehow elicits a bevy of people/companies to invest in Vanguard, raising their mutual fund from $4.2 to a $4.5 trillion. Given that NYT stake in this fund remains constant, it's not clear to me how this helps NYT employees - unless $4.5 trillion is the tipping-point for market manipulation (but isn't this fund simply tracking major indexes?). Or would the biggest benefit come in the form of even lower fund fees (<0.1%)?

> Pardon my ignorance, but how would NYT directly benefit from a boost in Vanguard popularity?

I never said they would. I could imagine they got paid for this article but if I said so I would go out on a limb as I don't know whether that's the case.

All I am really saying is this:

> What I miss is a critical examination of the situation.

----

edit:

I think this is a more balanced article on Vanguard: http://fortune.com/vanguard-mutual-funds-investment/

(It's from December 2016, though)

It wouldn't. It's utterly insignificant that Vanguard hosts their 401Ks. That's like saying, "Full Disclosure: Many NYT employees have accounts at BOA!"

Vanguard gives discounts to large institutions. If a NY Times story helps Vanguard, Vanguard could cut their rate a bit.

I don't think this is likely, but I think it's clearly possible, and noting this potential conflict of interest seems prudent. This is what the disclosure is for.

So you can't report on Apple if you own an iPhone?

Its the plight of the newsreader, whereby you add nothing when writing about a subject, do no research on it, and avoid thinking critically about the news you've been told to publish or read to the viewers on TV.

Newsreaders are not journalists, and being unable to form an opinion of their own, they are often willing to regurgitate anything their sources tell them without fail.

I'll go one step further:

"Journalists" are not journalists, and being unable to form an opinion of their own, they are often willing to regurgitate anything their sources tell them without fail.

I seem to have struck a nerve. You know it is true. The white house press corps, the science coverage, etc. Most reporters are undeserving of the association with journalism on the level of an, e.g. greenwald. They act as propaganda channels for "authorities".

I don't know what world you're living in. The news is too full of opinion these days. If only I could find a source that JUST reported the facts I would give them all my money.

There's no such thing as neutral factual reporting - facts can be distorted or omitted to meet a bias at any level.

In my opinion the Reuters/AP feeds and The Economist do a good job of providing enough info you can make up your own mind based on your own preconceived biases, though.

That was my point, rather than research a topic and give the reader/viewer hard facts, major "news" orgs bring in opinion panels that degrade the conversation and add nothing of value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com