Hacker News Reader

Comment by weberc2 | Hacker News Reader

> WSJ is a joke

I agree with the rest of your post, but no need to single out the WSJ. Compared to other major publications that regularly have editorialized articles submitted to this forum (e.g., NYT, WashPo, HuffPo, Slate, etc), WSJ is extraordinarily well-behaved. This kind of editorializing is a shame and deserves to be called out, but we should make sure we're calling it out across the board.

View on HN

I wouldn't throw the New York Times and the Washington Post in the same bucket as the Huffington Post and Slate without some good evidence backing it up. It reinforces the idea that all news sources are roughly the same which is not true.

WaPo and NYT are national newspapers founded in the 1800's who compete with the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, the LA Times, Reuters, etc.

HuffPo and Slate are news websites launched in the 90's or 2000's that are competing with sites like Breitbart, Salon, the Daily Beast, etc.

I agree that we should call out this kind of article, but I don't like spreading the conception that click-bait based news websites are equally as reliable as more trustworthy sources.

> I wouldn't throw the New York Times and the Washington Post in the same bucket as the Huffington Post and Slate without some good evidence backing it up.

I totally agree. But like I said, the bucket I'm using is "sites that are frequently featured on HN".

I also disagree with your taxonomy. HuffPo and Slate are much more reputable (rightly or wrongly) than Breitbart and Daily Beast. For example, how often do Breitbart or Daily Beast articles make the front page here compared to HuffPo or Slate or even Salon? BuzzFeed News probably hits the front page more often than these.

In any case, my point doesn't depend on HuffPo or Slate, so I'll happily concede the point.

I concur. I subscribe. I think these writers must be young and wanted to accentuate the concealment of gov't deals. I would say this article could have used a few more revisions.

The real story here is that WSJ posted a news article with an implicit bias against Amazon. This is interesting because Bezos owns WSJ.

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the Wall Street Journal. Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal.

Goodness gracious. What a miserable error to start the day with. More coffee I guess.

Bezos is a smart dude. Small jabs at Amazon doesn't have a significant effect on the business. It adds credibility to the paper.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com