> This entire editorial is essentially content free.
I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them.
Seems an uptick in flame bait editorials as of late.
I dream of a world free of editorials, or at least a HN front page without them.
Seems an uptick in flame bait editorials as of late.
Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through?
Yes, in a font smaller than and above the title that is very light against the background and reasonably easy to miss.
> Would it be reasonable to assume the title Don't Trust Facebook with Your Love Life could possibly only be opinion? Would a reasonable person expect to see data-driven research after clicking through?
Perhaps it's a clickbait title with real substance, or perhaps a great research piece. The only way to know is to read it.
I get that reading is involuntary for literate adults, but I believe it is possible to not engage with the words beyond that.
Perhaps you should heed your own advice.
They have sections, and the op-Ed’s and Eds are only in the opinion section.
Perhaps on the paper, or the site itself. On HN it is not reasonably obvious.
Going online, paired with the rise of social media changed what it meant for content to be "good" - redefined it to share worthy and click based, monetized mostly by ads. Now, no one, including the famed NYT does good classical journalism - they do what gets them shares and clicks.
On closer examination of social media demographics, you can see why news has pivoted to opinion - because millennials share and click more of it, especially the opinions they approve of.
A demographic shift in HN user base is also likely the reason for more opinion making it to the top of the charts
Now, before "the internet" (read: its commercial, world-wide success), in-depth research was costly, and it could not be copied easily. Newspapers had a reputation to hold up. It was easier to compete on information. Now the competition is much more fierce, and many people make/share news gratis, so it ends up competing with "free" is difficult.
As for NYT, there's some good people working there like Runa Sandvik, but I guess it works like every large news organization...