Hacker News Reader

Comment by ouid | Hacker News Reader

Of all the places where you could find "epstein news" you choose to link the New York Post.

The New York Post has actually been one of the most consistent places for breaking Epstein news. Most major news outlets have employees implicated with Epstein and have reported (or not) accordingly.

It's quite telling when the corruption and scandal is so large that only "fringe" outlets are able to report on in. Also cf. with Ronan Farrow and Weinstein.

I would honestly love to link to a trusted MSM report, but these outlets have been burying Epstein stories[1]. It's awful.

1. https://www.newsweek.com/abc-jeffrey-epstein-story-amy-robac...

Miami herald for the big story last spring that lead to a lot of this coming back up.

I'm not criticizing the New York Post for being too indie. I'm criticizing them for being profoundly untrustworthy.

Can you provide examples?

They have a string of controversies like most news organizations, but I think they may be referring to the fact it is owned by News Corp, which is run by Rupert Murdoch who is notorious for companies like Fox News.

The New York Post story you linked is just a write up of original reporting done by CBS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-f...

That article is from nov 18th versus 5th?

Besides, for credibility they should have been writing about the obvious problems with Epstein, and everyone but fringe outlets were basically silent over the last decade(s), and in some cases complicit (abc news).

Both articles are from November 18th. The New York Post one is from four hours later and just summarizes the CBS interview. Your New York Post article links to the CBS one and leads with a picture of the woman telling her story on CBS.

Except it "didn't air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC's editorial standards about her allegations." This should be an article about journalistic integrity, and ensuring we don't accuse people of things without corroborating evidence. Just because more evidence came out after that point, does not mean it was wrong to require more evidence at the time. I cannot see how this is anything other than a good thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com