Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodesocket | Hacker News Reader

Unrelated, but I could have sworn foxnews.com domain was shadow banned on HN? Not trying to troll at all, just honestly thought so.

View on HN

Not sure if it's a matter of the overall submission count that's giving this impression, but in the last year, users submitted:

6,612 articles from nytimes.com [0]

91 articles from foxnews.com [1]

[0] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=tru...

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...

The way it should be, only one of those is a news site and it's not the one with the word news in its name.

The NY Times doesn't have a stellar track record either:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controver...

Although I would much rather them than Fox if forced to choose. (As it is, I follow neither).

NYT produces plenty of "fake news" and biased hypocritical trash. All of the big media outlets are flaming dumpster fires, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzVzG_6jsZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v18b5ip95Es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZewXzRxRen0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfxHG6yM5Fs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIGH7J5CLtQ

There's been a few occasions where I've found an interesting article on Fox News and I won't share or link it here or on Reddit, because I know that the bias is so strong against Fox as an organization that few people would consume the content with an open mind. So I go and track down another outlet covering the same story and link that instead. I'm sure other members here do the same sort of self-censorship, essentially. That's part of why you'll see 6000 submissions from NYT and only 90 from Fox.

> So I go and track down another outlet covering the same story and link that instead.

That's exactly what I do on Reddit. I haven't had occasion to share a Fox News link here, but I think I would do it because I trust this place more to make judgements based on the content of the article.

I think the content Fox News produces is so much lower quality than other sources that there just isn’t any reason to post a story from them.

It depends on the subject. Sometimes it’s fine. I browse the headlines on CNN and Fox regularly just to understand what both conservatives and liberals are saying. Some Fox stuff is bad, some isn’t.

As someone who tries to find good sources news, I loathe Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. I find NPR, Reuters, Al Jazeera, The Intercept and various independent localized publications (e.g. LA Times, Voice of San Diego) much better.

Some of those are left leaning (esp. The Intercept), but NPR is somewhat center right so I think it is a fair balance.

The problem with mass media organizations, particularly those that are geared toward television, is that they prioritize entertainment over actual investigative journalism. In doing so they become nearly useless, often offering only a knee jerk response to a carefully curated subset of current events. They do not offer any unique or engaging perspective on the issues they cover, and they fail to report on important details and stories.

While the first half kind of threw me, your second half lined up with what I see. Im quite surprised you believe and state it more than once that NPR is right of center. Just recently their CEO wrote a book about how LEFT leaning they were and how bad he was. He realized that he needed to venture out and how bad NPR was.

The hallmark of a good journalistic outfit is when both sides accuse you of being biased in the other direction.

Is that not the hallmark of someone with no ability to make sense of the world? or a liar, or someone who adds nothing of value to a situation? someone with no perspective or understanding of the facts?

i honestly prefer to read the opinion of two opposing parties that actually believe what they say and have assimilated the presented facts from a publicly stated perspective. (note the perspective can be that they "don't know what is right" - but they should at least have eliminated what they know is bull)

Many publication try to cover all aspects/angels - however this is very dangerous.. as it means that perspectives that even people who literally no one thinks are correct get represented. if we let two (or more) opposing biased journalists report on what they thought was relevant, the true nut jobs would never get a platform.

For example, BBC posts article about 5G causing covid, they have an expert and a non-expert on. many viewers/readers/listeners will assume that these two parties are equally possibly correct as you the expert journalist have presented them for my consideration.

*its also kind of a lie to pretend you don't have an opinion or perspective as its not actually possible. so by trying to to say you are presenting both arguments is sort of lying and trying to cover up your true beliefs no?

It's not as black and white as you're making it seem. I'd suggest thinking through it one more time while keeping that in mind.

The “center” in America between Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans is “center right” in other places, like Europe. And I use “Liberal” to mean “right of Progressive”. “Progressives” are seen as “very left” for advocating for things that are “center” in Europe. It is common in some circles to bind your language to the European standards, in which case NPR is center-right as a more conservative presence in the American Liberal Democrats. At least that’s how I see all this.

Outside of their opinion articles, it's generally not what Fox News is reporting on or that their reporting is wrong, the problem is when they choose selective reporting. Fox News simply just doesn't report on a lot of things that are politically uncomfortable for their readers.

Fox News isn't the only organization that selectively reports: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qLD5G-eOqo

you could replace that with pretty much any major publication...

All news agencies have this problem. And both Fox and, say, CNN, don't report on certain subjects in the same way. They both ultimately need to be "advertiser friendly".

Like I haven't seen anything on CNN about the US ramping up bombings in Somalia, which is a pretty serious thing!

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-somalia-airs...

I could have sworn foxnews.com domain was shadow banned on HN?

All you need to know about voting / shadow banning / right vs left / etc on HN is the following, which I stole from somewhere and am too lazy to track down for attribution:

HN is open minded about intellectual inquiry as long as that inquiry doesn't challenge anything an average Californian already believes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com