Hacker News Reader

It reeks of being fabricated too. Who uses v.pozharskyi.ukraine at gmail when vadym.pozharskyi at gmail is unused? Is there a cultural thing where avoiding the first name in an email address would be normal? I grabbed the latter about an hour ago.

I think it's sketchy to have `ukraine` in the email address given the effort to push the "ukraine scandal" as a thing.

https://pastebin.com/yF7ZvS3m

Google isn't exactly known for their privacy. Why would he not have used his Burisma email account?

Interesting point of view. So as long as a paper is "non-tabloid" it should be more trusted. A Chinese or Russian state owned non-tabloid is then more trustworthy than NYP? Propaganda is everywhere and the definition of what and when something is sensationalist is fuzzy.

What is the point of your comment? The author is stating that the mainstream view has been that tabloid papers sensationalise while broadsheets profess to not doing so. This is not their opinion, it is context for their argument that blocking a link to a tabloid would not be unusual for twitter considering the other links they have blocked in the past.

Who decides if a newspaper is a newspaper or just a tabloid?

You mean a broadsheet vs a tabloid?

Some newspapers are in a broadsheet format, others in a tabloid format (and some, in other less common formats).

The tabloid format is often used to shock.

Is any of this in dispute?

I don't think anyone's debating your claim. It's a fascinating point of view, and reflects closely to the conveyed image of the matter.

What people are disputing, though, is more closely tied to the story. Right now, many people see NYT and WaPo as NYPost-likes regarding their journalistic rigor.

If it feels like Windows and runs like Windows, but has a different-ish UI, people will treat it like it's Windows-esque even if it's Linux.

Sure - and that's a totally reasonable view. One that I share in large part, in fact.

But there's a reason that publications adopt the tabloid UI, and it's almost always to do shocking, sensationalist journalism. It's a UI that is suited for that format.

Additionally, many other publications do shoddy journalism in different ways, with different formats, and different UIs.

I don't see how anything you said should contradict or even relate to the BBC statement you quoted--the statement seems perfectly fine, accurate, and objective.

>Tabloids are nothing like the NY Times or Washington Post, which attempt to present objective, unbiased news. (Now you may argue that they fail at that -- but they do profess at least to aim for it, while tabloids don't even try in the first place.)

Both of them are explicit about their support of Biden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_endorsements_in_the...

>> Tabloids are nothing like the NY Times or Washington Post, which attempt to present objective, unbiased news. (Now you may argue that they fail at that -- but they do profess at least to aim for it, while tabloids don't even try in the first place.)

> Both of them are explicit about their support of Biden.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_endorsements_in_the...

This doesn't really contradict crazygringo's statement.

If the paper is well-known for being a tabloid, they would just yawn and feel no need to block it.

And if the email is a fake one, it isnt personal information.

So why did they block it?