Hacker News Reader

Comment by nend | Hacker News Reader

It's the wsj, they have a right wing partisan lean, which means any discussion of renewable energy or California has to lean negative.

Edit: Surprising amount of downvotes here, didn't realize this was so controversial, the Wikipedia page talks extensively about the wsj's stances (with citations):

"The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy and has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all. The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change deniers"

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

View on HN

You can read about the facts without caring who is writing it, what side is WSJ is less relevant than the facts, if you can believe the facts and eventually confirm it in other places. If you don't like the message, discuss about the message, don't attack the messenger.

I would argue the bias of the editorial board is fair game when it comes to discussing the word choices and phrasing made in the article.

IMO Wikipedia is a bias source for anything politics related. Heck the Wikipedia page for its confounder even mentions this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#:~:text=In%20a%20....

I have found this site to be much more reliable when looking for media bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

That website also says the WSJ has a right lean:

"Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting combined with a strong right biased editorial stance."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/

Ya that is my mistake sorry it was early and somehow I misread WSJ as NYT.

I’m confused (sincerely, not concern trolling) about the point you’re making by linking to media bias fact check for NYT (which wasn’t being discussed) but not WSJ or Wikipedia.

According to the site you find reliable,

NYT: biased center left, factual reporting “high”

WSJ: biased on the right edge of center right, factual reporting “mostly factual”

Wikipedia: “least biased”, factual reporting “mixed”

Nope you are correct. It was early and I misread it as NYT. That is my mistake

Reality = right wing in 2021.

of course. the party that denies climate change and evolution is the party of reality.

I don't think most Republicans or the WSJ deny climate change these days, just differ on urgency and impact.

This poll shows 67% of Republicans think warming is happening and 56% think warming will continue in the future if nothing is done to address it.

https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climateinsights2020...

Why continue to use weasel words (i.e., an equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment) like 'climate change'? What does that mean? Aside from the truism that the climate is always changing (who can possibly disagree?) what specifically is denied and which values are accepted? Estimations of the warming due to carbon dioxide comprise a wide range of values not changed much in 20 years. Met Office UK states that the warming parameter (ECS) has a 'likely' range of 1.5 - 4.5°C and is extremely unlikely to be below 1°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. The wide range accounts for all evidence.

Stating this is not denying anything. It's accepting the complexity of the issue rather than indulging in emotive cliches.

The republicans passed a resolution asserting that the climate does indeed change.

Last time I’ve heard any Republicans party official deny evolution was during Bush administration.

Mike Pence denies it.

Recently?

No, I guess you’re right; all the recent news about Pence is about his role in trying to overthrow the election. 2009 is the last time I see him on record denying the theory of evolution, but I also don’t see any indication that he has changed his position, and he was in a pretty high position of power within the Republican Party as recently as 2020.

You have to be delusional to believe pence has any power. He was chosen to appease a certain part of the party needed to get enough electoral votes.nothing more

You may be right about that. Trump thought Pence had the ability to unilaterally declare the victor of the 2020 election, for example.

in 2016, pence was chosen to appeal to evangelicals, who may have been off put by trump's persona. Nothing to do with 2020 considerations.

Even the 2009 incident you're referring to is not really a denial. He is quite careful to neither explicitly endorse it nor deny it. My guess is that he actually is quite on board with evolution, but did not want to alienate a huge chunk of his electorate, who are, in fact, evolution deniers. This segment has been declining in relevance over last decade, hence my comment, that accusing Republicans of being evolution denialists is rather outdated, as that was a Bush-era thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com