Hacker News Reader

Comment by photochemsyn | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I'm a little bit incredulous reading this statement. In no world are those outlets in the same ballpark as Russian or Chinese state media.

Just because a new source has a tendency towards bias, doesn't mean that it isn't reliable. There are a small handful of news organizations that make a best effort towards the truth - and WaPo, NYTimes, and WSJ haven't won as many Pulitzers as they have by being unreliable.

If it was the Russian or Chinese governments deciding who gets the Pulitzers, would you be so sanguine?

No, for a myriad of reasons. Not the least of which being that investigative reporters have been systematically silenced within those countries, which is well-documented across a number of sources.

And to top it off, the US government isn't deciding who gets Pulitzers - that's an award granted by a private ivy league school.

Or The Guardian, CNN, Fox News, and every highly profitable news outlet.

They all follow the same playbook left by William Randolph Hearst: sensationalism, jumping to conclusions on behalf of the reader, etc.

Or nearly every small outlet, YouTuber, podcast and independent blog. They, too, are trying to be profitable, after all.

Except that YouTubers don't get direct payments from large advertisers and donors.

Past a certain reach, of course they do. Besides, sensationalism is how you get eyeballs, all outlets are subject to this pressure and it has nothing to do with funding.

There is generally no reason to trust small outlets more than large outlets. If anything, their more intimate nature lulls people into a false sense of security.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com