Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by krunck | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

krunck

If you are averse to the Daily Mail, you can try this article instead:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/22/mt-everest-gre...

View on HN

Everyone should be averse to the daily mail

> If you are averse to the Daily Mail, you can try this article instead..

The irony of this though is that you just become bucketed in another consumer group.

Resist the packaging of yourself by media firms and marketing.

Try and consume news through the sources like AFP or Reuters (unfortunately not free anymore)

> ... bucketed in another consumer group ... Resist the packaging of yourself by media firms and marketing.

> Suggests some different buckets.

I subscribe to Reuters. I've been using it as my primary source of non-tech news for the past 5 years.

Compared to the Guardian or CNN, the reporting is much less subjective and less editorialized, and, outside of Breaking Views, I've yet to find an article with an obvious ideological bent.

It's not ideal, but it is better. Sure, it's probably still a bucket, but at least the lid isn't tightly shut, and there's no fire beneath it that's going to slowly cook you over time. I switched to Reuters when the war in Ukraine started: it was the only source of news that wasn't very obviously, in-your-face biased. It's not the best source for longer-form reporting, but for news, I'm much happier in this bucket than in the alternatives I tried.

The problem is that AFP, AP and Reuters supply the news to these big outlets and have done for decades. Sometimes this comes out in different papers using the same phrasing.

It means that our news is filtered through a handful of outlets, and is dependent on their own policies.

I thought the Guardian might decide not to show a photo of a corpse of someone probably with living friends and close relatives.

Nope, they do it too, like the Daily Mail, but with a big yellow GUI control to reveal it, like a weird macabre vintage "multimedia".

> Use the slider below to show a picture of the body of the climber known as Green Boots where it lies on Mount Everest. Some readers may find the image distressing

Just because the photo has been shown before doesn't mean it needs to be shown now, especially now that it's been identified, in in this context.

> Nope, they do it too, like the Daily Mail, but with a big yellow GUI control to reveal it, like a weird macabre vintage "multimedia".

What a weird description. You make the content warning sound like it's a bad thing. Slider versus button hardly matters.

> I thought the Guardian might decide not to show a photo of a corpse of someone probably with living friends and close relatives.

You can't see anything but his clothes and this happened decades ago. A hidden by default photo isn't going to hurt those people. Maybe we could argue the article and attention itself could be distressing and shouldn't exist, but I think the news value wins out there.

If poor Green Boots was staring up at the camera, empty eye sockets and all, I'd understand this. But there is nothing distressing in the image; the out-of-focus fuzziness makes the photo seem if anything substantially more macabre than it actually is.

Given Green Boots' fame, it was interesting to see what the actual scene climbers experience was. So I think the inclusion of the photo was justified, in these unusual circumstances.

I don't understand why we should not show photos of dead people, esp. famous ones like is the case here? And his face isn't even visible? What's the harm?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com