Hacker News Reader

Comment by liability | Hacker News Reader

This version of their site has less visual clutter and flashy graphics: http://lite.cnn.com/en

Spoilers, it's still shit. The biggest problem with CNN is the shitty writing. CNN articles seem to be written for an audience of borderline illiterate idiots. Do yourself a favor and read the NYTimes instead. The biases there are basically the same, you're getting the mainstream American centrist take on things, with the difference being the NYTimes hires people who actually know how to write. CNN is dailymail-tier.

View on HN

no, the nytimes is no better overall. they still have some good longer-form investigative pieces, but that's probably <1% of their volume. the rest is the same slanted, stimulant filler (corona all the time!) as other outlets.

I don't mind the times reporting when they're reporting, I just have to push my way through tons of bait-y opinion headlines to get to it.

As I said, I think they have approximately the same content and biases as CNN. I think they come out better than CNN because they have better writers and editors.

CNN articles seem like they were written by highschoolers and rubber stamped by editors who can't be bothered to read anything.

i guess our differing opinions turn on what "better" means. to me, a better writer, and especially a better editor, would correct those unsubstantiated embellishments and biases. so it's a distinction without a difference to me.

There are many ways in which something might be judged and therefore many ways in which something might be called 'better.' I am not saying the NYTimes is better than CNN in terms of what biases they have, what stories they choose to cover or what embellishments they add. I am not saying they have better fact checking. I am essentially saying CNN's articles are written for a less literate audience and they have lazy editors who let poor writing slide. I am not taking about their fact checking or factual accuracy.

I call BS: The NY Times is in no way a "mainstream American centrist take on things", and they now freely admit their Socialist biases. I will agree the writing there is better than most other sources, but that's a low bar these days.

American conservatives think the NYTimes are socialists, and American socialists think the NYTimes are conservative. I think this sort of split reputation is characteristic of American media with a centrist bias.

>The NY Times is in no way a "mainstream American centrist take on things", and they now freely admit their Socialist biases.

I don't believe it. Show me a quote from an authority at the NY Times admitting the paper has a "Socialist" bias.

Agreed. It's hard to consider a newspaper "centrist" that basically forces Bari Weiss out of a job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com