Hacker News Reader

Comment by fulafel | Hacker News Reader

There's bias and then there's intentional misleading. Providing a platform for the Koch etc funded think-tanks doesn't fit into "just bias". Eg their attempts to undermine climate science.

View on HN

Again, you’re just confusing disagreement for bias. As if The NY Times or WaPo don’t provide a platforms for left wing think tanks? Are you worried about the bias of The NY Times Editorial page when they undermine the science of gender or IQ? The WSJ editorial page should be the most important thing you read every day so you can actually understand the reasoning (yes reason) of people with different positions than you.

No, there's not a "both sides do it" situation in this production of intentionally misleading content in the most prominent newspapers.

If you believe so, then you should try to break out of your bubble a little more.

see the recent insurrection at WSJ reported eg as " 280+ Wall Street Journal Journalists Sign Letter Blasting Opinion Section for ‘Lack of Fact-Checking’ and ‘Disregard for Evidence’" (https://www.thewrap.com/280-wall-street-journal-journalists-...)

Your comment is fully compatible with my comment above.

The first problem is agreement on facts.

For example, the following are questioned and dismissed by large numbers of opinion pages in the WSJ and other Murdoch papers and media outlets:

* Is COVID a pandemic?

* Is climate change happening at a rate that is unprecedented in archeological and geological time?

* Is that climate change due to human activities?

Let alone ridiculous assertions like claiming that the Democratic party in the US espouses "socialist" policies or that the GOP party has "fiscal conservatism" as an underlying principle.

Do you think climate change is happening at a greater rate now than it did at the K-T boundary?

Which billionaires should I be afraid of the Koch Bros or Bezos and Soros? I'm losing track. Tell me who I should hate.

Depends on if you like the letter R or the letter D.

Hate I'm not sure about, but you should be nervous and distrustful of anyone to whom buying a PR firm is relatively cheap (as in, 2-3 days income cheap).

Every single one of them. But if we are to make a ranking, I think spreading climate denial to protect your oil empire does do a lot make you uniquely loathe worthy.

Might as well add the Masshole, 'strayan and Cheeto in Cheif to that list.

I can't think of a single politically involved billionaire who doesn't have at least a couple very onerous "keep the unwashed masses under control" type policies they are trying to advance.

Edit:typo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com