Hacker News Reader

Out of curiosity what do you think they should do differently? They confirmed the subject's criminal activity immediately at the top of the article. Only after that do they talk about the definition problem, which you appear to agree with to some degree.

View on HN

Well she bombed federal buildings, that’s pretty clearly terrorism. They just don’t care because she’s on their side.

Maybe the problem here is the boiled down ternary, true, not true, mixture. That gets further aggregated until they can same big stats like “Party X made 80% false claims” while the other party only made 20% false claims, because their false claims have been conveniently softened to “mixture.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com