>Mother jones has great reporting in general -- they're not an outfit that is a corporate ad extension.
I'm sorry but are you kidding? Upon visiting this page I was presented with this ad that had no dismiss button: http://prntscr.com/c5bb9h
If you were a raging liberal, then I suppose you'd consider Mother Jones and its insistence on giving your email to the "Progressive Turnout Project" before reading their content to be "great reporting" (by the way, Mother Jones was paid for this - does that not qualify as a "corporate ad extension"?). But personally, I can't stand political propaganda sites that masquerade as journalism, and I especially can't stand any site that requires me to give my email to third parties before I can read their content. That's a nonstarter.
No such thing as a journalistic organization without a platform. You're not surprising anyone. You should instead spend time showing that they're biased instead of just announcing this. Having a stance doesn't preclude good, unbiased journalism.
I'm not thinking of corporations. Local govt, etc. The study was made by -surprise- a university in the state where olive oil is produced. Btw about ads there's nothing more effective than a journalist that does it for free.
There's another thread now in HN about marijuana's awesomeness. Don't people think for themselves anymore? do you all take a package of propaganda and ideology and blissfully swallow it without thinking twice?
The problem is that people should be able to trust the news, not that they don't think for themselves. I do plenty of "thinking", I just don't have any time to evaluate the authenticity of my olive oil. Think about how many decisions you need to make in a day; if you had to verify every article, product, or piece of information you ingest on a daily basis you wouldn't have time to do anything else.
We have a huge problem where you really can't trust anything you hear or see; especially news. However, what's the solution? If I want to be up to date on world politics who do I trust? How do I know I can trust them? What about a new product? The manufacturer says it's healthy; an "article"says its not. Who do I trust? Is the article genuine or paid off by a competitor to boost their own sales? Do I have to do my own research and studies to find out the truth? That's hardly scalable.
OTOH a site like HN do produce this analysis for each link, by means of comments.
It would be pretty interesting to have something like HN, perhaps a bit broader in topic selections, where the analysis was captured in a more structured manner and published for other services to reuse in various ways to aid the reader.
I'm sorry but are you kidding? Upon visiting this page I was presented with this ad that had no dismiss button: http://prntscr.com/c5bb9h
If you were a raging liberal, then I suppose you'd consider Mother Jones and its insistence on giving your email to the "Progressive Turnout Project" before reading their content to be "great reporting" (by the way, Mother Jones was paid for this - does that not qualify as a "corporate ad extension"?). But personally, I can't stand political propaganda sites that masquerade as journalism, and I especially can't stand any site that requires me to give my email to third parties before I can read their content. That's a nonstarter.