[astrodust]

One story, all credibility, huh? You must live in a world where nobody is credible.

The New York Times has suffered hits to its credibility, fake photographers, plagiarism and such, but that doesn't necessarily negate all the work done by their talented staff. There's still good work being done there despite those setbacks. It's a fallacy to instantly discount everything as without merit, putting it on the same level as Breitbart.

Like always you need to regard things with a critical eye.

[baobrain]

I would highly recommend checking out the Columbia school of journalism's analysis.[0]

While other publications have had lapses in journalistic integrity, rolling stones case is especially egregious. Along every step of the way, the writer and her editors violated the basics of journalistic integrity, like not fact checking and trusting one side.

[0]http://www.cjr.org/investigation/rolling_stone_investigation...

[Chris2048]

> One story, all credibility, huh?

Yes. The "story" made specific criminal accusations.

> You must live in a world where nobody is credible.

Publications are held to a different standard.

> New York Times... but that doesn't necessarily negate all the work

It just means you can no longer trust the publication.

> putting it on the same level as Breitbart

Here we go. Tell me what's wrong with Breitbart?

[phaemon]

> Here we go. Tell me what's wrong with Breitbart?

Every story they run on climate change is a pile of innumerate, scientifically illiterate crap? Those are the only stories I see from them as they get quoted for amusement value sometimes on the Sea Ice forums.

But maybe their sports coverage is good or something. Who knows.

[Chris2048]

> Who knows.

You, apparently, since you talked of "the same level as Breitbart", though don't apparently know what that is.

Also, if you have specific knowledge of a subject area, you might be inclined to a kind of reversal of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect: judging a publication on you area of expertise alone, when publications may differ in their relative strengths.

[phaemon]

No I didn't, that was `astrodust`, not me. I was just providing an example of something that was wrong with them.

[Chris2048]

Sorry, my mistake.

On the other hand.. You answered for them? Only astrodust can know what problem astrodust has with Breitbart...

[astrodust]

You must be living under a rock. They're a tabloid on par with Weekly World News.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/14/media/breitbart-incendiary-h...

[phaemon]

You didn't ask what problem astrodust had with them. You asked what's wrong with them. I told you one thing.

If you want a private conversation, then HN comments are the wrong venue.