[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...

[insickness]

You're linking to CNN, who told us that it was illegal for anyone but CNN journalists to read Wikileaks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

[Chris2048]

A page full of snippets with little context.

Just to pick one: 'A July article suggested that research revealed "women might just suck at job interviews."'

Is this claim false?

[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.

[Chris2048]

The context suggested I was asking what problem astrodust had with them.

I was asking astrodust specifically, and anyone else can see the answer; this would not be the case with a "private conversion".