Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by edynoid 3234 days ago
That is barely credible given the source is Breitbart.
2 comments

An aside note: I have noticed that recently (starting about one year ago) there has been a meme of Breitbart not being a reliable source, while its opposite counterpart Huffington Post does not seem to have this reputation. I wonder if there is a better reason for that than just political disagreement, perhaps there are studies on the relative reliability of different sources (online and offline)? Thanks!
Admittedly I have not fact-checked a statistically significant sample of their articles. But their Wikipedia article for instance tells a tale of published falsehoods, conspiracy theories and the like.

The political disagreement is an orthogonal factor, but does play a role, of course.

Are you really too lazy to do your own fact checking on a case to case basis instead of relying on these rediculus memes to keep yourself from reading something that might hurt your feel feels?
If you are alleging that they photo-shopped these screenshots - it would be intellectually honest to present a proof, rather than just smear the source, because you don't like it.
For the record, I am not alleging this in particular. For all I know, it might be true. Although given Breitbart's history reading anything on that site does not hold much value.

After all, they have run stories about Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring and continuously deny the scientifically evident reality of climate change, for example.

So, using your logic, I assume nothing in the NYT holds much value to you, because they have run stories (without proving any evidence) about "Trump and the prostitutes" in Moscow?
Do you have any reason or evidence to support that comment?

From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...:

>The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of UNSUBSTANTIATED reports

>The summary is based on memos generated by POLITICAL OPERATIVES SEEKING TO DERAIL MR. TRUMP’S CANDIDACY

>The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel

(emphasis mine)

They make it very clear they were unsubstantiated and generated by people with a clear intent and bias, there is no comparison to BB's knowingly publishing falsehoods.

Please see my reply in another sub-thread.
Has the NYT ever claimed that Trump met prostitutes in Moscow?

Go ahead, find a link saying they have.

Did Breitbart push the PizzaGate sex ring story? [Yes](https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/789143692540055552), [absolutely](https://twitter.com/AndrewBreitbart/status/33636278100561920).

This is off-topic, so very briefly:

The NYT published at least two stories about an "unverified" dossier on Trump. Admitting it is unverified, yet they claim:

1. "consequences have been incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day" 2. "By all accounts, Mr. Steele has an excellent reputation"

Is it just me, or do they (subtly) suggest that, while "unverified", there may be something to the dossier?

If it is unverified (and quite damning), why publish it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-...

>If it is unverified (and quite damning), why publish it?

They are reporting on the effects of unsubstantiated reports, not publishing them as fact. A far cry from BB knowingly publishing falsehoods.

>Has the NYT ever claimed that Trump met prostitutes in Moscow? Go ahead, find a link saying they have.

You skipped over that part. Have they ever claimed that?

or the sinking of the maine