Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That is the point of my comment: not all news sources are designed for clickbait. In contrast, consider The Financial Times's (FT's) headlines:

>Tiger Global slashes bets on tech groups after stock market sell-off

> News in-depth. Military briefing: why Russia and Ukraine are fighting over a Black Sea outcrop

> Investors pull $7bn from Tether as stablecoin jitters intensify

> Buffett buys $3bn Citi stake in value-hunting stock splurge

> Ethiopia atrocities cast long shadow as city of Lalibela prays for peace

> Qantas says synthetic fuel could power long flights by mid-2030s

Some of the news itself is tragic. But it's a false equivalence to claim that the headlines and article content between news sources (e.g. Washington Post vs. the FT) are equally outrage-provoking or informative. The Washington Post was listed in the middle because their articles are usually highly informative (from the number of interviewed people and documents analyzed), though their headlines are more clickbait.

Both The Washington Post or the FT are different from (typically) Salon, and each is a far cry from social media. Also, the debate of news media in place of discussing social media is exactly the effect that Zuckerberg intended with his comment.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: