undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdanans2y ago0 comments

The news organizations didn't make any of that stuff up though. Those are the actual rhetoric and the hypocritical or criminal acts of the politicians you are alluding to. You've just genericized it by replacing names with X and Y. However, it's anything but generic, and there are real patterns to it, so the names behind the X and Y matter.

It would be journalistic malpractice not to report those things when there is evidence to support the allegations.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ARandomerDude2y ago· 1 in thread

Nevertheless, it raises the question of “how often is this relevant to me?” If I already know a person needs to be replaced or reelected next time at the polls, reading all the details is a waste of time and personal happiness.

What the journalists should report and what I should read are separate questions.

danansOP2y ago

> What the journalists should report and what I should read are separate questions.

The OP was making a statement about what journalists should report on, not what people should choose to read.

Of course anyone can individually choose to not read a repeated story, just like they can choose not to watch the same weather forecast repeatedly.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse