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

Yes, it was too strongly worded. I should have said "sometimes" instead of "often".

For example the first paragraph in [1] really doesn't go down well with me. It seems so negative, which I call unwanted opinion. Also the linking policy is not good. If I stumble an interesting development in Phoronix, I want next to take a look at the source myself.

I agree that Phoronix creates value, that's why I read it.

I don't even know The Register, but the comparison can't make a difference because I have an ideal in mind.

[1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=KDE-Babe-...



The linking policy is something I can overlook, because the linked Phoronix article is often a good summary of the original source, and it would actually be hard to find that linked Phoronix article unless the link was given to it, and the linked Phoronix article likely contains the link to the original source anyway.

As for unwanted opinions, you did not say what you found so negative in the first paragraph of the KDE Babe article, since it seems rather impartial to me.

I can only conclude that you felt the article wasn't enthusiastic enough for your taste. But if the real issue is this absence of positive bias then it would be inaccurate to call it a problem of "unwanted opinion". More importantly, such "cheerleader" style of writing, like you might find on community websites, is not good journalism and it is not clear why it is even desirable.

There are reasons why we maintain standards of objectivity in journalism. It gives people the freedom to make their own minds up about an issue and thereby to make decisions based on the best available information. This is not possible if all you read is that everything is great all the time.

Besides, having a widespread "cheerleader" culture is in the end harmful for any community, because it prevents discussing and fixing the things that are broken, which insiders are no longer able or willing to see.


I don't want enthusiasm either, I just don't want opinion. Given the facts, I can form my own, thank you. Journalists' job should be to provide all relevant facts and present it in a neutral way. The further any news goes from this, the lesser the quality in my eyes.

The rhetoric style and choice of facts given in the first paragraph don't seem impartial, they convey a negative view about the project. The comparison to the other media players was unnecessary, especially in this way. But despite our agreement or disagreement on this, it is not the first article that made me dislike some of the writing on Phoronix. And it seems I'm not the only one. In fact, in the past I stopped reading it because of it.

Yes, the linking on Phoronix can be worked around. The fact that it is the way it is, does not make it look good, though, at least to me.




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

Search: