> 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.

> 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.

No I didn't, that was `astrodust`, not me. I was just providing an example of something that was wrong with them.

Sorry, my mistake.

On the other hand.. You answered for them? Only astrodust can know what problem astrodust has with Breitbart...

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...

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

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?

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.

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".

People said the same thing about Hilary.

I guess we both have blind-spots, so let's share the evidence. There's been a lot of fake news around.