In an increasingly contracting media enviroent, its not surprising that the majority of general news articles are coming from the likes of the NY times, Bloomberg and WSJ because they are doing the most original reporting. They are spending far more on original news reporting than many other outlets' combined.

Genuine question: I hear a lot of concerns that NYTimes in particular is not original reporting and is often reporting to their own interests, a big example being the NYTimes covering positively the idea of war in iraq/afganistan and the trump-has-no-chance coverage. I don't agree with this sentiment; I just know this sentiment is not uncommon in my peer group.

That is to say: Where are you gathering that they spend far more on original news reporting than other outlets? This is not an attack on you, nor a disagreement, but a genuine question as to what is your internal context to your statements- it is a context I'm lacking, as my social group is generally very cynical on the quality of NYTimes.

(For the record, I like NYTimes, but the volume of cynicism in my peer group has caused me difficulty in my relationship with that specific publisher.)

But most HN users don't come here for general news. I think that's what he was trying to say.

Right. I've seen an increase in off-topic NYT articles making it to the front page over the last 18 months or so. They can peddle their social-opinion pieces elsewhere.

Hardly.

As someone who lost two parents to alcoholism in the past five years, I can assure you that it is alive and well, and taking lives along the way.

You never know when one of these stories may encourage your fellow reader to decide that today is a great day to get sober.

Not relevant to this site, IMO. You want to change the world, proactively speak out against alcohol to your family and friends, and continuously caution them against it's abuse. Hoping that a tiny fraction of people on the net read some news article is going to change their lives is a pipe dream.