I think the criticism in the article resonates with many people and I doubt we see editorialized content. Independence is an issue for newspapers, but it would be dishonest to start here with this topic.

Agreed. I'd like to have a discussion about the truthfulness of this event. If it has credibility then we should worry about it and discuss resolutions.

It's unfortunate that HN has already marked this as "dead".

> HN has already marked this as "dead".

Oh good. I expected that sooner or later. Better that it is dead than on the front page, TBH.

Wouldn't this behavior mirror that from university staff accused of silencing debate? To me, this behavior looks exactly like something the author describes, even if he might exaggerate.

For those liberals and the rest of the political spectrum out there who dislike the censorious aspects of today's progressivism, remember that your votes in primaries and on Election Day can never be flagged or canceled. Please vote.

There are certain sources where the mere source itself raises these about concerns about editorialized and politicised content over accuracy. e.g. "The Daily Mail" is one. "Spiked Online" is another.

It resonates with many people because it's been drilled into their minds for literal decades. Decades of right-wing academia rejects shouting "I've been silenced!" on literally every media avenue until people actually believed universities were orweillian nightmares (and not just very bland binge-drinking places).

If the article is appealing to an existing inclination you have, that's all the more reason to consider the motives of the people writing it.