4 ms·

One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.

by mcknz 8y ago

cgb223 8y ago
Did you background check this contributor? What did you find?
- mcknz 8y ago
  First Google result is a link to Fox News, and an article titled "Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!" People can agree or disagree with that, but The Hill does not appear to have a consistent editorial stance that is separate from individual authors. I have seen moderate contributors as well as more extreme partisan ones.
  - opmelogy 8y ago
    "Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!" This is enough to ignore the author and bury the article. Anyone that uses the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a way to drive a wedge between Americans in order to offend, distract, and "win" are not worth the time.
    - sincerely 8y ago
      First of all, a lot of people will self-identify as liberal or conservative, which usually lines up with whether or not they tend to support Republicans or Democrats. They're not incredibly loaded terms. Secondly, writers almost never get to choose the title their piece runs under. You'll notice that often the headline of an article doesn't /quite/ seem to match the content.
      - opmelogy 8y ago
        Agreed on both counts. Although your second point just seems to feed into the idea of not just rolling in "journalists" into the ignore category, but news outlets if they are actively involved in this BS. For the actual quote, it comes from here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-2020-liberals-get-over-it-must-ask-about-citizenship.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-20... "Liberals are outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census." That's the first line from the article, which clearly pits liberals as being the problem here while implying that conservatives automatically disagree (or in this case, "you are on the right side if you agree with me."). It's basic manipulation. People that behave this way are not worth the energy. They just get in the way most of the time.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    For all of the aforementioned reasons I consider The Hill to be trash, even when I agree with an article's sentiment. I don't follow publications, I follow editorial policies, and The Hill appears to have none.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- crag 8y ago
  Here's her bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Peek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Peek To sum it up: Wall Street (oil) -> law firm -> Treasury -> Fox News contributor. She's also Chair of the board of trustees for FIT (Fashion Institute of Technology in NYC). She is not in tech.
  - arzt 8y ago
    Does that matter? The author is speaking on behalf of the shareholders (pension funds, mutual funds etc) who are supposed to be fiduciaries to clients that expect their funds to be invested responsibly (read hyperbolically as: not in companies that in any way threaten democracy). Sandberg architected the FB revenue model and as such should probably give reassurance that money will keep flowing to Facebook.
unclebucknasty 8y ago
>One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there. Or background check any facts they present in making their case, then form your own opinion.
- mcknz 8y ago
  Of course. I've just been confused in the past at the wide swing of opinion, having noted the objectivity of The Hill's news reporting.
  - unclebucknasty 8y ago
    Not to nitpick, but isn't news supposed to be objective and opinion not? It seems kind of weird to wander into an opinion piece, then seem put-off that its author might be biased. Yes, it is very likely that if you check the author's background, then you will find threads that are consistent with the opinions expressed in an article that he/she produces. In fact the article itself is an expression of that background. Again not being a pedant here. Just don't understand the admonition to check the background as the basis for dismissing a writer's opinion.
    - mcknz 8y ago
      Yes, but I suppose it's a matter of expectation. When I read NYT or WSJ or Slate or National Review I will get a fairly consistent message. We don't see a lot of extreme partisan publications linked in HN, probably for good reason. Just wanted to note that although The Hill is not on the MSNBC/Fox spectrum, its editorial content may well be.

One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.

by mcknz 8y ago

One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there.

cgb223 8y ago

Did you background check this contributor? What did you find?

mcknz 8y ago
First Google result is a link to Fox News, and an article titled "Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!" People can agree or disagree with that, but The Hill does not appear to have a consistent editorial stance that is separate from individual authors. I have seen moderate contributors as well as more extreme partisan ones.
- opmelogy 8y ago
  "Liz Peek: Census 2020 – Liberals, get over it, we must ask about citizenship!" This is enough to ignore the author and bury the article. Anyone that uses the term "liberal" or "conservative" as a way to drive a wedge between Americans in order to offend, distract, and "win" are not worth the time.
  - sincerely 8y ago
    First of all, a lot of people will self-identify as liberal or conservative, which usually lines up with whether or not they tend to support Republicans or Democrats. They're not incredibly loaded terms. Secondly, writers almost never get to choose the title their piece runs under. You'll notice that often the headline of an article doesn't /quite/ seem to match the content.
    - opmelogy 8y ago
      Agreed on both counts. Although your second point just seems to feed into the idea of not just rolling in "journalists" into the ignore category, but news outlets if they are actively involved in this BS. For the actual quote, it comes from here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-2020-liberals-get-over-it-must-ask-about-citizenship.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/28/liz-peek-census-20... "Liberals are outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census." That's the first line from the article, which clearly pits liberals as being the problem here while implying that conservatives automatically disagree (or in this case, "you are on the right side if you agree with me."). It's basic manipulation. People that behave this way are not worth the energy. They just get in the way most of the time.
- rhizome 8y ago
  For all of the aforementioned reasons I consider The Hill to be trash, even when I agree with an article's sentiment. I don't follow publications, I follow editorial policies, and The Hill appears to have none.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
crag 8y ago
Here's her bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Peek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Peek To sum it up: Wall Street (oil) -> law firm -> Treasury -> Fox News contributor. She's also Chair of the board of trustees for FIT (Fashion Institute of Technology in NYC). She is not in tech.
- arzt 8y ago
  Does that matter? The author is speaking on behalf of the shareholders (pension funds, mutual funds etc) who are supposed to be fiduciaries to clients that expect their funds to be invested responsibly (read hyperbolically as: not in companies that in any way threaten democracy). Sandberg architected the FB revenue model and as such should probably give reassurance that money will keep flowing to Facebook.

unclebucknasty 8y ago

>One of the things I've learned about The Hill's opinion page is to background check the contributor -- seems like just about anyone can get an article there. Or background check any facts they present in making their case, then form your own opinion.

mcknz 8y ago
Of course. I've just been confused in the past at the wide swing of opinion, having noted the objectivity of The Hill's news reporting.
- unclebucknasty 8y ago
  Not to nitpick, but isn't news supposed to be objective and opinion not? It seems kind of weird to wander into an opinion piece, then seem put-off that its author might be biased. Yes, it is very likely that if you check the author's background, then you will find threads that are consistent with the opinions expressed in an article that he/she produces. In fact the article itself is an expression of that background. Again not being a pedant here. Just don't understand the admonition to check the background as the basis for dismissing a writer's opinion.
  - mcknz 8y ago
    Yes, but I suppose it's a matter of expectation. When I read NYT or WSJ or Slate or National Review I will get a fairly consistent message. We don't see a lot of extreme partisan publications linked in HN, probably for good reason. Just wanted to note that although The Hill is not on the MSNBC/Fox spectrum, its editorial content may well be.