<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>da_chicken</author><text>Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are &lt;i&gt;supposed&lt;/i&gt; to be like that. It&amp;#x27;s not an error; it&amp;#x27;s by design, and it&amp;#x27;s a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed.&lt;p&gt;You, as the reader, are expected to be know enough about how newspapers are organized to tell that you&amp;#x27;re reading part of the opinion or editorial sections and what that means. In an ideal newspaper practicing journalistic integrity, letters to the editor like the one presented here would be published in future editions of the paper, or, failing that, published in competing newspapers.&lt;p&gt;Yes, everything is subject to bias. &lt;i&gt;Everything&lt;/i&gt; is subject to bias. You cannot eliminate it. The point is to be aware of it&amp;#x27;s existence, and newspapers help do that by placing these types of pieces in their opinion and editorial sections.</text><parent_chain><item><author>seibelj</author><text>The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda.&lt;p&gt;This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news source in the USA it is the most glaring to me.&lt;p&gt;Also, I know it’s become a trope to post this on HN as it’s basically gospel at this point, but The Submarine essay by Paul Graham gives some nice insight into the PR and media industry &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;submarine.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;submarine.html&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times</title><url>https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/letter-response-jan-17-article-new-york-times</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>unethical_ban</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s from the &amp;quot;Magazine&amp;quot;, not the news section, nor is it opinion ala &amp;quot;This political party sucks and why&amp;quot;. It is the magazine, which is long-form narrative storytelling. I don&amp;#x27;t think that should exempt them from leaving out or otherwise ignoring facts.</text><parent_chain><item><author>seibelj</author><text>The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda.&lt;p&gt;This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news source in the USA it is the most glaring to me.&lt;p&gt;Also, I know it’s become a trope to post this on HN as it’s basically gospel at this point, but The Submarine essay by Paul Graham gives some nice insight into the PR and media industry &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;submarine.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&amp;#x2F;submarine.html&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times</title><url>https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/letter-response-jan-17-article-new-york-times</url></story>