I don't know, the WaPo article adds some useful context, like links to stories about previous, unofficial information sharing.
Of course, the usefulness hinges on whether you trust that WaPo is being impartial. (I have no opinion on that, since I don't follow US politics that closely.)
Yeah, it's not like the NYTimes is impartial either. Read their election coverage for example. I've been thinking about this recently because I was considering adding some more news sources to my feeds, but I'm fairly content because at this point I understand and notice the biases in the sources I do read, and I'm worried it would take a long time to build up a similar understanding of a new source.
Not OP, but as a paper & digital subscriber of the Washington Post (which I subscribed to for the Volokh Conspiracy, when they migrated), I have decided not to renew my subscription as I find the editorial board too opinionated.
I have zero problems with op-ed pieces being opinionated, but when those opinions seep into the actual news, I have a hard time calling it journalism, and an even harder time giving them my money.
That said, I can think of literally zero unbiased sources, especially as Circa's shut down. It doesn't seem to be a feature that many people are willing to pay for.
Radley Balko's credentials and "true hacker" spirit are irrelevant. The original source should always take precedence, especially over the bias of an opinion piece describing it.
I reject the idea that the "original source" is in this case or can ever be free from bias.
The "original source" is, according to the NYTimes piece, "officials familiar with the deliberations." The NYTimes piece, as well as this one, and any other piece written about it, will be written by a human being with a bias.
The HN guideline, "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter," doesn't, as I understand it, refer to newspapers making reference to other newspapers in their analysis of a story.
It refers to, for example, a blog that posts a video with no further comment. In that case, just link to the video.
The bias in the posted source is far more blatant (it even begins with "surprise!"). You can argue that any source is biased, and that may be true, but I don't think you can argue that the bias is equal in all cases, or that the New York Times article is no more or less objectively written than the Washington Post. Preferring the latter over the former because of the political views of its author colors the thread before it even begins.
I agree with Radley Balko's point of view here, but I prefer the posted source not be one that is begging its own premise and telling me what to think. That's what the comment thread itself is for.
Transparent. Radley's piece is more transparent. The NYTimes, a warmongering, deceitful, fallen-from-grace publication, is more opaque. But they are equally biased.
And in any case, the HN guidelines make no distinction between "biased" and "objective" sources. In this case, neither is the "original source," so both are equally valid. Thus, it's sensible to chose the less reckless one, and that is clearly Radley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/politics/obama-administ...