Let's say the onus is on reporters to not take money in exchange for glowing coverage. Having a mortgage to pay is no excuse. If you can't be an honest reporter, don't report at all. I think that's a reasonable standard to hold them to. If you can't hack it as an honest reporter, then go get a job in retail or something.
Anybody who took money from these people is not a victim.
Is there any evidence at all that any of these reporters were taking money vs. just writing up company press releases as news? And more generally, how do you square this stance with the near universal HN view that tech coverage is too biased against tech companies?
> And more generally, how do you square this stance with the near universal HN view that tech coverage is too biased against tech companies?
Cynically, they give negative coverage by default to encourage "charitable giving". When the org starts "donating" money to journalists, the tone of the coverage flips.
Anybody who took money from these people is not a victim.