100% Agree. It's an entire article written about a celebrity or politician's tweet reacting to another celebrity or politician. It's an entire article that talks about some filler setting up the background, the actual embedded tweet, a paragraph or two quoting that tweet with filler in it, then perhaps a second reaction tweet or a bunch of tweets that random people responded with either positive/negative or both depending on what the author is trying to achieve or influence.

I think you are drawing an arbitrary line to defend an industry that doesnt deserve it at all.

In my book, even the supposedly important news are pure poison for the individual, and at the end of the day, unimportant as well.

People that need to push a new or current narrative will likely disagree, but that is predictable. They dont want their hate-channel to be closed down.

But if we take all of those stories out of the news cycle, the only national news we’d have left is The Onion.

I’ve observed that so much of the news is published before the facts are even out. In a race to be first, they present half a story that hasn’t been verified yet. So you are left to either be outraged preemptively or just ignore the story entirely as it’s currently useless.

As the tagline for one of HN’s self-consciously frivolous ancestors says, “It’s not news, it’s Fark!”

>I wish we had a more accurate name

Propaganda.

News is just what’s “New”. It’s name is already prefectly descriptive :)