An independent activist journalist has been digging into the case and has come up with some interesting and alarming connections and history. Worth a read: https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2019/07/08/the-jeffrey-epstein...
replies(5):
There is no, has never been any, and never will be "objective journalism" because it is a contradiction in terms. Journalists are tasked with telling the truth as they understand it. This involves research and the understanding of facts, sure. It also, inescapably and to the real dismay of a certain segment of the universe that, candidly, often seems generally indisposed to having a society, means having an opinion and informing that reporting through it. That opinion is as much "this is worthy of being discussed" as it is "this is wrong and an affront to decency" and both of these are necessary, inescapable, and inextricable components of journalism. It's definitional. It's what the thing is. "Objective journalism" is a contradiction in terms.
Where journalism can fail, and there is certainly a historical record of it, is believing oneself entitled to one's own facts. But that is separate from one's interpretation of those facts--and, generally though not universally, the invention of one's own facts does not end well for a journalist who attempts it (see Stephen Glass for an example).
HN makes it difficult to really have these conversations in-depth because at some point one must nod to the elephant in the room and point out that there is a manufactured epistemic closure at the heart of the "objective journalism!" complaints. Which is to say that 'edoo might be relaying his opinion in good faith but the folks who peddled his opinion to him certainly did not do so in similar good faith--and there is something slithering in the dark that has a real interest in the delegitimization of journalism that even just tries to represent the truth as it is understood by the journalist.