No, because that's a straw man. What many people want is a balanced, unbiased editorial department that weighs the facts as they see them and then publishes an endorsement.
Please follow hacker news comment guidelines [1], this isn't reddit. It's a genuine question. If you see it as easily answered (as a straw man would be), then answer it easily.
1. I answered you - nobody said they see a benefit to having biased editors, and no reasonable person would, by definition. People see benefit in something else, as I explained - that's the answer to your question.
2. I know some people say "straw man" as a swipe, but it's also a term of art for a rhetorical fallacy and that's how I meant it. The position you asked me to defend (that there's benefit in having a biased editorial board) isn't a position anyone here took, or agrees with. Hence the term.
3. "this isn't reddit" is a swipe - and one that's a bit mysterious to people who are unfamiliar with reddit, like me ;)
