Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 110 posts

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#21

Post by humanrebar »

matt4077 wrote: post #18
shard972 wrote: post #4

So they think that they can just replace that role with social media? Wasn't the whole issue with newspapers in the 2016 election was they relied far too much on social media and ended up in a bubble? I don't see anything in the article that makes me feel like they are interested in fixing that problem.

Nate Silver has done some good work on what exactly went wrong, and it was a combination of factors: - (some) polls were systematically off, mostly because they underestimated white non-college turnout and overestimated black turnout. Note that poll errors were actually lower than for any other election–only this time they actually got the winner wrong. - Most of the poll aggregators operated under the assumption of…

Beyond making bad predictions and tonally describing the election poorly (it didn't seem to be coming down to the wire based on the coverage), the NYT did an atrociously poor job of explaining the mind of a Trump voter to its readership. To this day, there is a lot of reliance on imagery of be-mulleted bogeyman that is both facile and harmful if America wants to live in harmony with itself again some day.

That is, we're not just talking about getting the numbers wrong. The "narrative" itself is way out of whack as well.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#22

Post by pg314 »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #10
shard972 wrote: post #4

So they think that they can just replace that role with social media? Wasn't the whole issue with newspapers in the 2016 election was they relied far too much on social media and ended up in a bubble? I don't see anything in the article that makes me feel like they are interested in fixing that problem.

ended up in a bubble? Yes they did. They know it. And they don't really give a fuck. After the election they did some public navel gazing about what went wrong. To prove they were serious, there was even an editorial about The Future of the Times . So I wrote to Ms Spayd. I challenged her, at the next meeting of journalists and editors, to say something like: "show of hands, who voted for Donald Trump for president".…

> So how can the Times ever begin to understand the 46% of the country who are the deplorables who voted for Trump?

You don't need to be a member of a certain group to be able to report on them. E.g. you don't need to be terminally ill to report on people that are terminally ill, or member of the KKK to report on them.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#23

Post by kobeya »

matt4077 wrote: post #18
shard972 wrote: post #4

So they think that they can just replace that role with social media? Wasn't the whole issue with newspapers in the 2016 election was they relied far too much on social media and ended up in a bubble? I don't see anything in the article that makes me feel like they are interested in fixing that problem.

Nate Silver has done some good work on what exactly went wrong, and it was a combination of factors: - (some) polls were systematically off, mostly because they underestimated white non-college turnout and overestimated black turnout. Note that poll errors were actually lower than for any other election–only this time they actually got the winner wrong. - Most of the poll aggregators operated under the assumption of…

2X% actually (I remember watching it in real time), but the point stands as it was way higher than anyone else thought.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#26

Post by panzer_wyrm »

pg314 wrote: post #22
PhantomGremlin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ended up in a bubble? Yes they did. They know it. And they don't really give a fuck. After the election they did some public navel gazing about what went wrong. To prove they were serious, there was even an editorial about The Future of the Times . So I wrote to Ms Spayd. I challenged her, at the next meeting of journalists and editors, to say something like: "show of hands, who voted for Donald Trump for president".…

> So how can the Times ever begin to understand the 46% of the country who are the deplorables who voted for Trump? You don't need to be a member of a certain group to be able to report on them. E.g. you don't need to be terminally ill to report on people that are terminally ill, or member of the KKK to report on them.

In the last election people reporting on the KKK outnumbered the clan 10 to 1.

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#27

Post by specialist »

humanrebar wrote: post #20
cwyers wrote: post #6

On one hand, having an ombudsman (whatever you want to call it) is a good thing for an institution like the Times. On the other hand... having Liz Spayd in that role is pointless, so this isn't a loss. The past year has shown us how the New York Times has let false equivalence and the need to sell newspapers to both sides of the aisle has severely damaged the quality of the paper's coverage, and Spayd has continually…

I'd feel more able to agree with you if the NYT didn't carry water for some whoppers ("you can keep you doctor", "insurers will compete for your business", etc.) back when the ACA was passed in the first place.

Insurer's response to ACA reminds me of a Frank & Ernest comic, which I can't find right now, sorry:

Two USPS workers. Package label says "Do not bend, fold, mutilate." One says to the other "Doesn't say anything about crumple!"

Har har har.

---

I had high hopes for ACA. I believed the 15% medical loss ratio was the poison pill that would eventually drive insurers out of business, and therefore lead to Medicare for All. For comparison, Medicare's is under 5%, meaning 95 cents for every dollar spent goes to patient care, vs coke and prostitutes for the execs.

Silly me. There's no set of rules that can't be broken, gamed.

So now I'm for dozing it all down and rebuilding with universal coverage, single payer, using the capitation model (reward wellness vs fee for service). No more incrementalism. Just do it.

---

Aside: Mid 2000s, my team created, implemented, supported 5 regional health information exchanges (eg BHIX). It was clear then, to everyone in healthcare IT, that we were pushing cooked noodles across hot pavement. Since then, it's only gotten worse. Overhead continues to grow geometrically, due to things like ICD-10 and meaningful care, without nudging the patient care (outcomes) needle one bit.

I can't explain it.

I just read about cost disease. It seems to explain rising costs, but I don't understand the mechanism, or what to do about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease

And this book blew my mind:

"The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy"

by David Graeber

http://amzn.to/2mi169U

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#28

Post by koolba »

specialist wrote: post #27
humanrebar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd feel more able to agree with you if the NYT didn't carry water for some whoppers ("you can keep you doctor", "insurers will compete for your business", etc.) back when the ACA was passed in the first place.

Insurer's response to ACA reminds me of a Frank & Ernest comic, which I can't find right now, sorry: Two USPS workers. Package label says "Do not bend, fold, mutilate." One says to the other "Doesn't say anything about crumple!" Har har har. --- I had high hopes for ACA. I believed the 15% medical loss ratio was the poison pill that would eventually drive insurers out of business, and therefore lead to Medicare for A…

Putting any kind of cap on efficiency of a middle man is asinine. The only outcome is the realization that the only way to make more profits is increase the top line number (i.e. Premiums).

Re: The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

#29

Post by specialist »

koolba wrote: post #28
specialist wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurer's response to ACA reminds me of a Frank & Ernest comic, which I can't find right now, sorry: Two USPS workers. Package label says "Do not bend, fold, mutilate." One says to the other "Doesn't say anything about crumple!" Har har har. --- I had high hopes for ACA. I believed the 15% medical loss ratio was the poison pill that would eventually drive insurers out of business, and therefore lead to Medicare for A…

Putting any kind of cap on efficiency of a middle man is asinine. The only outcome is the realization that the only way to make more profits is increase the top line number (i.e. Premiums).

Our government has capped APRs for credit cards. Then, banks added fees, reduced services. Then govt capped fees.

Whackamole.

Is this a legit analogy? If so, is either side wrong? How would you handle it, if you were King?

My only notion for healthcare is to change the incentives. Reward wellness vs treat disease.

Post reply on HN