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

New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 360 posts

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#231

Post by Latty »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #190
Latty wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example. Yes, these people posted things that were bad ideas. They also apologised, made it clear they were not serious about what was said, and moved past it. To claim it makes their entire coverage of racism incoherent is... misleading at best. Imitating the masses of people trolling you as a joke may be a bad…

> Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook No, it was the cultural mainstream that made it acceptable to fire people over communication mistakes. See the "Just kidding, I'm white" tweet[1], Tim Hunt getting fired by Twitter before even getting off his plane[2], or in tech: Donglegate, where people on both sides were fired. NYT should totally hire Sarah Jeong, but as a leftie, I have t…

It isn't a double standard, because the standard is consistent:

- People are responsible for what they say and can and should be fired if they support abhorrent policy or abuse people.

- People should always be able to reform and come back into society if they apologise, state they don't support their previous actions, and act differently.

These things are not contradictory.

Right now, there is an intentional effort by the alt-right to dig up these kinds of things from people who fit the latter category and raise them and promote them to try and minimise the voices of people who are now promoting things they dislike. It has nothing to do with the original issue, just the means to an end.

I'm not saying that the problem doesn't exist elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it's right that these people are targeted.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#232

Post by [deleted] »

rtpg wrote: post #109
naturalgradient wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Washington Post. The NYT is unapologetically taking a side in the culture war and on many issues (campus politics, feminism, title IX, migration..) will ever only let one side make their point. The Wapo in my observation has a much better mix of both sides.

This is not a proper representation of NYT's opinion board. Beyond the absolutely dishonest stuff of more recent hires to the op-ed board, they have multiple conservatives on the board repeatedly publishing their "actually the problem is the leftist college students" every couple of months. They also have a couple "mainstream liberals" publishing inoffensive (but rarely courageous) pieces that usually match what cent…

[deleted]

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#233

Post by [deleted] »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #215
untog wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeong's tweets were very, very obviously jokes. To suggest it's evidence of "hating white people" is just parroting manufactured outrage. In any case. WSJ isn't more objective that NYT. It's just further to the right, which is why it appears objective to someone on the right.

>Jeong's tweets were very, very obviously jokes. No, they were not. Maybe replacing 'white' with other races will help you to gain some perspective: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjnUykIUUAAifwH.jpg:large

[deleted]

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#234

Post by maxerickson »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #215
untog wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeong's tweets were very, very obviously jokes. To suggest it's evidence of "hating white people" is just parroting manufactured outrage. In any case. WSJ isn't more objective that NYT. It's just further to the right, which is why it appears objective to someone on the right.

>Jeong's tweets were very, very obviously jokes. No, they were not. Maybe replacing 'white' with other races will help you to gain some perspective: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjnUykIUUAAifwH.jpg:large

Have you written somewhere about why you believe that context is not a relevant aspect of communication?

(That is, putting the tweets into a different context doesn't demonstrate anything about what was meant when they were twote.)

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#235

Post by [deleted] »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #214
untog wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Jeong controversy blow my mind. Do you really think that she was being serious when she said "white people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins"? No part of you thinks she was joking? Not even as you read the words "groveling goblins"? In reality, she was making a (bad) joke criticising another media figure's perspective that everything is open to debate: https://www.twitter.com/awprokop/status…

The only joke here is the fact that you were gullible enough to fall for her "I wasn't serious" excuse. https://archive.fo/7m0Tz Hundreds of racist tweets over a period of years. That's just good old fashioned racism, nothing humorous about it.

[deleted]

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#236

Post by zarkov99 »

Latty wrote: post #228
zarkov99 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, even if what you said wasn't absurd,i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter, the NYT fired people for much, much less than the disgusting vitriol the woman posted for years.

> i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter That is not what I said. I said she admitted what she said was wrong, publicly renounced the tweets, and stopped doing it. That is literally the opposite of what you are claiming I said. Yes, it also matters that her intent at the time was not a belief that white people are inferior but to mimic the style of people abusing her to point out the absurdity. Was i…

They don't change the facts, I agree, but they reveal the hypocrisy and incoherence of their stance with respect to racism.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#237

Post by leereeves »

nieksand wrote: post #145
rtpg wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a proper representation of NYT's opinion board. Beyond the absolutely dishonest stuff of more recent hires to the op-ed board, they have multiple conservatives on the board repeatedly publishing their "actually the problem is the leftist college students" every couple of months. They also have a couple "mainstream liberals" publishing inoffensive (but rarely courageous) pieces that usually match what cent…

Looks like: ban = 20% limited = 50% anything goes = 30% https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx So 70-30 for at least some form of restrictions on abortion.

Also notable from that poll, 48% of respondents consider themselves pro-choice, 48% pro-life.

If rtpg means banning abortion even when it would save the life of the mother or in cases of rape, it's true that few people support a ban that extreme.

But if rtpg means banning abortion except when it would save the life of the mother or in cases of rape, both sides do have roughly equal support.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#238

Post by jkalo »

eksemplar wrote: post #87
Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

It’s worry some that people have shifted their focus to unedited and often fairly anonymous sources for news. HN is honestly a good example as well. I’ve written numerous upvoted posts sharing information about the Scandinavian public sector and tech-management, but I’m not a vetted source. I mean, you can’t even tell if I’m Scandinavian from HN. My squabbling is relatively harmless of course, but it’s not always lik…

True. I think ppl think the Russians or who ever have to create content farms to spread fud. All bad actors have to do is find lunatics with fringe views and keep upvoting.

Media and social media are trained like lab rats to pick up anything that is getting views and amplify it. The underlying architecture has to change. The feedback mechanisms that drive this must be slowed down or removed.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#239

Post by Latty »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #198
Latty wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example. Yes, these people posted things that were bad ideas. They also apologised, made it clear they were not serious about what was said, and moved past it. To claim it makes their entire coverage of racism incoherent is... misleading at best. Imitating the masses of people trolling you as a joke may be a bad…

> Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example. They merely adopted left's usual tactics. Personally, I don't support firing people over their private views, but in this case it's blatant hypocrisy. For example, a few months ago NYT fired Quinn Norton for almost the same thing[1]. Almost , because her old racist tweets weren't targeting white peopl…

Your link is broken, but she absolutely has apologised: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1025050118989332480

Yes, she was a victim, she also admitted she was wrong, and said she would not do it again, and she has not.

> They merely adopted left's usual tactics. > Personally, I don't support firing people over their private views, but in this case it's blatant hypocrisy. For example, a few months ago NYT fired Quinn Norton for almost the same thing[1]. Almost, because her old racist tweets weren't targeting white people.

If it was the same, then maybe it was wrong with her too. I can't find an apology, however, so it seems different to me.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#240

Post by orf »

tjoff wrote: post #229
orf wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC isn't directly funded by taxes in the usual sense (and therefore the government, which is a tricky situation to be in). It's funded by the collection of a license required when you have a TV, and it's collected by the BBC itself (in reality outsourced).

Though in the end there is absolutely no difference. In Sweden we are abandoning that concept because it is an unfair system and lots of people have switched to the internet for the same content (and don't even have a TV).

It's just semantics, sure, but it does mean the UK's largest broadcaster is not state-owned and has independence. That's important.
Post reply on HN