I heard it this way once: You open the paper and read an article about your field. “This thing is crap, they got all the details wrong and are drawing ridiculous conclusions!” Then you click to the next article, about something else. “Wow, this is really fascinating. We need to do something about this!” ... I think this idea has a name, though I don’t remember it.
Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
11–20 of 146 posts
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#12I heard it this way once: You open the paper and read an article about your field. “This thing is crap, they got all the details wrong and are drawing ridiculous conclusions!” Then you click to the next article, about something else. “Wow, this is really fascinating. We need to do something about this!” ... I think this idea has a name, though I don’t remember it.
[deleted]
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#13The thing that annoys me about this the most is the use of anonymous sources. If you are writing a scientific article, or generally hope to establish some scientific fact, I do not think it is appropriate to hide behind a veil of anonymity.
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#14The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda. This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news…
It's from the "Magazine", not the news section, nor is it opinion ala "This political party sucks and why". It is the magazine, which is long-form narrative storytelling. I don't think that should exempt them from leaving out or otherwise ignoring facts.
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#15I heard it this way once: You open the paper and read an article about your field. “This thing is crap, they got all the details wrong and are drawing ridiculous conclusions!” Then you click to the next article, about something else. “Wow, this is really fascinating. We need to do something about this!” ... I think this idea has a name, though I don’t remember it.
Ah I’ve thought about this exact thing before! Glad to see a coined term for it.
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#16I heard it this way once: You open the paper and read an article about your field. “This thing is crap, they got all the details wrong and are drawing ridiculous conclusions!” Then you click to the next article, about something else. “Wow, this is really fascinating. We need to do something about this!” ... I think this idea has a name, though I don’t remember it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
Thank you!
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#17The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda. This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news…
Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are supposed to be like that. It's not an error; it's by design, and it's a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed. You, as the reader, are expected to be know enough about how newspapers are organized to tell that you're reading part of the opinion or editorial sections and what that means. In an ideal newspaper practicing journal…
One problem I have with it, though, is that often all the most popular articles in their site, are the opinion pieces.
I'm still a subscriber, but there's a strongly "promoted" bias, IMHO, and it requires reading news from several sources with an open mind to get the complete story.
Also, NYT isn't immune to click-baity titles, where the meat of the story isn't necessary correlate with the title.
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#18The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda. This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news…
Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are supposed to be like that. It's not an error; it's by design, and it's a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed. You, as the reader, are expected to be know enough about how newspapers are organized to tell that you're reading part of the opinion or editorial sections and what that means. In an ideal newspaper practicing journal…
Every individual article will have some bias. But GP is complaining that the entire editorial staff seems to share a bias, indeed a single agenda, meaning that there is a lack of rigorous discussion.
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#19I thought Razib Kahn also had a response worth reading. This is all out of line with my previous impression of the New York Times as a respectable paper. Is the new era of virality driven news taking its toll on them? My impression is that they wouldn't have published this 10 years ago but perhaps I'm being naive? https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/01/19/194105/
The New York Times is just constantly pumping out racially charged articles, every day.
You can hellban me, but it’s true.
Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times
#20The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda. This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news…
Your concept of objectivity is more flawed than their agenda