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

Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

reich.hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 146 posts

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#31

Post by barbecue_sauce »

dylan604 wrote: post #24
taude wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>and it requires reading news from several sources with an open mind to get the complete story. I don’t consider this a negative. I have always had a bit of that “rebellious” streak in me, so I’ve been told. I have always questioned everything. I would ask “Why?” like 2 year old. I wasn’t asking to second guess coworkers, but because I wanted to learn to fish rather than being handed a fish. The question everything m…

Most people do not have time to do this.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#32

Post by porpoisely »

ronnier wrote: post #7
seibelj wrote: post #4

The 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…

Funny. I just read another “suits back in style” story yesterday. https://www.france24.com/en/20190119-dowdy-no-more-men-suits...

Great catch and that's hilarious. I saw the same story from multiple sources/platforms yesterday. I thought the paul graham article was about yesterday's news and then I read the date "April 2005". 14 years ago.

Anyone who pays attention to news for any amount of time sees redundant news and agenda. But PR stooges?

If PR firms are so entwined with traditional news and media, I wonder how entrench PR firms are in the social media space.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#33

Post by Symmetry »

sjroot wrote: post #13

The 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.

I didn't find that part of the story particularly problematic. If there were people in a field capable of ending the careers of people who criticize them then you're going to need anonymous sources.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#34

Post by [deleted] »

13415 wrote: post #27
pcstl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would be perfectly fine, except that digital newspapers have a pesky habit of putting "Opinion" or "Editorial" in very tiny font on the piece's header, with no other indication that the piece being read is, in fact, an opinion/editorial piece.

You can increase the font size in your browser if you're unable to read the indications for editorials and opinions. But it's also kind of odd that you consider there to be a problem in the first place, because it's also trivial to distinguish news articles from opinions and editorials just from their writing stile.

[deleted]

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#35

Post by ant_li0n »

barbecue_sauce wrote: post #31
dylan604 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and it requires reading news from several sources with an open mind to get the complete story. I don’t consider this a negative. I have always had a bit of that “rebellious” streak in me, so I’ve been told. I have always questioned everything. I would ask “Why?” like 2 year old. I wasn’t asking to second guess coworkers, but because I wanted to learn to fish rather than being handed a fish. The question everything m…

Most people do not have time to do this.

This is true, but unfortunately the new reality. Imagine when "deep fakes" etc become much more mainstream. You can't rely on one single source of information. You're going to have to get used to checking the sources, and cross-checking with other reputable sources.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#36

Post by thwarted »

porpoisely wrote: post #32
ronnier wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny. I just read another “suits back in style” story yesterday. https://www.france24.com/en/20190119-dowdy-no-more-men-suits...

Great catch and that's hilarious. I saw the same story from multiple sources/platforms yesterday. I thought the paul graham article was about yesterday's news and then I read the date "April 2005". 14 years ago. Anyone who pays attention to news for any amount of time sees redundant news and agenda. But PR stooges? If PR firms are so entwined with traditional news and media, I wonder how entrench PR firms are in the…

If PR firms are so entwined with traditional news and media, I wonder how entrench PR firms are in the social media space

Watch the Fyre Festival documentary on Netflix

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#37

Post by snackematician »

I've worked in the ancient DNA field but left (at least for now). I haven't worked with David but have with competing labs. I have mixed feelings about the NYT piece -- on the one hand it has a lot of valid criticisms and brings sorely needed critical eye to this hyped field; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to David -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece.

The industrial ancient DNA publication machine is real. A few giants control the vast majority of ancient DNA samples behind a wall, and these giants decide when and where to release these samples. I was part of a study, that got mashed together with a totally unrelated study at the last minute, for the sake of another hyped headline in Nature/Science, which reviewed and accepted the article very quickly. The whole process felt sloppy & rushed, and I was left with a bitter taste that ultimately led me to move on to other areas.

On the other hand, I have immense scientific respect for David. In population genetics, there are a whole host of methods used to infer demographic history that are very biased and ignore important forces like natural selection. David's group has pioneered statistical methods that are more robust and less biased, that make less sweeping claims but are on much sounder scientific footing, and used these methods to derive important insights on human history.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#39

Post by whatshisface »

snackematician wrote: post #37

I've worked in the ancient DNA field but left (at least for now). I haven't worked with David but have with competing labs. I have mixed feelings about the NYT piece -- on the one hand it has a lot of valid criticisms and brings sorely needed critical eye to this hyped field; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to David -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece. The industrial anc…

>The industrial ancient DNA publication machine is real. A few giants control the vast majority of ancient DNA samples behind a wall, and these giants decide when and where to release these samples.

Who controls the samples? That sounds like a sci-fi thriller plot in the making.

Post reply on HN