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

81–90 of 146 posts

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

#81

Post by burger_moon »

burlesona wrote: post #10

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.

This idea has some legs but it also needs to fit context. When I come here and see comments on a subject about programming I know there will be people here who are very smart and knowledgable. However I also know to skip any thread about nutrition, fitness, politics, or anything not tech related basically on this site.

If I said well the people who comment on here and the articles submitted here about fitness are mostly shit, why would I read their opinions about programming, then I'd miss out on a lot.

Not all the writers on staff at any publication are going to be bad, but some will be or they will just be given a topic to write about which they are not familiar with, but are experts in a different field perhaps.

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

#82

Post by TomMckenny »

_bxg1 wrote: post #65

"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 _________; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to _________ -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece." I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because I felt this way about many of their pieces.

May I ask, do you have many specific examples?

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

#83

Post by crsmithdev »

> Lewis-Kraus’s critiques are based on incomplete facts and largely anonymous sources whose motivations are impossible to assess. Curiously, he did not ask me about the great majority of his concerns. Had he done so, the evidence underlying his thesis that my work is “indistinguishable from the racialized notions of the swashbuckling imperial era” would have fallen apart.

Well, yes. For those wondering why the author did do the simplest possible due diligence — asking the subject of the article about the thinking used to frame it — it's because it likely would have resulted in a less-interesting, less-trafficked story. Accuracy isn't the objective, reach and audience is. Corrections can be packaged up and slipped in later.

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

#84

Post by Hasknewbie »

Symbiote wrote: post #42
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.

Choose a better paper! The Guardian labels comment articles with a big orange “ in the headline on the homepage, an orange "Opinion" on the article page, a pastel orange background in both places, the author's name under the heading in orange, and "commentisfree" in the URL.

The Guardian is a pretty terrible choice for people who want less opinions mixed in with their news. Their front page with all opinion stuff removed would have a lot of blank space. Not only is your statement about proper labelling false (random recent example: [1]), but on top of that they seem to think that their own opinion entitle them to their own facts. A non-political example: they accused in passing the journalist Matt Taibbi of rape. When confronted with the debunked claim [2] the Guardian contributor's response was, essentially, "it wasn't news, it was opinion" (does that remind you of some cable news channel?). For context TG is not some 4-person blog with no fact-checker, they are a 1400 employees company, and yet somehow these "mistakes" happen.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jan/19/is-standup-c...

[2] https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/12/the-destructi...

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

#85

Post by asabjorn »

At some point I hope the left takes back the NYT from the ideologues. This is the same trite attack on science and bullying of scientists we’ve seen before when it doesn’t comply with their social justice beliefs [1], and this time it’s more dangerous than the creationists that tried to do something similar for their beliefs because as this article shows truth is not a priority in this ideology and they control universities as well as cultural institutions like the NYT.

Another thing that is more worrying is that social justice activists are using the technicality of them not worshipping a God per se to bypass secular protections against enforcing religious beliefs institutionally. [2]

[1] https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studi...

[2] https://youtu.be/FH2WeWgcSMk

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

#86

Post by Consultant32452 »

kauffj wrote: post #60

Perhaps there was a time when the New York Times could be trusted, but that era ended at least several years ago. Off the top of my head: - The New York Times fired Quinn Norton basically for being willing to talk to weev ( https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-n... ) - The New York Times fired Razib Khan for reporting on facts that are basically consensus opinion among geneticists and intelligen…

I thought this admission/apology from NYT after the 2016 election was interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade...

we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.

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

#87

Post by leggomylibro »

whatshisface wrote: post #39
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.

Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series aren't quite 'thrillers', but one of the recurring plotlines is the existence of Neanderthals who were cloned from ancient DNA samples.

And one of the largest moral issues in the books is that they are owned by the company that synthesized them; it's fiction, but you can see why people are extremely concerned about the concept of companies owning both genetic sequences and their end products.

What happens when genetic treatments start to fix birth defects in unborn children? Will we allow the companies which produce those treatments to lay claim to the child's organs which would not have otherwise existed? I sure hope not, but I could definitely see it happening in this day and age. It'd be a whole new kind of vertical integration.

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

#88

Post by crazygringo »

_bxg1 wrote: post #65

"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 _________; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to _________ -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece." I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because I felt this way about many of their pieces.

I mean, this is a lot of journalism in a nutshell, and the NYT tends to be far, far better than most.

If you cancelled your NYT subscription, may I ask what other daily newspaper you find to be as informative but more objective? Or have you given up daily news altogether?

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

#89

Post by _bxg1 »

crazygringo wrote: post #88
_bxg1 wrote: post #65

"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 _________; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to _________ -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece." I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because I felt this way about many of their pieces.

I mean, this is a lot of journalism in a nutshell, and the NYT tends to be far, far better than most. If you cancelled your NYT subscription, may I ask what other daily newspaper you find to be as informative but more objective? Or have you given up daily news altogether?

I read NPR now (only text; I can't speak to the audio segments). It's the most blessedly dispassionate news source I've yet found.

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

#90

Post by hopler »

ummonk wrote: post #25
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…

Yeah, the only traditional outlet that I trust to actually present a diverse set of editorial viewpoints is The Atlantic. The others, like NYT, WaPo, etc. all seem to mostly provide a very narrow set of party-line editorials.

How is Atlantic not a narrowly left wing mag (which is fine if that's your taste)?
Post reply on HN