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

121–130 of 146 posts

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

#121

Post by pessimizer »

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…

It's so disturbing that "integrity in journalism" and "not political" (as an adjective) has become synonymous with advocating causal relationships between behavior and race/sex.

Assuming that all of those relationships are absolutely true, and would hold in a world of equal opportunity that didn't reward conforming to certain stereotypes, or punish deviating from them; even in that world, you'd assume that there'd be far more important issues at all times than these tiny postulated differences.

NYT is awful, but just in the way all corporate media outlets are awful; they cater to the powerful, and protect an encourage industries in which they are also invested.

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

#122

Post by kelnos »

rayiner wrote: post #92
crazygringo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don’t read daily news or long form articles at all. At the end of the day, I don’t need to have an opinion on most things. I’d rather be ignorant than cultivate opinions based on journalists who are peddling narrative over facts. Every now and then I’ll deep dive into an area for whatever reason. E.g. when Trump did his tax proposal, it directly affected us because of the reduction of the marriage penalty. So I loo…

Whether or not the corporate tax cuts put us more in line with other developed Western nations is immaterial. It was not balanced with other new revenue sources or cuts to federal programs. The GOP also pushed it as a big deal for the poor and middle class, which is only (somewhat) true for the short term. That is what news outlets were pissed about.

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

#123

Post by _bxg1 »

sgustard wrote: post #95
_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.

The press as "enemy of the people" is one of the primary memes in the US right now. Are you comfortable with the side you're taking on that?

I never said the press was an "enemy of the people". They do have some incentive to sensationalize, though, and I'm letting them know as a customer about my distaste with it. I think mainstream news outlets generally have the integrity not to report falsehoods, but that doesn't mean they don't put emotional fuel on the fire of partisan hostility. We as consumers have to let them know we don't want that.

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

#124

Post by Xcelerate »

_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.

Same reason I cancelled mine as well. Also, their reporting on one topic I know a lot about was very inaccurate, so it made me question a lot of their journalism in general.

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

#126

Post by barry-cotter »

detaro wrote: post #23
barry-cotter wrote: post #2

This is in response to the hit piece. Upvote the parent. Spread the truth. > To the Editor: > Gideon Lewis-Kraus (Jan. 17) profiles the nascent field of ancient DNA, which in the last few years has contributed to a transformation in our understanding of the deep human past. His article touches on important issues that we, as a field, have yet to deal with fully: including how to handle ancient remains ethically and i…

What's the point of copy-pasting the content of the submission here?

You know how most people don’t read on the internet? Most people don’t click on links either, on Reddit or Hacker News. When I posted the article text the story was 50 minutes old and about to drop off the front page. I wanted to make it more obvious who aren’t into this specific field what’s going on. Half an hour later when I checked again the article had 50 points and was near the top of the page. Posting the article text got Reich’s response to the hit piece much more visibility than it otherwise would have. That’s a good thing.

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

#127

Post by krastanov »

mediaobserver45 wrote: post #113
_bxg1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah no! If you want good, thoughtful news I suggest the Atlantic or the New Yorker (society, culture, politics), Talking Points Memo (politics only), or Propublica (no breaking news, just investigative). All of those four are controlled by journalists and have a more slow-news, news analysis focus. Add a local newspaper, just not one that is owned by a hedge fund or rightwing billionaire. If you want to listen to audi…

I appreciate your insight and I even agree on most of it, but the imperative (even bossy) tone of your comment feels offputting to me.

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

#128

Post by kirion25 »

rossdavidh wrote: post #40

As someone who has (once) written an opinion piece for the NYT, I wonder how much the published piece resembled the author's original text. My experience: https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/nyt_opini...

Very interesting. Did you get feedback from NYT on this page?

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

#129

Post by ALittleLight »

scabarott wrote: post #117
ALittleLight wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to trust the reporting of an organization that misrepresents or gets wrong an event that is entirely recorded on video from many angles. I agree that the New York Times publishes some great articles, but I'm deeply concerned about the bad articles they publish. If their editorial standards permit them to rush to judgment as they did in the Catholic school incident how can I trust their editorial standa…

I don't think their original piece actually made a judgment, it just reported what everyone else initially thought was the case (correct me if I'm wrong ). Still I agree it's disappointing that they a news organization takes what you see on the internet at face value, like the rest of us

I disagree. The original article described the children as surrounding or mobbing the elder, quoted people who described the scene as "horrific", quoted numerous people condemning the event, and connected it to racism. They didn't offer a conflicting perspective at all, creating the illusion there was universal condemnation of the apparently horrific action of the boys.

I think this particular instance is minor, though unfortunate for the unfairly maligned children. What really worries me is just the judgment of the paper. They should've known they didn't have the whole story and that the whole story would be available on video. Why not wait until you knew the relevant information? I can understand people making mistakes, this scenario just seems so simple and obvious though and I can't believe they botched it. It makes me worried - how can I trust them to handle complicated issues?

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

#130

Post by zaroth »

mediaobserver45 wrote: post #116
jimmy1 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For numerous others in recent times see the coverage of the Covington Catholic situation: misreporting and sensationalism at it's finest. I wonder sometimes if some of these traditional media behemoths even bother to follow basic journalistic practices like 1. cross referencing your sources 2. seeking the other side of the story / opposing viewpoints 3. asking those involved for comment because it seems glaringly obv…

So here's a great example of where Talking Points Memo gets to the truth and why we all should read it. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-the-phi... Over the last couple days I’ve been watching the unfolding reaction and re-reactions to the video of the confrontation between Native American activist and elder Nathan Phillips and a crowd of high school students from Covington, Kentucky on the steps…

This story perfectly illustrates the deep-seated bias which is fatally imbuing this “analysis”.

The initial account was nothing less than a setup. The derisive referral to boys in “MAGA hats”, the utter speculation about what a boy was feeling to fit a narrative in direct conflict with the boys own statement, the over-generalizing “they were all doing tomahawk chops”, and on and on. This is a tortured attempt at ass-covering.

Most glaringly, failing to directly call out the utter lies told by Phillips (a professional protestor and agitator) to the press, which entirely discredits him, the adult in this situation, who was in fact an instigator.

The NYT followup piece [1] on this incident was actually significantly more fair. But it still doesn’t excuse getting it wrong the first time.

What’s beautiful is anyone can watch the full uncut zoomed out videos and see for themselves. This second-hand “analysis” is toxic to the truth, which is just a click on YouTube away.

Compare and contrast the TalkingPointsMemo piece with this one [2] — which I don’t know anything about that site, but the author seems to be a lot more clear headed about what seems to have happened. What I read there was someone describing what they learned from watching the full 1 hour 40 minute video showing what really happened. [3]

In short it’s been an absolute banner week for “Fake News” and you would certainly hope this would provoke some soul searching from the so-called journalists responsible for this.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-coving...

[2] - https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan...

[3] - https://youtu.be/3-pFMZaw5f0

Post reply on HN