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

NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#51

Post by nailer »

moorhosj wrote: post #49
nailer wrote: post #14

The NYT also deliberately blurs the lines between any kind of non-leftist thinking (traditional conservative views, non-left liberal thinking, criticism of Islam or illegal immigration) and 'alt right' - a term created by Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who wants to create a white ethnostate which (at least according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right ) describes far right hate groups. I know p…

What’s the basis for this claim? Where do Ross Douthat and David Brooks fit in your model?

This article: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1137539862293372928

Read the follow up tweets for some more context.

I'm a liberal, and happen to watch Ben Shapiro (an Othodox Jewish lawyer who records a conservative podcast) and follow Lauren Southern (the filmmaker who looks at people smuggling and illegal immigration, who directed the film 'Borderless') - both are mentioned in the 'online radicalisation' piece above.

Other fairly boring, obviously non-alt-right sources mentioned in the piece are Milton Friedman (who won a Nobel Prize for Economics) and Jordan Peterson.

Those are all very obviously non-alt-right, but included in what would seem to be a rather shady attempt to smear non-leftist sources.

I haven't heard of the people you mention.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#52

Post by messick »

nailer wrote: post #51
moorhosj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the basis for this claim? Where do Ross Douthat and David Brooks fit in your model?

This article: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1137539862293372928 Read the follow up tweets for some more context. I'm a liberal, and happen to watch Ben Shapiro (an Othodox Jewish lawyer who records a conservative podcast) and follow Lauren Southern (the filmmaker who looks at people smuggling and illegal immigration, who directed the film 'Borderless') - both are mentioned in the 'online radicalisation' piece ab…

>I'm a liberal, and happen to watch Ben Shapiro (an Othodox Jewish man who does a conservative podcast)

Yeah, this is what we call an "oxymoron".

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#53

Post by nailer »

messick wrote: post #52
nailer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1137539862293372928 Read the follow up tweets for some more context. I'm a liberal, and happen to watch Ben Shapiro (an Othodox Jewish lawyer who records a conservative podcast) and follow Lauren Southern (the filmmaker who looks at people smuggling and illegal immigration, who directed the film 'Borderless') - both are mentioned in the 'online radicalisation' piece ab…

>I'm a liberal , and happen to watch Ben Shapiro (an Othodox Jewish man who does a conservative podcast) Yeah, this is what we call an "oxymoron".

I shouldn't take the bait, but in case you're being serious: part of being liberal means that I disagree with left-leaning violence and terrorism as much as I do right-leaning violence and terrorism.

Having a lawyer give commentary on particularly legal news (the Mueller Report, state vs federal law, the role of the legislative and executive branches, etc) is a refreshing change from journalists and politicians who don't have legal knowledge. I disagree with Shapiro on many things including abortion law, and do not believe in the supernatural, but it's also good having my beliefs be challenged. I recommend you try it yourself sometime. You might learn something.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#54

Post by pm90 »

verteu wrote: post #38
ergothus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The New York Times is no longer the steady unbias pillar it once was Okay, I'm open to hearing this - I've certainly noticed a decrease in quality (vs quantity - NYT still leads there) vs, say, the Washington Post. > They hire fresh out SJW types I'm not even sure what this means. I'm used to seeing "SJW" as an attack label that is absent actual meaning, similar to "snowflake" or "libtard", stemming from groups sta…

As the acronym implies, a "social justice warrior" is someone who fights for social justice. Hiring journalists with a strong homogenous political agenda is a poor way to produce neutral, fact-based reporting.

> Hiring journalists with a strong homogenous political agenda is a poor way to produce neutral, fact-based reporting.

Have you considered the possibility that these SJW's are actually representative of today's youth? If they are, shouldn't NYT be hiring even more of them?

I really don't care about what the backgrounds of Journalists are, as long as they adhere to the principles of journalism (honesty, a desire to question authority and find the truth at all costs etc.).

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#55

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #47

> After quoting the head of the News Media Alliance, David Chavern, as saying newspapers deserve a cut of that $4.7 billion, > One of the most glaring omissions from the report, mentioned by a number of media-industry observers, is the ad revenue newspapers generate from the pageviews they get via Google News and Google search. The search company says publishers get more than 10 billion clicks every month (the value…

Was there ever?

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#56

Post by ralph84 »

Any time I see an article in a "mainstream" news outlet on a topic I'm familiar with, the inaccuracies make me cringe. The more familiar I am with the topic, the more inaccuracies I spot. The charitable interpretation is that news outlets have been so decimated by changes in their business model that they can't afford good editors. There are plenty of less charitable interpretations.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#57

Post by isbadawi »

fareesh wrote: post #34

The NYT recently hired someone to their editorial board who appears to be a brazen and open racist. I don't mean some kind of innuendo racist, but someone with multiple tweets like this: "Are genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" The NYT excused this this as her way of "imitating the rhetoric" of those who were harassing her onlin…

https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1025484876278112261

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#58

Post by solveit »

scotchio wrote: post #27
darawk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but they published something that confirmed their priors, and didn't due their due diligence on it because it confirmed their priors and was the kind of story they wanted to write. They have to be held to account for that.

Agree. Just don't see it as malicious

Malice is completely unnecessary for the world to go to shit. Very few people are actually malicious in any meaningful sense of the term. Most bad things happen when generally good people cut corners.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#59

Post by rayiner »

> Several observers noted the story was timed in such a way as to provide maximum publicity for a bill that the New Media Alliance has been promoting to Congress, called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. The proposed legislation would exempt newspaper companies from competition laws, which prevent industry-leading entities from collaborating to set prices. The NMA argues this would allow publishers to lobby Google and other platforms for better financial compensation together instead of individually.

On one hand, you can’t make this stuff up. A “competition” bill that exempts companies from competition laws. On the other hand, this is the problem with the “content middleman” business. By leveraging its near monopoly over eyeballs, Google can negotiate to receive an outsized share of the revenues from people viewing say NYT content, relative to the value Google adds to the transition.

That is also why I welcome the rise of competition in movie/TV streaming, even if it means subscribing to multiple services. The value added by any particular streaming service is pretty minimal. (Except for Netflix original content, Netflix is streaming say NBC’s content from Amazon’s servers over Verizon’s wires to an app using video codecs developed by Sony/etc.) Netflix, etc., isn’t adding nothing, there is a value to the curation and licensing deals, but it’s status as a middleman would allow it to wrestle a much larger share of the profit from the transaction than the share of value it adds.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#60

Post by fwip »

nailer wrote: post #51
moorhosj wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the basis for this claim? Where do Ross Douthat and David Brooks fit in your model?

This article: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1137539862293372928 Read the follow up tweets for some more context. I'm a liberal, and happen to watch Ben Shapiro (an Othodox Jewish lawyer who records a conservative podcast) and follow Lauren Southern (the filmmaker who looks at people smuggling and illegal immigration, who directed the film 'Borderless') - both are mentioned in the 'online radicalisation' piece ab…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN