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

91–100 of 130 posts

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#91

Post by kortilla »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #82
bluecalm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't think there are many people left who give them any credibility on political stories outside of those looking for an echo chamber. They are Fox News for people who identify as "progressive intellectuals".

That’s MSNBC, not NYT. In fact, their coverage goes out of their way to support centrist positions. (Unless you’re discussing their opinion columns, which include everyone from Gorbachev to Sean Spicer to Chelsea Manning.)

>their coverage goes out of their way to support

“Out of their way” as in it’s difficult for them to support anything other than leftist views? Do you not see the problem there?

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#92

Post by shearskill »

noetic_techy wrote: post #76
roywiggins wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically about the NYT as opposed to any other newspaper? Opinion and editorial are explicitly not part of the newsroom and are published in a different section under a different heading. You may have some problems with the people they hire as opinion commentators but hiring opinionated commentators is absolutely part of the job of a good newspaper. Lefty types regularly make fun of NYT's conservative and ce…

>>Lefty types regularly make fun of NYT conservative and centrist commentators Do you have some examples of this?

From more left to moderate: CurrentAffairs.org, any criticism of David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Bari Weiss, David Brooks, Maggie Haberman.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#93

Post by kortilla »

pm90 wrote: post #54
verteu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 qu…

Have you considered that if you are fighting for anything other than truth, you have a serious conflict of interest as a journalist?

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#94

Post by haditab »

mr_t wrote: post #89
sametmax wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except netflix will probably die and you'll get the choice between 2 bullies : amazon and disney. Also I have a hard time feeling sorry for the traditional press. They spend decades killing their own reputation and now paying the price. They could have had web sites so reputable, so popular, that they would have been the news hub. Instead they turned internet into the bad guy, kept publishing political agendas and se…

Naive question: What makes you think that Netflix will probably die?

Not OP, but many think that Disney's launching it's streaming service will kill Netflix since it will pull all of it's content from Netflix and other streaming sites.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#95

Post by wyxuan »

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…

One blemish is not enough to cast away the entire credibility of the source. NYT has published a lot of original reporting that has proven to be true, but of course that doesn't matter on this conversation at all, doesn't it.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#96

Post by luckylion »

maceurt wrote: post #86
p1necone wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or police talking about seizing X million dollars worth of drugs where they're getting their valuation from street value but seizing the drugs in wholesale quantities from the manufacturer - and ignoring the fact that a large portion of the labor/risk that contributes to that price hasn't actually happened yet.

Well, they usually say that it is its "street value", and is pretty accurate of how much money is being taken away from the drug economy.

Will it be taken away though? Wouldn't the prices just adjust to the supply that is now significantly smaller?

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#97

Post by nailer »

dang wrote: post #70
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…

Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar. It's boring, nasty, and just what we don't need here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I understand the ideological flame war rule, as I've been here since it's introduction, but we're discussing the Times being misleading, and I'm not attacking or promoting any particular ideology in this post.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#98

Post by v7p1Qbt1im »

haditab wrote: post #94
mr_t wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naive question: What makes you think that Netflix will probably die?

Not OP, but many think that Disney's launching it's streaming service will kill Netflix since it will pull all of it's content from Netflix and other streaming sites.

Hyperbole much? Granted I‘m not most people but what keeps me subscribed and using a streaming service is steady new content. Nobody does that better than Netflix. At least for now. Have you seen Prime Video? It‘s basically barren. I can count on one hand the originals they put out this year. Hanna, Good Omens and Homecoming (I think).

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#99

Post by raxxorrax »

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.

Originally the "warrior" part was the sarcastic reference that criticized the vehemence and tactics of some proponents fighting for more equality and fairness. Policies like quotas were criticized as prescribed justice for example. I do think many of these objections were quite apt.

That solidarity cannot be enforced was a lecture learned from the failures of communism. It was used as an oxymoron in a similar way. Social justice warriors did not convince anyone, they started crusades against dissidents.

But it went downhill form there as people started accusing everyone in favor of equality as social justice warrior. As a result others started to self-identify as such. It has been a train of reactionary conduct since then.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#100

Post by d33 »

wyxuan wrote: post #95
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…

One blemish is not enough to cast away the entire credibility of the source. NYT has published a lot of original reporting that has proven to be true, but of course that doesn't matter on this conversation at all, doesn't it.

It's not just about that, it's more about signal to noise ratio and the impact of their stories. When one deliberately adds a spin to specific categories of news, it's easy to prove them manipulative and thus, not trustworthy. The fact that they currently report correctly on the things outside of their agenda is not that relevant since it's just a matter of time before it becomes their agenda as well. Media should strive for objectivity.
Post reply on HN