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

The American Press Is Destroying Itself

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 618 posts

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#211

Post by wherewillitlead »

danaris wrote: post #30
phaus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centrists would be somewhat rare it it hadn't become a slur for both extremes to label anyone that's not an extremist. Moderates are far more common than centrists. But these day's you're either completely toxic and insane or you get ridiculed as a centrist for not caring enough.

[flagged]

How do you situate Max in Oakland on this spectrum? Taibbi writes about him at length in the article - and his original comments were https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1268390704645943297.

I'm not asking a rhetorical question, genuinely interested in how you see this. It doesn't seem like to me like he falls in any of the categories you listed. Same with Lee Fang, the interviewer who got attacked for publishing Max's remarks.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#212

Post by fzeroracer »

tptacek wrote: post #207

It's a little rich seeing Matt Taibbi, of all people, raising the alarm about "moral manias".

Considering Taibbi's journalistic history and remarks in the past, it is incredibly hypocritical to say the least. He's directly contributed to the reason why American Press is the way it is today so I can't tell if he honestly thinks he's somehow above it all or not.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#213

Post by spicyramen »

What i found today in Academia, News and even Tech companies that question the left has resulted in banning but never in a civil discussion. Movements like Antifa, BLM won't sit and have a talk because in principle they believe that speech and civil discussion hasnt led to any advancements in their political requests. While some of them apply to past times, today is important to have discussion and freedom of speech A good case is Cadence Owens, she is person that represents the right and when invited to Joe Rogan it was a joke that all her claims were not backed up with science, other example was Milo too. They were put in front of a very smart person and lose credibility on the spot. Is important to keep freedom of speech in all areas and with both left and right

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#214

Post by iron0013 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #97
hcayless wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m interested that this is getting downvoted. It seems perfectly fair comment to me. Newspapers can not afford to massively alienate their readership, and both of these cases clearly did just that. That calls into question the editors’ fitness for their jobs.

It just doesn't really address the substance of the issue. It may well be true that the NYT has no financial choice but pander to the readers who consider non-controversial majority views to be fascist. That doesn't change the problematic effects of such viewpoint narrowing.

Tom Cotton’s views were in no way non-controversial or of the majority.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#215

Post by hoorayimhelping »

havelhovel wrote: post #177
Shivetya wrote: post #91

What I find most reprehensible about this whole situation is that more and more members of the left regulate political discourse, no make that any discourse, by defining any opposing view as illegitimate, bigoted, and now violence. As in, they are taking the position that their moral superiority is without question and anyone who does not ascribe to this has no rights and we are nearing the point of the same having n…

I’m not following this logic. People are expressing themselves and others are responding as they see fit: agreement, condemnation, silence, etc. It sounds like a marketplace of ideas in a free society. No one is having their basic human rights taken away from them because someone else called them a bigot. If you’re uncomfortable with someone’s ideas making them a pariah, you’re describing a basic social dilemma that…

>People are expressing themselves and others are responding as they see fit: agreement, condemnation, silence, etc. It sounds like a marketplace of ideas in a free society.

So to you, a marketplace of ideas is one side dictates what is allowed to be said, and anyone who deviates from this deserves to be a pariah? What about that is free or a marketplace of ideas?

>No one is having their basic human rights taken away from them because someone else called them a bigot.

You are literally calling for the removal of basic human rights when you say that silencing people is a reasonable response to them saying something you don't like. Do you even realize what you're suggesting?

>I’m not following this logic.

Not surprising. The operative word is free. People are allowed to hold opinions they want, not ones you or your group approve of. You are completely within your rights to dislike any thoughts and speech you see fit. But that is where your free speech rights end - you're not allowed to use those rights to limit the rights of others. That is cowardly anti-intellectualism and it's a hallmark of internet 'liberalism'.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#216

Post by watwut »

giardini wrote: post #175
scott_s wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not possible for the news to be objective. Even the decision of what is news is a subjective process. If the news appears objective, that only means you share the perspective of the people reporting on and editing it.

I understand your point: any writer has a point of view and it may ooze out in his choice of words. But a reporter should resist the desire to editorialize and instead emphasize the 5W's: who, what, where, when, why (and how): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws If reporters did so, much contention would disssipate and we'd get more information (news) and less opinion - IMO a good thing.

We would still get bias. Pretending it does not exist is worst then actually visibly admitting it.

In particular, who, what, why is extremely sensitive to unadopted bias.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#217

Post by refurb »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #152
wmeredith wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. And they definitely do not. The Democrats are not “left”. They’d barely pass for center across the pond. They are just another flavor of The Party of oligarchy and cronyism in control of this country. There are some significant differences in the platforms, but it’s mostly around wedge issues by design.

> The Democrats are not “left”. They’d barely pass for center across the pond. Centre-right to right: https://politicalcompass.org/uselection2020

Everything looks "center-right to right" when you're on the extreme left.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#218

Post by fzeroracer »

phaus wrote: post #190
danaris wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is exactly what I was talking about. You make a bunch of assumptions about peoples' political opinions that are incorrectly portraying them as centrists and supporters of nazis if they don't adopt your world view. "Us or them" is killing America. Lack of nuance and intelligent discourse is destroying us. There's more to the extreme left than "Everyone deserves to be treated equally and with dignity." Politics in…

I mean, Donald Trump literally reversed transgender health protections this week. If you're voting for a Republican, you're voting for the party of Donald Trump and efforts like that which take away the rights of certain classes of citizens.

You can't vote for a party and try to avoid taking the whole package deal. You get what you voted for.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#220

Post by mellosouls »

hcayless wrote: post #90
CydeWeys wrote: post #63

I agree with some of this, but I just personally can't bring myself to care about the firings of the editors responsible for "Send in the troops" and "Buildings matter, too". A lot of my friends unsubscribed from the NY Times for publishing Tom Cotton's pro-fascism op-ed. The NY Times had to respond to this. They are a business and their income matters. It's not so much an issue of freedom of thought in the newsroom,…

I’m interested that this is getting downvoted. It seems perfectly fair comment to me. Newspapers can not afford to massively alienate their readership, and both of these cases clearly did just that. That calls into question the editors’ fitness for their jobs.

I haven't downvoted anybody, but reading the comment possibly because of the typical "I disagree therefore he's a fascist, and I'm withdrawing my support from the publication because counter narratives should be banned".

Very typical of the attitude that the article in the OP is describing.

Post reply on HN