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

311–320 of 618 posts

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#311

Post by tptacek »

rdtsc wrote: post #253
fzeroracer wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Conversely, we could say that if even Taibbi is worried about moral outrages, things have gotten really bad.

We could, or we could just say that Taibbi has very little credibility when it comes to declaring moral panics. Reasonable people can, I guess, disagree on this.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#312

Post by mmm_grayons »

nimvlaj30 wrote: post #279
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point, the BBC does a lot of good reporting in general, but they're rarely critical of the government. It may not even be possible for them to cover politics in a "neutral" way, because anything but the party line on a political issue is heresy to the partisans. If you gave people the hard truths on partisan issues you'd have both sides trying to shut you down because everything you said would be contradictin…

Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been rightly critical of our government, and has been hit with pay cut after pay cut.

> rightly

Case in point about the difficulty in covering politics in a manner most would consider neutral.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#313

Post by scruple »

born_a_skeptic wrote: post #145
gfodor wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tucker is partisan, and hence corrupted, so regardless of how wrong or right he is on any given issue he isn't someone who could step into the role of a widely-trusted journalist. Taibbi could.

That's a fair point. I will say that he isn't afraid of calling out the BS on the right.

But he always pulls his punches when it comes to the right. His book, "Ship of Fools," is the perfect example. He's insincere.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#315

Post by swsieber »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #263
WalterBright wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're always beholden to the paymaster.

Case in point, the BBC does a lot of good reporting in general, but they're rarely critical of the government. It may not even be possible for them to cover politics in a "neutral" way, because anything but the party line on a political issue is heresy to the partisans. If you gave people the hard truths on partisan issues you'd have both sides trying to shut you down because everything you said would be contradictin…

> be contradicting one side or the other.

Or both. Both American parties are full of contradictions.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#316

Post by csallen »

dillondoyle wrote: post #301
xg15 wrote: post #283

> I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... I mean, Lacy does have a point that this kind of question in the context of the protests is nothing more than distracting. The protests are about systematic discrimination of black people. No one questioned that black people can also be perpetrators - it's just irrelevant to the topic at hand. Would nazis running concentration camps…

Writing about the protests, my mom recently told me 'It is a sad fact that most of the crime is black on black' among other things that are SO frustrating that I gave up on trying to reply back. Like to me that statement is a non sequitur, and says either: that the cause of increased violence is systemic adverse conditions and outright theft of wealth/quality of life over 400 years making communities tough to succeed…

Surprised you're being downvoted.

Let your mom know that the majority of violence against most races comes from other members of the same race, especially in highly segregated societies. For example, 84% of White victims are killed by Whites, and 93% of African American victims killed by African Americans.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#317

Post by rickyplouis »

DenisM wrote: post #310
rickyplouis wrote: post #302

Before reading this I had a feeling it was related to the James Bennet situation at the Times. I've been following the narratives unfolding around news rooms and I would offer this article as a counter narrative to the one being portrayed in this piece. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/new-york-t... If you look at the James Bennet situation specifically, he willingly published a piece that he said co…

> he willingly published a piece that he said could be dangerous. That’s rich. No, he did not say that. He said some readers may find it dangerous. It does not mean he himself finds it dangerous.

I agree, he does not believe it to be dangerous. That's kind of my point. He does not believe it to be dangerous, but many of his readers and even black journalists have acknowledged it is. At this point you either accept that black journalists are saying this piece is dangerous or you reject it, you can't pretend it to be indifferent.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#318

Post by ashtonkem »

cplanas wrote: post #259
ashtonkem wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The press as a high minded arbiter of truth is a relatively new concept; historically journalism has been bitterly partisan and often misleading at best. Arguably the current trend is a return to historical norms, not an aberration to be feared.

The current trend may not be an aberration, but it should be feared.

It should only be feared if:

1) You believe that the press did a good job during this unusual period.

2) You consider some of the sins of the past to be the fault of partisan press, at least in part.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#319

Post by noch »

alexashka wrote: post #293
noch wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way to see this most clearly is to ask 1000 educated, not random people, what critical theory [0] is. Maybe one will be familiar with it? We've had people thinking about the problem you're describing for nearly 100 years and hardly anyone knows about it. Now why would that be? Critical theory and philosophy more broadly has something to say about it : If you have a social problem, then you employ postmodernism…

Scientific method is employed to solve particular problems. Which problems should we be solving? You cannot use the scientific method to answer that question. The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself. This is not an original thought - it's a shame that it isn't more well known.

> Which problems should we be solving? You cannot use the scientific method to answer that question. The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself.

Demonstrably false. This belief is poisonous and should be avoided in all cases. (ask yourself how you decide whether to fix your plumbing or to buy a new couch, for instance, on a limited budget.)

We evaluate the problems that we should be solving through a cost-benefit analysis. We can estimate the expected value of various options on a decision tree and estimate the cost of various problems to society. We can ask constituents to estimate the dollar value of the harm they face from the continued existence of various problems. We can also ask them to estimate how much they would be willing to pay from their income, to solve a given problem. This gives a subjective estimate based on individual preferences. We can include weighted objective measures whenever possible.

The explanatory power of various models can be tested and argued for/against in rational good-faith debate. For any equally favoured models that suggest a particular allocation of resources, we can perform competing tests e.g. a county can adopt one policy for a given time, while another county adopts a different policy. After the testing duration, outcomes are evaluated and the best policy adopted by all.

Where there is an inability to evaluate models comprehensively and it is still difficult to form conclusions as to what problems should be addressed, we can ask interested/affected parties to take part in a prediction market, in which they can place bets on likely outcomes of various policies. We adopt the policy and solve the problem for which the majority of bets indicate a high probability of success. The winners of these bets keep their winnings.

This is a rudimentary form of how the scientific method is applied to social problems. This kind of analysis is the most rational and effective tool when running one's own life, household, company, university, government, planet.

> The best you can try and do is use empirical evidence and science to strengthen your position, in an attempt to convince others and/or yourself.

1000 x NO! Please do not ingest such a poisonous idea. We use the data we observe to determine the beliefs we should hold; we do not use beliefs we hold to tell us what data to observe.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#320

Post by DenisM »

dillondoyle wrote: post #301
xg15 wrote: post #283

> I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... I mean, Lacy does have a point that this kind of question in the context of the protests is nothing more than distracting. The protests are about systematic discrimination of black people. No one questioned that black people can also be perpetrators - it's just irrelevant to the topic at hand. Would nazis running concentration camps…

Writing about the protests, my mom recently told me 'It is a sad fact that most of the crime is black on black' among other things that are SO frustrating that I gave up on trying to reply back. Like to me that statement is a non sequitur, and says either: that the cause of increased violence is systemic adverse conditions and outright theft of wealth/quality of life over 400 years making communities tough to succeed…

Try listening to your parents instead of educating at them.
Post reply on HN