Live data from Hacker News

The American Press Is Destroying Itself

taibbi.substack.com

541–550 of 618 posts

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you even read any of the other articles he has written? He really is one of the best journalists of this current era, he is truth-seeking instead of motivated by dogma.

You just proved my point. You expect people to somehow know and lionize these left-wing hacks as if their eminence should be self-evident and known to all, despite their bent (which is revealed in the 2nd paragraph where the author calls a sitting President a 'clown'). That's the problem with unself-aware people like you, who expect everyone to read the same people you do. Left-leaning people have been accused of liv…

> the author calls a sitting President a 'clown'

Our of curiosity, are you equally offended when the press calls the sitting presidents of other countries nasty names?

If not, why not?

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#542
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your characterization of the linked article could not be more wrong. They write about acknowledging the disorder of sexual attraction to prepubescents (=pedophilia) to prevent child abuse. Last sentence: > Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children fr…

Is espousing sympathy for pedophiles better or worse than the guy who was (probably) fired for tweeting that non violent protests work better than violent protests.

This is not about "sympathy".

Their argument focusses on how to prevent child abuse best.

There is really nothing controversial in there.

Imagine the hypocrisy where people woult opt to create a system that might end up enabeling child abuse just so that they can continue to celebrate their moral panic.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#543
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your characterization of the linked article could not be more wrong. They write about acknowledging the disorder of sexual attraction to prepubescents (=pedophilia) to prevent child abuse. Last sentence: > Acknowledging that pedophiles have a mental disorder, and removing the obstacles to their coming forward and seeking help, is not only the right thing to do, but it would also advance efforts to protect children fr…

I think they really undercut their argument with "not a crime" in the title. They may be technically correct for non-offenders, but it's incredibly naive to think such a phrase in the title won't get a lot of scorn and suspicion, even if their hearts are in the right place.

It's not only "technically correct" but correct in every possible interpretation I can imagine.

Do you know an interpretation in which the headline is wrong?

A mental disorder is not a crime.

Sure the title might be confusing for those who haven't thought about the difference between thought and deed, but that does not mean that readers should just not tell the truth about the articles conclusion. (..as our parents article description was clearly wrong.)

I've yet to see an intellectually honest criticism of this article.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#544
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opinion pages are not objective. The news should be objective. If they aren’t objective then they should be clear about this otherwise people believe it as objective. That’s the whole point of news.

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 suppose the cause is society and news believing their opinion is truth. Rather than there being a truth worth seeking

If only subjectivity is true, society must fragment. Everyone forms a different view -- unity is lost

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#545

I don't think they are. I think they are optimizing for survival. Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. Few people would consume it (or even be capable of doing so), even fewer are ready to pay the real price of it. So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the hi…

I suppose the cause is society and news believing their opinion is truth. Rather than there being a truth worth seeking

If only subjectivity is true, society must fragment. Everyone forms a different view -- unity is lost

Do people just want to pay and read opinion. Or do they seek a reality truth

The second goal will succeed no matter what newspapers do

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#546
post #425
post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a bit confused, since the section you emphasized appears to prove Taibbi’s point: Cotton called for force against “lawbreakers”, not “protestors”. You can argue that the troops would in practice end up attacking both groups, but that’s a separate question from “did Cotton suggest deploying troops to attack protestors?” If Cotton explicitly stated that all protestors were in violation of the law, then I stand corr…

I think your confusion is warranted. Context is important. I wanted to cite more from Cottons op ed but was afraid it would be too much words. This is the beginning of his essay: > This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s. > New York City suffered the worst of the riots Monday night, as Mayor Bill de Blasio stood by while Midtown Manhattan desce…

You: It’s immediately clear that it’s not a nuanced argument he seeks to make, in his view protestors and rioters are one and the same.

Tom Cotton: Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.

You're doing exactly what Cotton warns against just a paragraph later from the part you quote. I'm actually baffled.

If we can't agree on things said in a single straight forward op ed, how are we (humanity) ever going to have any real conversation? Is this the Great Filter of Fermi's Paradox?

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#547
post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No quarter" also means [0]: > no pity or mercy —used to say that an enemy, opponent, etc., is treated in a very harsh way It's plausible that he meant this in the way you describe, but I think it's more likely he was using fancy language to emphasise that the city and police shouldn't tolerate things like the CHAZ or rioting and looting. Essentially, he's trying to criticize the local governments for tolerating thes…

Cotton isn’t some rando posting a comment on Facebook. This is a US Senator whose essay was reviewed by his editorial staff before being sent to the times. He is saying exactly what he meant to say. If he meant something different there were other ways to express it.

"No quarter" wasn't in the essay. It was a tweet. Does "his editorial staff" review everything he tweets?

And should everything anyone says be given the worst possible interpretation, or should we, as in the Hacker News guidelines, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#548
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite clearly not what he said unless you believe protestors to be lawbreakers. He took significant pains to separate out protestors from those who were rioting and looting and includes a defense of protesting as a right in the article.

He did not take significant pains to separate them, that is the whole point. Please cite sections of his essay that support your hypothesis.

He couches all of his points in a painful separation/distinction. It's one of the main points of his op ed.

Is your brand of rhetoric here the reason why everyone feels like they have to belabor their points by "refreshing" a distinction every two paragraphs lest you forget? It's a weird amnesia, and I want to you consider the possibility that you want him to equate rioting with peaceful protesting because without that, you don't have much of a point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your thought process is to read something like the quote someone brought in the sibling comment of mine. And you go "ah, a-ha ok so he did make a distinction". And then a few paragraphs later you switch 100% back into "but he probably didn't mean it right here! gotcha. ;D"

How else am I to interpret any of your comments in this thread?

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#549
From an outsider's (not living in the US) perspective, the adherence to identity politics there has really gone to the extremes. It is a paradox in itself: if every group emphasizes its uniqueness, its needs to be viewed, heard and treated differently from the status quo, then how would it be possible to arrive at an endgame of "everybody being treated equally"?

From an European perspective, identity politics is quite puzzling. In France for example, there is simply no item called "ethnicity" in the population census. As long as you're "French", you're supposed to enjoy the same rights and have the same duties, and should be able to communicate with each other based on a fundamental set of values and cultural understanding. The idea of "skin color" is very much de-emphasized instead of strengthened, which IMO makes sense if you want to reach a true state of "equality for all". In a sense it is similar to the idea of "let us ignore the 'sex' of a person when evaluating their abilities and agreeing on their duties, just treat all sexes as the same and equal, instead of arguing about which sex should enjoy more privileges on which fronts".

Of course, I understand that everything has historical and societal roots. The US society has always been divided along ethnic lines. After all, the vast amount of African Americans' sole purpose of existence, until less than 2 centuries ago, was to be slaves to a superior master class, not to mention the various comparisons between the US and Rome, even up to the present. Even after the liberation, the social-economic organizational structure hasn't really changed. Of course, this is not to say that similar problems don't exist in Europe. France also had a long history of colonization, and the group identity of Northern Africans is always a tricky issue in their society. However, in general, and especially in Northern European countries which didn't get to partake in much colonization, for example, most migrants are relatively recent economic migrants. This makes it much harder for a historically discriminatory social-economic structure to form against them, and makes it quite easier for the society to de-emphasize the skin color and regard everybody equally as much as possible. Of course, there is still a long way to go before any form of racism truly doesn't exist even in those countries, that's for sure. I just feel that the current situation in the US is incredibly polarized, nobody is listening to what the others are talking about, and only insists on pushing their own narratives, which is just not conducive to eventually solving the problems. No matter whether you're on the left or on the right, a dogmatic adherence to ideology and the need to bash anybody who in your eyes dares to think slightly differently is an extremely dangerous thing to do.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#550
post #518
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most common way the free market fails to do the "right" thing is by ignoring externalities. By optimising for user engagement, media is ignoring the effect it has over society at large. This is actually an argument for government sponsored news outlets implemented in a politically neutral manner; i.e. the television shouldn't just be a mouthpiece for the state/the ruling party. For an example of state-financed bu…

> state-financed but politically independent The very definition of an oxymoron.

That is how public media works in many parts of Europe. It is not an oxymoron, but a great idea when done right and it has been working well for decades. Think of it like constitutionalism for media. If the politicians suddenly start changing this constitution it is a clear red flag to voters as it's considered off-limits, so they mostly don't touch it.
Post reply on HN