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

I Am Deleting the Blog

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#381

Post by paulgb »

huffmsa wrote: post #361
stared wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First and foremost, I hope that the journalist gets revealed and fired. NYT is a reputable journal and shouldn't tolerate such unprofessional and potentially dangerous behavior. The person breached a few lines of ethical journalism, and for no justified reason: First, purposefully using an incorrect name (and Scott Alexander's online identity is Scott Alexander). In many other cases, even if the name is known publicl…

The NYT isn't reputable anymore. Haven't been for a while. Case in point, this article they might publish. They fired most of their senior editors in 2017 because they were both too expensive and enforcing old school journalist standards and integrity which doesn't generate clicks like hot handed opinion pieces followed by reverse opinion pieces does. Though mind you that senior group was one of the biggest cheerlead…

> Case in point, this article they might publish.

As an NYT subscriber, I'm very concerned by this, but I think it's ironic that people skeptical of the media because they don't wait to get facts right are so willing to jump to the conclusion that Scott's account is the full story. I'm inclined to believe Scott, but just as a remotely plausible hypothetical: there's also been rumors of a hit piece floating around for a few days[1]. Maybe they uncovered something Scott doesn't want out there besides just his identity and this is his way of seeding distrust before it gets out.

[1] https://twitter.com/TauTeFox/status/1273775737527394306

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#382

Post by Macha »

gridlockd wrote: post #378
simonh wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News organisations pander to their audience, so I think it's really important to understand what that audience is. If you happen to be in that target audience, then of course there's a real risk you'll end up in an echo chamber that becomes increasingly far away from anything resembling a consensus reality. I've come up with several strategies to try and minimise this. One is to read multiple sources with different t…

One underrated option is to just not read the news: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-ro... Getting the news from "both sides" is just getting two bullshit spins on the same topic, but the truth isn't in the middle. You can get "just the facts" from outlets like Reuters. You may find that this isn't really entertaining and that really you do consume news for other reasons than getting informed…

For example, you can come to a very different centre point for "both sides" by just choosing which representatives you have for both sides. The centre point of the NYT and the Guardian is very different from the centre point of the Washington Post and Breitbart.

(See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window )

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#383

Post by HenryBemis »

Uhrheber wrote: post #75

I stopped trusting reporters about 35 years ago, when I personally witnessed an occurrence, where a reporter was at the scene, and later read what he had written about it in the newspaper. It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse. I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly st…

Even if the reporter was half decent (let's assume he/she was), it would most likely be the Editor that have twisted the story around, for whatever reason or excuse. It happens in all kinds of business. Go talk to an auditor (ANY) auditor and they will have plenty of horror stories where the reviewer rewrote a paragraph "to better reflect the message", in which rewrite the message was changed.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#384

Post by jmeister »

burntoutfire wrote: post #62
rtz12 wrote: post #49

This might be a controversial opinion, but I have just one word to describe most journalists nowadays: "scum". They seek exciting and sensationalist stories without regard for any consequences in the real world. They twist their stories to manipulate the readers towards their viewpoint. But worst of all, they have the gall to present themselves as the upholders of morality and the paragons of democracy. Any criticism…

There's a novel by Balzac (forgot which one), which shows the behind-the-scenes of mid-XIX century Paris journalism. It's essentially the same as you described, but also, the journalists don't flaunt their views, but rather their masters' (the owners of the papers).

Can anyone identify the name of the novel please?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#385

Post by gridlockd »

nelaboras wrote: post #297
Uhrheber wrote: post #75

I stopped trusting reporters about 35 years ago, when I personally witnessed an occurrence, where a reporter was at the scene, and later read what he had written about it in the newspaper. It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse. I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly st…

> "I don't trust anything they write without checking the facts." I am not sure you are aware but your statement makes no sense whatsoever. How do you "check the facts" if you don't trust professional journalists? What sources do you use for those facts, say on the outcome of a political meeting, the current best advice on how to avoid catching covid, the economic situation or impact of new legislation on a specific…

> How do you "check the facts" if you don't trust professional journalists?

"Professional journalist" shouldn't invoke any more trust than "professional fund manager".

Surely they're not all bad apples, but they're not inherently incentivized to have integrity, so you must assume that they do not have integrity, for your own safety.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#386

Post by eternalban »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #330
maxwelljoslyn wrote: post #21

I clicked on this expecting it to be Scott Alexander blogging about somebody else getting doxxed. I flipped like a boat when I realized what I was reading. Holy shit! I was just in SSC's Open Thread a few hours ago opening comment permalinks in tabs to respond to them. That NYT writer should be fired. I hope Scott recovers soon. SSC is my favorite place on the Web.

> That NYT writer should be fired. I don't think this is a "that one writer" issue; I don't think Scott is saying this is a "that one writer" issue. Any such choice is down to newspaper-wide policy.

Proposition: The NYTimes editorial board has long addressed the matter of revealing identity of anonymous bloggers on interent.

From a political point of view, anonymous (and more critcally, independent) bloggers are a threat to the (local/global) establishment's propaganda organs. This may in fact be editorial policy, as you suggest. It doesn't matter of the blogger is 'friendly' in terms of political views.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#387

Post by h91wka »

I don't understand why traditional media still exists in modern days, when p2p communication between people is possible. In the best case, a journalist is a middleman who will misunderstand and garble information unintentionally, since they are working under deadline to get stuff published ASAP. Not only experts, but even enthusiasts spend much more time researching than journalists. In the worst and most common case, they just push agenda or slander groups of people to attract hate clicks. I cringe every time when mainstream media article ends up on HN.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#388

Post by mijoharas »

johan_larson wrote: post #237

I'm sorry Scott has decided to shut down his blog. He posted many interesting things over the years, and the community of commenters that clustered in the blog's open threads was usually a joy to deal with. I was part of that for years. I'm sorry to see it go. That said, this decision to shut down the blog looks like an overreaction to me. Scott seems to think that he should be able to be both a prominent online pund…

To be fair, I think it's somewhat different being a psychotherapist.

A lot of therapy relies on the patient not knowing much about the therapist, which would be very difficult if he was professionally linked to his blog.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#389

Post by aj3 »

adsche wrote: post #345
Uhrheber wrote: post #75

I stopped trusting reporters about 35 years ago, when I personally witnessed an occurrence, where a reporter was at the scene, and later read what he had written about it in the newspaper. It had practically nothing to do with what really happened, but was written in a way that most of their readers would most likely expect and endorse. I was still very young then, but it opened my eyes, and from then on, I mostly st…

Genuine question, how do you (or others) check the facts? Where do you get facts from?

Professionally relevant information - insider sources, other information that is important for you for whatever reason - from original sources. If there aren't any original sources (e.g. politics, history etc) - cross reference multiple interpretations that present story from different angles, e.g. Fox vs CNN, Guardian vs BBC, Washington Post vs Al Jazeera vs Russia Today. Of course for some stories there are sources that are better suited than others due to their focus (e.g. throw in Democracy Now for anything about grassroots movements, various scientific/medical news are discussed most in-depth by specialized podcasts, etc).

And then there is information that isn't important (it doesn't affect you and you can't act on it) and you're just seeking it out of habit (addiction really).

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#390

Post by bookofjoe »

aj3 wrote: post #355
npstr wrote: post #111

Similar effect when reading the news on a topic that one is an expert in - they usually get it incredibly wrong. And then you turn the page and read the next article completely forgetting how bad the reporting actually is - there is no reason to assume they do a better job on topics that one is not an expert in! I think this bias had a name but I can't remember it.

Would it be worthwhile to create an index where people that are experts in something could vouch for the journalists that seem to know what they're talking about? E.g. I can verify that on the information security topic Joseph Cox from Motherboard is constantly on topic, but that information is useless to me personally, because by the time Vice publishes something it's already old news for people in the industry (or…

>If we wait till we're ready, we'll never get started. —Eleanor Roosevelt

Carl Zimmer, New York Times (science); Dennis Overbye, New York Times (physics, astronomy); Geoffrey A. Fowler, Washington Post (technology); Nicole Nguyen, Wall Street Journal (technology); Dexter Filkins, New Yorker (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan); Ben Smith, New York Times [ex-BuzzFeed] (media); Bob Woodward

Post reply on HN