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

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#391

Post by mijoharas »

himinlomax wrote: post #331
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…

> That said, this decision to shut down the blog looks like an overreaction to me On the contrary, it's the perfect move. It forces the hand of the journalist, who will then have to mention that inconvenient fact. "BTW the thing this article is about does not exist any more because of this article."

I think that's a very good point. If that reporter takes the story to their editor, what's it going to sound like?

R: So, this article is about a blog and the person that writes it...

E: Ok, cool, why can't I find the blog?

R: Err... it doesn't exist anymore

E: Why not?

R: Because I doxx the author in this article.

If you were an editor, would you publish that? The subject of the story no longer exists, so the story is less interesting, _and_ you come off looking like an asshole.

I think any reasonable editor, would either not publish the story, or not publish the name. Seems like a great move to me.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#392

Post by Que1rei0 »

camillomiller wrote: post #326
mrweasel wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I first heard this explained by John C. Dvorak and it has terrified me ever since. Originally I just believe that journalist just had a terrible understanding of IT, but when you think about it, there's no reason why it's just IT. Why would journalist have a better understanding of medicine, politics, climate, finance or any other topic covered. Basically you're left it a situation where you can only trust highly spe…

As a journalist who's a CS dropout, then later a BoA, and who works as a web dev on the side: I agree. BUT: 1) The journalist's work is sometime a soul-crushing effort to turn complex things that can't really be made simple into a readable summary. I cover Quantum tech as someone who has at least a grasp of physics: it's insanely difficult. 2) Journalists that behave like the ones you describe, are bad for the whole…

> tend to stick to what they've studied and know.

Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith.

While what you're suggesting seems common sense and is indeed better than current situation, I think it could be even better if rather than having one journalist writing one piece, every piece was a joint effort by several journalists, some expert on the subject and some not.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#394

Post by gringoDan »

Reading this made me think of two essays I've recently revisited.

1. The Sound of Silence, by Jessica Livingston

Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves because the downside risk of being attacked for (misinterpretations of) their opinions are too high. People are wary of sharing useful information outside of trusted circles, which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those who are already powerful.

2. What You Can't Say, by Paul Graham

Reflection on how to separate truths that will endure from "moral fashions" particular to a time and place in history. Written over 15 years ago and more relevant today.

> What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.

[1] https://foundersatwork.posthaven.com/the-sound-of-silence [2] http://paulgraham.com/say.html

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#395

Post by Symmetry »

aj3 wrote: post #377
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I woke up to the fact that most newspapers are like that in the last 2-3 years. That resulted in me eliminating one publication after the other. Today only one has remained, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a german-language publication from Switzerland. Lets see how long it holds up.

But living in a bubble doesn't sound that great either. I prefer the Economist - they clearly have a very strong bias in some political & economical stories, but that bias is predictable and consistent. At least their factual reporting seems on the point.

I've always found that when they cover something I'm familiar with they do at least a credible job of it.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#397

Post by papeda »

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…

May as well ask here, I pretty much only read the weekly Economist to get my news at this point. I think I have their slight biases dialed in at this point. Anyone want to make a case for a different primary news source/argue that The Economist is bad?

For context, I like The Economist because it's mostly unemotional, information-dense, and the magazine comes in a single weekly thing to read.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#398

Post by tempodox »

Wow, those are effing serious reasons to stay pseudonymous. If that doesn't convince a reporter to not publish that name, they should really ask themselves how mercenary they've become.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#399

Post by projektfu »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #151
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…

Reminds me of when I was in elementary and one day I was sick and all my classmates met the governor. The media was obviously there and one classmate was asked to write something to say to the governor. The media claimed he was 11 but his age was 12. The teacher taught us that the media isnt always necessarily telling you the truth. There is way more bias in the media these past few years than I have ever seen so con…

They should use the Slashdot epithet. “An anonymous coward familiar with the discussion said ...”

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#400

Post by baryphonic »

Fiveplus wrote: post #129

Seeing all this negative press about NYT (their website's weird trackers) and spotting increasingly more propaganda articles in their editorial section in the recent past, I am now going to stop my NYT subscription. The last thing they deserve is my money.

I gave up on them years ago when I noticed so much editorialization outside of their opinion section. Their news has become opinion; their opinion has become propaganda.
Post reply on HN