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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#651

Post by blaser-waffle »

brightball wrote: post #645
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 learned this in college. I was head of an organization that supported a lot of activities around sports and I was interviewed by the school paper. Had a nice conversation and then the story came out. He used 2 sentences from a 30 minute conversation to insert out of context in a piece totally unrelated to what we were talking about. I’ve been on guard ever since.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -Cardinal Richelieu

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#652

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#653

Post by DaniloDias »

kerkeslager wrote: post #543

Damn. I've been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time, and he's always been one of the most insightful voices on the internet. I'm really sorry to see him go. After reading this, I looked up NYT's policy of using real names, and it turns out this isn't the worst time that the NY Times has done this[1]. I've long said that if you want to know who an organization serves, see where its money comes from. The NY Times…

“ We're better off with organizations who receive their money from donations. ”

We get value, in exchange for value.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#654

Post by [deleted] »

enriquto wrote: post #611
gringoDan wrote: post #394

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…

> Three years ago she argued that the smartest people are silencing themselves (...) which serves to consolidate power with insiders – those who are already powerful. Wow. I couldn't imagine that a person from the USA, of all places, could made so nonchalantly the equivalence smarts=power (unless there is a level of sarcasm on this essay that escapes me). There's such a lack of self-awareness in the american elite if…

[deleted]

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#655

Post by vorpalhex »

ISL wrote: post #621
holtalanm wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been this way for a while. Outrage/cancel culture is an absolute pox upon our population that really needs to stop.

Is that request not a call to cancel cancel-culture?

No, that would be if we called cancel-culture racist and anyone who perpetuated it a white supremacist.

By assigning moral outrage to one side of the debate, we remove the pretense of a debate. It's no longer about evidence and facts but vilifying one side. It's ad hominem 2.0 if you will, and it works because we as a society have a visceral negative reaction to some labels.

The problem is that pavlovian-esque training can be untrained. If you call everyone who does something you don't like a nazi, then pretty soon it doesn't seem like being a nazi is all that big of a deal. That in itself is bad because by abusing the term you buy cover for actual, literal nazis. The same issue applies when you label everything racist or sexist or otherwise.

Words have power, but that power can fade if misused.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#656

Post by stupendousyappi »

kerkeslager wrote: post #616
alecbenzer wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?

Hm, I don't know if I'd draw the cause/effect so directly. To me, these are two separate problems: 1) NYT doxxes sources, 2) NYT serves advertisers rather than readers. There might be some relation between these two problems but I don't personally have enough information to conclude that. I didn't make that clear in my previous post, my apologies. No implication was intended.

I have a hard time seeing how the statistic that the Times receives twice as much money from readers as from advertisers is evidence that the NYT "serves advertisers rather than readers". I think that probably puts them in the top 10% of media outlets in terms of how financially independent of advertising they are.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#658

Post by flr03 »

Can you be an influential character and asked to remain anonymous? If you have opinions and you've broadcasted them you can assume them. We blame politics, journalist but at least they sign their articles. Don't you think they receive death treats all the time ?

You can blame NYT but at least they have a clear policy, whether you agree with it or not. I feel a lot of people here are reacting emotionally, as part of the SSC community.

Is the problem a journalist revealing a name, or is it virtual trolls and mobs?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#659

Post by gwbas1c »

alecbenzer wrote: post #605
kerkeslager wrote: post #543

Damn. I've been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time, and he's always been one of the most insightful voices on the internet. I'm really sorry to see him go. After reading this, I looked up NYT's policy of using real names, and it turns out this isn't the worst time that the NY Times has done this[1]. I've long said that if you want to know who an organization serves, see where its money comes from. The NY Times…

The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers?

I think it's best to hear from NYT about why they strictly only use real names.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#660

Post by tracker1 »

mrweasel wrote: post #261
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.

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…

It's really a mixed bag... there are definitely those that purport to be journalists that are more activist than journalist and will lie, cheat, deceive in order to push an agenda over anything resembling an unbiased truth.

There are also journalists that become activist over a specific study (Nina Teicholz is a good example here). Where the more they dig into a topic, the more they take up a cause to expose corruption, even if they have a reasoned bias.

I wish more publications themselves would have an editorial oversight to reduce instances of narratives injected into their news feeds. Some are better than others at presenting news as closer to just the facts... others do better at balancing bias with multi-sourcing, which works better in video that written.

I've been watching the Rising morning show from Hill.tv lately, which is pretty centrist and more balanced than most sources. I try to avoid CNN, MSNBC and Fox News specifically at this point. Fox is good with "news" but they have too many commentary shows that offset this. CNN and MSNBC conflate it all as news and misrepresent all around. None of it can be trusted though.

Unfortunately, news sources tend to be more about being a profit center, and "journalism" is more about the narrative.

Post reply on HN