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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#711

Post by evgen »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #671
fullshark wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.

> They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth. I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again? We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot…

That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#712

Post by msla »

catacombs wrote: post #676
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?

> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers? This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story. Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim,…

> Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story.

What about not revealing sources? Didn't journalists used to go to jail for that one?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#713

Post by AftHurrahWinch »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #671
fullshark wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.

> They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth. I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again? We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot…

> Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer

That one man's opinion was that we should raise an army and then descend on me and my friends.

Paradox of Tolerance.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#714

Post by geodel »

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.

Great point. I have exactly same experience when one guy who wrote something with total confidence and absolute cluelessness. I would not have known had I not been very familiar with the subject. This made me think what all other things they might be ignorant but still write with such an expert tone.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#715

Post by gesticulator »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #668
wayoutthere wrote: post #625

I unsubscribed from the NYT after the Tom Cotton editorial. That's when it became clear to me that their ethics were driven by a need to drive traffic to their site and I wanted no part in it. Stuff like this just reaffirms my decision. Good riddance.

Traditionally, newspapers' Opinion and Editorial sections have solicited contributions from major political figures. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has run the following: "The Change We Need" (by Barack Obama) "A Partisan Impeachment, a Profile in Courage" (by Mike Pence) "I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine" (by Tulsi Gabbard) "Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis" (by Ron Paul) "How Short-Termism…

This is stunning false equivalence. None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks”. The NYT Opinions section is still, for better or worse, still quite diverse in its opinions. Ross Douthat and David Brooks are not leaving anytime soon.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#716

Post by marcus_holmes »

luckylion wrote: post #164
marcus_holmes wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a sort-of licence. Being employed by a company as a journalist, especially if the company is a recognised media "name". But the people this is deliberately not recognising is bloggers. And to be honest, I'm seeing better journalism being done by (some) bloggers than (some) paid journalists now (not their fault - the business model for journalism is a mess, while the model for blogging is working).

> There is already a sort-of licence. Being employed by a company as a journalist, especially if the company is a recognised media "name". But this obviously fails as seen in this instance (and many others). Companies have interests that do not align with the public's interest of ethical standards. Much like we've generally understood (but unfortunately not really everywhere) that letting other industries regulate th…

I totally agree. The sooner we can all stop reading ad-funded journalism, the better.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#717

Post by monoideism »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #419
wolfgke wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similar effect when reading the news on a topic that one is an expert in - they usually get it incredibly wrong. This is the argument behind the Gell-Mann amnesia effect: https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

We really need to retire "Gell-Mann amnesia effect" and relegate it to a /glossary on HN along with the various philosophical razors, "Dunning-Kruger effect", "X fallacy", "gaslighting", and other intellectual placeholders like that. As soon as I read the grandparent comment, I knew there was going to be a flood of people arriving to supply us with some wiki link. This way we can just cut to the chase with "Ah, I sme…

Are you suggesting that it's not an actual phenomenon?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#718

Post by catacombs »

zepto wrote: post #701
catacombs wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about buying a subscription to not just NYT or other national outlets, but local news organizations so the people reporting on these issues can keep the lights on.

The NYT in this case should never be supported again. Scott Alexander does important journalistic work in deeply analyzing the issues. It’s worth noting that the story is about how he was right about coronavirus in ways that the NYT was not . The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.

> The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.

You have no evidence to back up this claim.

Yes, the fact SSC was fast to publish information about the coronavirus than other organizations. But, do you really think the NYT, a behemoth in the media world, considers an obscure blog -- to many -- a threat?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#719

Post by arcticfox »

skinkestek wrote: post #279
brnt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disengaging based on an N=1 is not the type of individual action that improves our society. Our society is built on individual (and collective) attempts to improve, and you putting your money towards journalists you found to be doing a good job is the way we leave the world better than we found it. I hope you'll consider this, because our society cannot function without quality investigative reporting. I of course ag…

> I hope you'll consider this, because our society cannot function without quality investigative reporting. Where do I find quality investigative reporting? I support the Guardian and two regional/local newspapers and I' also forced to pay for the state run broadcaster here but I have to say that I also find myself reading a number of other sources to figure out what is really going on (for the Scandinavians here I'm…

I've come to really enjoy long-form podcast investigative reporting, as there's enough content that it's pretty obvious whether proper journalistic work has been done or not.

My favorite in that vein is 'In The Dark' by APM Reports, which was a massive eye-opener for me in terms of flaws in the justice system (especially Season 2).

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#720

Post by catacombs »

msla wrote: post #712
catacombs wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The implication being that the NYT wants to use real names to drive clicks and appease advertisers? This shows a lack of how journalism works. Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story. Think about it: Does a furniture business advertising in the local paper care whether the victim of a shooting is named in a piece? Sure, the owner might know the victim,…

> Using real names isn't to "drive clicks" and "appease advertisers." It's to add credibility to a story. What about not revealing sources? Didn't journalists used to go to jail for that one?

Correct. Judith Miller is an example. However, her information turned out to be inaccurate. But she wasn't willing to oust her source.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, famously refused to reveal their FBI source, Deep Throat, for decades. Of course, they didn't go to jail.

Post reply on HN