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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#811

Post by lowdose »

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…

Taking in to account that NYT is quitting 3th party advertisement cold turkey [0], this would mean the NYT will publish anything that ensures the future existence of the NYT. Even if it means fluffing up an octogenarian with a visual deteriorating memory function against a thoroughbred Arabian horse in the race. Run Forrest, Run!

[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/new-york-times-ad...

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#812

Post by Super_Jambo »

wutbrodo wrote: post #763
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…

This is a pretty easy conclusion to come to theoretically, too. Any position of power is going to tend towards abuse and incompetence if there's not some sort of filter in hiring for or sustaining the institution. Newspapers live or die by clicks and subscribers: There's no incentive towards any notion of "journalistic integrity", there's no filter ensuring that journalists are especially intelligent or honest, and t…

There is no way to fix advertising funded, it's the problem with facebook and google too.

Advertising means the consumers aren't customers to be served but eyeballs to be harvested and served up.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#813

Post by csa »

catacombs wrote: post #673
gwbas1c wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Factual accuracy is the cornerstone of the profession. In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story. Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter i…

So is it safe to assume that the NYT always refers to Jon Stewart as Jon Leibovitz? Mark Twain as Samuel Clemens?

Maybe one could make an argument for a stage name or pen name being different (and there are many of those), but could Scott Alexander not also be considered a pen name?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#814

Post by pdonis »

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.

If the NYT actually thinks they need to use the real name of the author of Slate Star Codex to add credibility to a story about the blog, they're delusional.

I think it's much more likely that they simply don't care about the valid personal concerns of people they write about.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#815

Post by dang »

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.

(We detached this large subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610880)

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#816

Post by neonate »

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.

Fired? Let's not repeat the same mistakes we're complaining about. How about: that NYT writer should be persuaded and treated empathetically.

It's not the writer anyhow. It's the editor and probably a policy, though I'm sure they'd have no trouble bending their policy if they wanted to.

https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/he95ak/blog...

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#817

Post by pdonis »

catacombs wrote: post #673
gwbas1c wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Factual accuracy is the cornerstone of the profession. In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information. People are the center of the story, and using their real names adds credibility to the story. Now, there are circumstances where reporters use pseudonyms for sources -- mainly to protect victims of sex crimes -- or anonymous sources entirely. The latter i…

> In reporting out a story, it is the journalist's responsibility to obtain factual and verifiable information.

Yes, like the fact that a website called "Slate Star Codex" exists and particular posts in it say what the article says they say.

There is no reason why a story about the blog needs to include the real name of the author, when that real name isn't even revealed anywhere on the blog. The story is about the blog.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#818

Post by mudita »

Paul-ish wrote: post #791
zajio1am wrote: post #577

I have been reading Slate Star Codex for a long time and consider it a source of many great texts, but i do not really get this step from Scott Alexander. Term 'doxxing' is a loaded term that may describe both revealing private information and revealing personal information researchable from public sources. While the former is condemnable, the later is more neutral and part of basic journalist work, especially if the…

Doxxing is new term reflecting new online norms. This strikes me as a clash of internet culture and traditional newspaper culture.

Is it really just new online norms? As a German I am astonished that this is even legal, let alone journalistic norm.

Here in Germany a “right to informational self-determination” is legally well-established going back to a judgement in 1983 and journalists know that they have to weigh freedom of press and public interest against this right. I am pretty sure that what the times is doing in this case would actually be illegal here, if they cannot justify why public interest in knowing Scott’s real name would outweigh his right to informational self-determination.

Does anybody know what the legal situation regarding doxxing is in the US?

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#819

Post by chillacy »

ehnto wrote: post #66
chillacy wrote: post #14

This is a tragedy, Scott Alexander is such a thoughtful writer. I wish journalists would come up with some professional standards and make the title licensed, like doctor or lawyer. Right now we all recognize how important journalism is but journalists themselves run the gamut from ethical investigative journalists to clickbait manufacturers. Imagine if journalists also had to adhere to the equivalent of attorney cli…

A standards body maybe. But do you not see some ethical concerns of licensing that tells people how to conduct journalism? Freedom of the Press, but only for those who the governing body deems fit? The whole point of a license is to reduce the gamut of people who can practice a profession to just those people who do it the way the license specifies. In a world such as ours, and a country such as the US, it will inevi…

It seems to me that protecting sources and mandating some degree of truthfulness (like don't outright lie about verifiable facts, as some statements are not disprovable) are orthogonal to dictating the subject of the stories?

The AMA and bar associations are not without their issues either (they end up driving prices up since they have a monopoly on their service), but it seems to me that people don't have to worry about doctors doxxing their patients on social media or lawyers making deals behind a client's back as much. When it does happen, these professionals are usually ejected from their profession, which is a pretty big disincentive.

Re: I Am Deleting the Blog

#820

Post by [deleted] »

tengbretson wrote: post #767
nillium wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not theft? Journalism is expensive. Of course, there are other business models (full disclosure, we're building one too: https://blog.nillium.com/what-can-napster-teach-local-news/ ) but circumventing a paywall is not the answer. Yes, the NYT is one of the few outlets that is doing reasonably well right now. But many newspapers are going out of business, or at least furloughing employees -- employees who…

Loading a page and choosing not to run the code they ship with it is not theft.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN