Resignation Letter

Post by mancerayder » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

Benjammer wrote: post #268

jkingsbery wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper? National Review will often have a chain of columns between two of its writers going back and forth debating the merits of a particular position. That is what collective discovery should look like - a publication should encourage views that the editors might disagree with in order to understand the different perspectives on a topic. Now, it…

I mostly intended these questions rhetorically, or directed at Bari herself, as opposed to really wanting another HN commenter to go down the line and "respond" to each one. I don't know how productive that is going to be on this forum.

Post by dang » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

BTCOG wrote: post #328

shuntress wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is somewhat alarming to see this hostile and dehumanizing language (referring to "all media" as "infected") and makes me automatically skeptical of your point-of-view.

[flagged]

Post by maxwin » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

mikece wrote: post #3

"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else." This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reput…

Post by rbecker » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

jrumbut wrote: post #334

throwawaysea wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the point you're making, but when such a tenured and large scale organization is subject to increasing ideological bias, couldn't we also cast the entire 'fact collection' activity as being in support of that bias? Who's to know if the facts are being selectively reported, or stitched together to tell one narrative instead of the whole truth? A similar argument applies to academia - biased researchers will sele…

What's the alternative? What is the best source of information available to the public? It's easy to take potshots, show me a news source that's better.

Post by pingpongchef » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27

> Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I…