Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 152 posts

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#61

Post by felipelemos »

pdonis wrote: post #42
IgorPartola wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me that as we become more and more connected globally the less there will be a need for the media. Hear me out: let’s take this to the limit of our ability to communicate. Let’s say that we develop a direct interface between the brain and the Internet via some sort of implantable chip. Any information you want to know becomes instantly knowable in your brain. Moreover, you can request info about certain…

> And of course all the information is gathered in aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity. In other words, "and then a miracle occurs". I don't see how this requirement could ever be met in general. For particular cases (like first responders at an emergency being able to directly feed what they are seeing and doing), perhaps.

> aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity.

The name of this aggregator is journalist.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#63

Post by IgorPartola »

tathougies wrote: post #45
IgorPartola wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I really need to point you towards the Trump lie tracker? I am only exaggerating a little when I say that if he says ten words, he emits 11 lies.

Nice dodge of the question! I cited specific examples of ludicrous things he's said that have come true, and you cite small lies he's told. I can do the same for any politician you name, that doesn't mean they never say something worth listening to. Like I said though... Keep going. People like you have converted me from a never Trumper to a Trump supporter. And people like you have converted my aunt, a former Obama-…

> People like you have converted me from a never Trumper to a Trump supporter.

It’s not my job to think for you. And are you really trying to use reverse psychology to get me to argue with you? You are spewing conspiracy theories straight out of 4chan and Trump’s Twitter feed. You have lived under Trump for almost four years and you still support him? And I’m supposed to attempt to convert you back? No thanks, I have better things to do than to argue with people who refuse to look at look at reality unless it’s through the walls of their conspiracy theory bubble. Best of luck to you and your aunt. I hope you find some inner peace. I suspect that if Internet comments bother you enough to switch political affiliations that you need some of it.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#64

Post by IgorPartola »

ausbah wrote: post #43
IgorPartola wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me that as we become more and more connected globally the less there will be a need for the media. Hear me out: let’s take this to the limit of our ability to communicate. Let’s say that we develop a direct interface between the brain and the Internet via some sort of implantable chip. Any information you want to know becomes instantly knowable in your brain. Moreover, you can request info about certain…

giving everyone a platform is a noble goal from some perspectives, but is it also what makes up the worse parts of platforms like Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube. suddenly every crackpot and grifter has been given room to spread their garbage opinions and views. just look at the massive disinformation and radicalization pipelines that have popped up. letting people beam info right into their heads would only make this i…

I don’t think there is anything noble about this setup. It would be incredibly messy and lead to more crap like what we just went through with having no leadership in the US whatsoever. It would likely be the beginning of the end of us, if climate change doesn’t get us first.

I imagine that having some sort of reputation system might eventually be the answer. After all “is john@example.com a liar?” would also be instantly accessible information. But again we know there are lots of powerfully people today who are dishonest and yet there is little consequence for them because enough people like the lies to prop them up. I don’t see that changing.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#66

Post by IgorPartola »

pdonis wrote: post #42
IgorPartola wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It occurs to me that as we become more and more connected globally the less there will be a need for the media. Hear me out: let’s take this to the limit of our ability to communicate. Let’s say that we develop a direct interface between the brain and the Internet via some sort of implantable chip. Any information you want to know becomes instantly knowable in your brain. Moreover, you can request info about certain…

> And of course all the information is gathered in aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity. In other words, "and then a miracle occurs". I don't see how this requirement could ever be met in general. For particular cases (like first responders at an emergency being able to directly feed what they are seeing and doing), perhaps.

I think it could be quite simple actually. If Paxos can do it, so can we :). I also definitely got a chuckle that you thought this part was impossible, not the brain interface.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#67

Post by nugget »

samspenc wrote: post #3

This is a good question: should news media like NYT report news without any political biases? Or is it OK for them to pick a side while reporting (progressive, liberal vs conservative etc). If it is OK for media to report news with a bias, then will that accelerate the echo chambers across the political spectrum where news media only report on angles they favor? Just wanted to raise this for discussion.

Other positions aside, I’ve found most rational people have a natural distaste for hypocrisy/double standards, especially when it’s institutionalized.

I read Tom Cotton’s op ed about civil unrest in the US and then Regina Ip’s op ed about similar issues in Hong Kong. I’m struggling to understand why anyone would think Cotton’s piece needs the post-publication disclaimer and the other does not. A clear double standard seems to be present.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#68

Post by zaroth »

tathougies wrote: post #55
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You've converted me from a never Trumper to a Trump supporter. You've been echoing Trump talking points and explicitly defending Trump here for months. That's the kind of dishonest rhetorical trick that works better when the history isn't readily visible.

I did not vote for Trump in 2016. Yes, for the past few months I have become a Trump supporter, ever since the fake impeachment attempt, I have supported the president. Supporting Trump for a few months after not supporting him for years is hardly some great evidence that I'm lying. EDIT: Oh look downvotes at me explaining my very plausible change of heart on trump. Apparently HN knows my ballot better than me!

I understand exactly where you’re coming from.

The way that the MSM has portrayed and reported on Trump I think is a huge source of his ongoing support.

For a more recent example, claiming Pfizer isn’t part of Operation Warp Speed, or that holding the samples on ice until the day after the election wasn’t partisan is bald faced denial.

Gore spends 30 days pursuing recounts in 2000 before conceding but Trump is supposedly a dangerous dictator for not conceding.

How about this one — Flynn allegedly violates the Logan act by talking about sanctions with the Russian ambassador, but Biden is talking policy with world leaders a day after the election is called and its AOK. Now, to be clear, it’s exactly what Biden should be doing and is clearly not illegal, but it’s the double standard which drives a lot of people to support Trump.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#69

Post by grecy »

damnencryption wrote: post #7

I have a simpler explanation for media failure. Huge job cuts. Many journalists are now doing work of multiple positions in many places especially online media. New York Times has reduced the number of their total editors in the last 10 years for example. Every major online media had layoffs comparable to 10% of their total workforce in the last 5 years. It affects mid level journalists the most so there are more int…

Yup.

A buddy was a photographer for a very well respected newspaper. In a grand cost-cutting measure the newspaper simply bought all the reporters iPhones and fired all the photographers.

The reporters are now expected to take photos for their own articles "Because iPhones make that really easy".

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#70

Post by zaroth »

d1zzy wrote: post #48
_fq4v wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, sure, Trump misrepresented that maybe -- although his tax returns are typical of someone with lots of depreciable real estate, and don't have much evidence of fraud. But let's talk about other so-called trump 'lies'. What about the continued doubts by the NYT that there would soon be news about a working coronavirus vaccine at the end of October, early November? What about the Steele Dossier that is now known t…

Just look at the blatant lies he said about COVID19, it's laughable if the consequences wouldn't be so serious and tragic. Yes, politicians do lie (mostly in terms of vague while being up for election), but that doesn't mean Trump lying and other politicians lying are similar. I haven't seen other first world leaders state, without a doubt, that the COVID19 virus is a hoax, it's not real and all the other crap Trump…

I’m just curious, because this is something which happens with Trump constantly...

This particular claim isn’t as bad as the Charlottesville lie, but Trump didn’t say that COVID is a hoax — he said;

> ”Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that right? Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs. You say, “How’s President Trump doing?” They go, “Oh, not good, not good.” They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. They can’t even count their votes in Iowa. They can’t even count. No, they can’t. They can’t count their votes.”

> ”One of my people came up to me and said, “Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.” That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.”

The next day when asked about it;

> Trump: No, no, no. “Hoax” referring to the action that they take to try and pin this on somebody, because we’ve done such a good job. The hoax is on them, not — I’m not talking about what’s happening here; I’m talking what they’re doing. That’s the hoax. That’s just a continuation of the hoax, whether it’s the impeachment hoax or the “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax. This is what I’m talking about. Certainly not referring to this. How could anybody refer to this? This is very serious stuff.

But what the media reports is that Trump called nazis good people (he said exactly the opposite) and that Trump called COVID a hoax (he said exactly the opposite). I think these lies upsets a lot of people and drive a lot of support to Trump who otherwise wouldn’t support him.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/democratic-ad-twists-trump...

Post reply on HN