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

141–150 of 152 posts

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

#141

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by effie »

mantap wrote: post #124
Veen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all have bias and there is no point in denying it. But that shouldn't stop people in professions like journalism aiming for independence and neutrality. People can be honest and intellectually honest, follow the evidence and logic impartially, in spite of their biases. The problem comes where they see their role as something different; then they become propagandists and political partisans who hide behind their su…

The problem is when one side lies a hell of a lot more than the other. Just look at the present situation where the US President is claiming to have won an election that he has very clearly lost. If newspapers try to push back on those lies they get accused of being biased. At that point it is a very thin line between publishing the truth, and pushing one side of the story.

So if all sides lie the same amount, things are OK? I don't understand your argument.

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

#143

Post by effie »

Angostura wrote: post #120
unethical_ban wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This proves that a broken clock, or broken man, can be correct upon occasion. Tucker Carlson is a despicable human being, utterly without guile or integrity or good faith.

I think you'll find he has a modicum of guile.

Any examples?

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

#144

Post by torben-friis »

wonnage wrote: post #121
torben-friis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in media will usually tell you that there's no such thing as unbiased reporting; even the act of choosing which stories are important enough to report is a biased act. However, I must say that I'm not subscribed to any newspapers, and the main reason I've chosen to do so is that newspapers can: - Work for political and business moguls by offering crowd manipulation as a service - Work for ad buyers by trying t…

You could consider donating to a nonprofit news org like ProPublica, then. Also you are throwing out the baby with the bath water, just because news is funded by the rich doesn't mean every little mundane article they publish is biased. Oftentimes the facts are there, but the analysis or framing is biased. It's still probably more accurate than trying to get all your news via Twitter or something.

> Also you are throwing out the baby with the bath water, just because news is funded by the rich doesn't mean every little mundane article they publish is biased. Oftentimes the facts are there, but the analysis or framing is biased. It's still probably more accurate than trying to get all your news via Twitter or something.

What would the baby be in this case?

News are not fundamentally important to me, at least not to the point where I'd want to get them regardless of quality. The absolute crushing majority of news I read don't require or cause any action on my part.

Of course I'd like to be informed of current events, developments in politics or international news; but no information is better than wrong information - my alternative would never be social media, it's just the absence of general news.

My views might seem extremely pessimistic, but they're rooted in two facts:

1 - I am yet to see any piece of news related to my area of expertise where information is accurate. I should assume that it's the same for all areas, and mine isn't a weird exception.

2 - I am the son of a journalist, and happen to have close friends that work daily with press. Insider views on the journalism business can rapidly turn you into a cynic.

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

#145

Post by CincinnatiMan »

unethical_ban wrote: post #114
ajay-b wrote: post #86

I Was looking at a newspaper from the 1940s and the difference in content presented then, versus even now in large print newspapers, is astounding. There was so much more information conveyed back then, less opinions more information that people could use. It makes me think that our definition of news has gotten away from its original meaning

I would love to see an example, perhaps, if what you were looking at is digital. The way I see it, there is some inherent bias in even the newsroom, but I feel that the information I get from New York Times is accurate and substantial.

Look at the same topic on NYT and WSJ and you'll see NYT uses a lot more emotional language while WSJ is more dry.

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

#147

Post by shard »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #130
shard wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the White Walkers and wights but another nation with a different economic system and political agenda?

Sigh, they're a force of nature. Winter for a generation? Remember?

I don't really consider them a force of nature as they are not a mindless mob, but a military with a general executing strategies. A mindless mob would be much less of a threat.

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

#148

Post by thu2111 »

asdff wrote: post #108
ajay-b wrote: post #86

I Was looking at a newspaper from the 1940s and the difference in content presented then, versus even now in large print newspapers, is astounding. There was so much more information conveyed back then, less opinions more information that people could use. It makes me think that our definition of news has gotten away from its original meaning

You can read AP or Reuters if you want more newswire oriented coverage.

I tried that but it's no different. AP and Reuters articles are written in a style no different to what you'd find in a Guardian or NYT article. The problem is journalists as a class, not specific firms. They don't have any incentives to report dry, factual news without a slant.

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

#149

Post by aweiland »

Stronico wrote: post #93

I read a print version of the NYT recently and the feeling I got was quite different than the web version - mostly in that what was being pushed on you was "news", not opinion. Almost all of it could be described as "These People Did This Thing In This Place". It was great actually, dispassionate and informative. The editorials were packed away somewhere in the back, not worth looking for. A very different experience…

I get the Sunday Washington Post. I get the same feeling there as well. The online version has more sensationalist headlines and articles, and also publishes opinion columns that never make it into print (like Hugh Hewitt and Marc Theisson) for the outrage clicks.

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

#150

Post by bduerst »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #146
bduerst wrote: post #2

Weird to evaluate the NYT evolving the past four years and not mention The Daily podcast.

Never heard of it. Can you expand on your statement and what you're trying to get across?

It started in 2017 and is one of the most wildly successful and popular podcasts over the past couple years. It has over 2 million downloads every weekday.

It's also the reason I subscribed to the NYT - just to support the podcast.

Post reply on HN