181–190 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's claiming it doesn't have to involve the truth?
jimmygrapes two comments up stated that he believed coinbase expected the NYT would not be "being factual" and that he expected the article "written as an exaggerated hit piece full of emotional appeal rather than, well, news". To which muglug replied extolling the irrefutable virtue of speaking truth to power-- which is an insultingly irrelevant response to someone accusing them of being non-factual.
Disappointed as a customer to see this nyt-is-bad preemptive pr defense and no substance action, as I guess as fits their mission statement, than a critical assessment of flaws etc. and description of improvements they’ll make going forward.
Coinbase has been subject to a number of prior leaks where internally communication was shared partially and without context.
My assumption on seeing this was that they didn't necessarily want to make it public but, instead, had a reasonable apprehension that if they didn't make it public themselves someone else would excerpt from it and use the fact that they didn't make it public to suggest there was something shameful about their response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you’ve said and what I’ve said are not in conflict. Coinbase clearly states that they believe there to be three complaints and that they’re generally in the clear. My point about reading between the lines is that the explicit, specific repetition of the claim and the way they’re saying it implies that the NYT is going to allege there were more complaints. So then: what of the missing complaints? What Coinbase is…
I'm talking about what we have in front of us. You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it. I can't argue against magical articles that haven't been published yet. Also, if you think the NYT doesn't 'lie', then how about you read up on their reporting of the Duke lacrosse team case, or their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity. Coinbase isn't perfect. But NYT…
What we have in front of us is a very poorly executed attempt at damage control - over an article that has not been published - and we really must remember that. If we simply accept what Coinbase has published as truth, then it frames everything differently. But we must read what they’ve written as an attempt at controlling the narrative. They’re asking the world to discredit an article that (as you’ve mentioned) hasn’t been published yet. That deserves an extreme amount of scrutiny and skepticism.
> You're defending the NYT's article without even having seen it.
I believe you misunderstand my motives. How could I possibly defend an unread article? It’s impossible and illogical.
What I have been saying (in more diplomatic language) is that “this smells like a crock of shit from Coinbase,” and I’ve been attempting to illustrate why their own attempt at damage control actually predisposes me to distrust them. It’s an incredibly amateurish PR move on their part, honestly.
But I’m also trying to poke holes at the corporate speak, and trying to understand what they’re saying and what they’re not saying.
And of course, it’s partly speculation! But what else could it be? They published a spin piece proclaiming innocence regarding the contents of an unpublished article. Of course we’re in the realm of speculation; the whole game started there the moment they published this letter.
> their hundreds of others examples of complete disregard to journalistic integrity.
Alleging hundreds of examples of a complete disregard to journalistic integrity requires proof, honestly. It’s a pretty hefty claim that I wouldn’t accept at face value (nobody should). If it’s your opinion, that’s fine - but it’s not fact unless you can point to some evidence. Extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on the party making the claims.
> But NYT lies. A lot.
Friend, this is not enlightened discourse. That’s an opinion, and not a well-substantiated one.
Not sure how wise it is to preemptively post a response like this. The technique may backfire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
jimmygrapes two comments up stated that he believed coinbase expected the NYT would not be "being factual" and that he expected the article "written as an exaggerated hit piece full of emotional appeal rather than, well, news". To which muglug replied extolling the irrefutable virtue of speaking truth to power-- which is an insultingly irrelevant response to someone accusing them of being non-factual.
I’m not an expert debater, but if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. Since the commenter didn’t, I sort of zeroed in on that.
You didn't.
> if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two.
This is "zeroing in on that". What you first replied is many things, but it is certainly not this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The entire post is filled with vague language, such as talking about what the story will "imply". Also, I think it goes without saying that there are plenty of very understandable reasons why people don't file complaints even though they have very legitimate grievances (which allows companies to stand on such technicalities). So we'll see.
To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
jimmygrapes two comments up stated that he believed coinbase expected the NYT would not be "being factual" and that he expected the article "written as an exaggerated hit piece full of emotional appeal rather than, well, news". To which muglug replied extolling the irrefutable virtue of speaking truth to power-- which is an insultingly irrelevant response to someone accusing them of being non-factual.
I’m not an expert debater, but if you’re going to accuse an organisation of being race-baiting, it’s always good to at least provide an example or two. Since the commenter didn’t, I sort of zeroed in on that.
The issue as I see is that people with balanced and nuanced views and an appreciation of the complexity of the matter will just not bother participating in the discussion. Instead, we'll hear from people with the most extreme or emotionally driven views and they'll tend to pick unconvincing examples-- even if there are better examples to be had.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The entire post is filled with vague language, such as talking about what the story will "imply". Also, I think it goes without saying that there are plenty of very understandable reasons why people don't file complaints even though they have very legitimate grievances (which allows companies to stand on such technicalities). So we'll see.
To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.
That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?