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

What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

savingjournalism.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 266 posts

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#151

Post by philwelch »

skinnymuch wrote: post #105
aksss wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprised you that MSNBC, NYT, and NPR have primarily left-leaning audiences? Their coverage leans left like Fox News leans right, particularly MSNBC. If you asked the surveyed Republicans how much they trust Fox News specifically , I’m sure the stats would be a mirror image. Similarly, democrats trust a news industry which, outlet-for-outlet, is more aligned with what they want to hear. After all, it’s never “our…

The same MSNBC that shat on AOC up till it was obvious she was going to be a progressive darling/favorite among a portion of MSNBC viewers, mocked Ron Paul repeatedly*, and have never covered Bernie Sanders close to the way they cover the Democratic establishment? MSNBC is nothing like the lefts Fox. I completely agree with the point of hating the “other” guy’s news. I don’t think the vast majority of people distrust…

Trump supporters feel the same way about Fox that you feel about MSNBC. That’s why there’s OAN.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#152

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

ajkjk wrote: post #115
btmorex wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's an obvious implication that Trump is pushing the drug because he has a financial interest in pushing the drug. But if his financial interest is so small that he stood to gain hundreds of dollars, maybe thousands at most, then implying he's doing it for financial reasons is extremely dishonest.

There's a big space between "implying he's doing it for financial reasons" and "reporting on the presence of a financial interest". It would be worse reporting to _omit_ the financial interest rather than include it.

I probably have a proportional exposure to SNY via index funds as what Trump is reported to have, compared to his fortune. I would say that there would be very little value in reporting that interest in any context. Certainly it would tend to make most readers think that the financial interest may serve as an improper motivation, when there is no likelihood that that is the case.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#153

Post by philwelch »

ameister14 wrote: post #130
hnburnsy wrote: post #41

If you are student of grammar and journalism, do your self a favor and follow @nyttypos. I was stunned by the large number of mistakes that professional journalists make, that their editors miss, and that they refuse to correct. Here is an article about @nyttypos and his/her obsession... https://www.theringer.com/2020/8/18/21372181/nytimes-typo-tw...

I find that the NY Post has a better grasp of written copy - their writers are often cleverer and a cut above the Times even though they're writing for a worse paper.

The NYP has to be entertaining; the NYT is just a reliable guide to what people are supposed to believe.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#154

Post by kortilla »

unishark wrote: post #108
aksss wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprised you that MSNBC, NYT, and NPR have primarily left-leaning audiences? Their coverage leans left like Fox News leans right, particularly MSNBC. If you asked the surveyed Republicans how much they trust Fox News specifically , I’m sure the stats would be a mirror image. Similarly, democrats trust a news industry which, outlet-for-outlet, is more aligned with what they want to hear. After all, it’s never “our…

> After all, it’s never “our” news we mistrust, it’s the other guys! You imply this is some kind of hypocrisy or other character flaw, but this will always be true when there's uncertainty. If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more. Otherwise you would be assuming your own beliefs are wrong which makes no sense by definition. Of course media outlets tend to go beyond just filli…

> If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more.

It may be rational, but that makes them terrible providers of news for the people they agree with. They have the same blind spots and are looking to support the narratives you both already believe.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#155

Post by joe_the_user »

buisi wrote: post #137
joe_the_user wrote: post #14

Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy. And this is healthy, in a way. No it's not. The NYTimes engages in journalism, which is a particular way of gathering and presenting facts. Which to say, among other things, they rely on publicly available information, gathering facts on the ground and sources . Sources are people with information, often but not always powerful people.…

In my opinion, the biggest problems with sources is that journalists often fail to provide them. They will often make sure assertions without named sources to back them up. And they will fail to provide citations and links when the source is present on the internet, so you can confirm and verify it. This is sometimes the case for things like scientific research, where you're just expected to know which specific paper…

Journalists don't provide sources because sources would face retaliation if journalists provided their names. Sometimes this is appropriate if the source is providing information in the public interest and sometimes it's corruption if the source is providing misleading information to benefit themselves. Journalism overall has a long tradition of sometimes benefiting the public and sometimes benefiting those in power - both these help maintain the institution (for good and ill, naturally).

Linking to document on the Internet is a different issue, I think, one I wouldn't comment on.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#156

Post by fsh »

jkhdigital wrote: post #87
nojito wrote: post #7

What happens when substacks make mistakes?

Nobody cares, because Substack isn’t treated as the “paper of record”. The problem is not that NYT etc. needs to be perfect, but that these news outlets are privileged sources that are used in crafting “evidence-based” arguments about all sorts of important things (but especially public policy).

I would say that on hn it very much is treated as such.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#157

Post by quetzthecoatl »

kortilla wrote: post #154
unishark wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After all, it’s never “our” news we mistrust, it’s the other guys! You imply this is some kind of hypocrisy or other character flaw, but this will always be true when there's uncertainty. If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more. Otherwise you would be assuming your own beliefs are wrong which makes no sense by definition. Of course media outlets tend to go beyond just filli…

> If someone holds the same prior beliefs as you, it is rational to trust them more. It may be rational, but that makes them terrible providers of news for the people they agree with. They have the same blind spots and are looking to support the narratives you both already believe.

I would even say it's not rational, but cult like. Rationality is based on logical skepticism. More often than not, it's swimming against the tide questioning generally accepted axioms.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#158

Post by fenomas »

ameister14 wrote: post #129
fenomas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the media outlets weren't increasingly becoming echo chambers. This conclusion doesn't stand up. If the most popular network skews 93% republican, the alternatives are going to skew democrat regardless of how balanced they are.

That doesn't make sense. If one block is 93% blue, the other blocks are going to be more red than blue regardless of how balanced they are.

Negatory - the sets being compared aren't independent.

That is, the overall population is (roughly) half red and half blue. If you divide that population into groups - on whatever basis - and the largest group is 93% red, then it follows that some of the other groups are going to be mostly blue.

Re: What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes

#159

Post by eyelidlessness »

notimetorelax wrote: post #36
whoisstan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly I just had an unrelated discussion on goodreads about that. The first mentioned author of the NYT article is supposedly a cybersecurity expert. The article lacked any evidence and called the company russian and obscure, they edited that but it’s still on archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20210106195835/https://www.nytim... I left a goodreads comment on the NYT authors latest cybersecurity book cal…

This makes me wonder, 3 branches of government exist to balance each other out. Journalism stands on its own, what’s the counter balance to journalism?

If you’re in the US, or any country with comparable speech/press protection: the same rights that give them protection to publish. I know it’s unpopular here but social consequences punishing bad press behavior are effective, just like punishing bad politician or famous people behavior. This is sometimes paraphrased as “vote with your feet” or “vote with your wallet”, but lately it’s been maligned as “cancel culture”. Either way, you’re allowed to just call bullshit on a publication. You’re especially allowed to not consume it.
Post reply on HN