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

161–170 of 266 posts

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

#161

Post by tacitusarc »

tsimionescu wrote: post #139
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…

> Their coverage leans left like Fox News leans right, particularly MSNBC. I don't think it detracts from your points, but the coverage of all these outlets leans Democrat, but not left. They are centrist papers. Left voices (think Chomsky) are almost completely absent from mainstream media.

This is changing the meaning of the word left, and then redefining Democrat as centrist, which is just incorrect.

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

#162

Post by AnthonyMouse »

godelski wrote: post #147
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kind of makes me wonder what the trust numbers would be if the media outlets weren't increasingly becoming echo chambers. See also this: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... Compare median Republican and median Democrat in 1994 (earliest year in the data, pretty close together) to where they are in 2017 (the latest year in the data).

Is that graph set to keep the republican median constant and the rest relative from there? The associated link tells a much more nuanced story that I don't think really results in "mixed" being a fixed center point. But the article and graphic do show a deeply disturbing divide.

> Is that graph set to keep the republican median constant and the rest relative from there?

Nope. You can see the Republican line move to the left in 1999 and 2004 before moving back to about where it started.

Remember that during the Clinton administration the Democrats were pretty ambivalent about gay marriage, signed the 1994 crime bill, nobody in office would have been willing to call themselves a socialist/communist etc.

Now try to think of some issues where modern mainstream Republicans are significantly to the right of Reagan or Bush Senior.

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

#163

Post by caffeine »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #4

I wish the NYT would clarify or retract this piece/headline https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/russia-cyber-... > Widely Used Software Company May Be Entry Point for Huge U.S. Hacking > Russian hackers may have piggybacked on a tool developed by JetBrains, which is based in the Czech Republic, to gain access to federal government and private sector systems in the United States. My company has banned Jetbr…

Could that sort of misrepresentation qualify as libel? Or are newspapers somehow immune to that?

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

#164

Post by bordercases »

rootusrootus wrote: post #109

Okay, so they have problems. Let's say that I am convinced, and I will be looking for a better source of journalism. What would that be?

Independent analysts on Twitter collated with your own common sense developed by reading broadly for general knowledge and history. Go back to basics and learn the fundamentals of informal logic and conversational implicature, to help discern between logic, rhetoric and opinion. Allow for multiple interpretations of the facts. Compensate (incompletely) for narrative bias through valuing first-hand sources (if it's admissible in court, even if it's inconclusive, it's still evidence). The key questions to ask are, what's missing? what's being emphasized? Who benefits? Where are the contradictions? Why not use an alternative phrase? What's simply a lie? Why do so?

In the "post-truth" era, everyone needs to become a diet version of a counterintelligence operative. The point of post-truth is that all sources of credibility are no longer impartial. They are instead persuasive media looking out for different interests through errors of omission and commission. As such you are not left with any ground to stand on other than the relative inconsistency of different narratives. No story can be taken in its own right – it has to be contextualized in a greater fabric of understanding and information and experience such that what is bullshit and nonsense can be ignored without harm. The good news is that there is much literature in the field of deception, counterintel, language manipulation, power plays etc to work this angle. The bad news is that it's work.

At the risk of irony in providing an unsourced quote:

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

― Mark Twain

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

#165

Post by tacitusarc »

slacka wrote: post #42
markdown wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say that most educated people inherently believe that the media should not automatically receive benefit of the doubt any longer. Yup. These days I only get my news from The Daily Wire and Joe Rogan. I'm educated, and I just can't trust the lamestream media.

Is this comment missing a /s? The Daily Wire is actual fake news, with a long track record of misinformation and poor quality content[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]... While not perfect, NYT has a long track record of quality journalism that goes back hundreds of years, winning 130 Pulitzer Prizes. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/ [2] https://popular.info/p/facebook-allows-prominent-right-wing [3] https://…

I think maybe you don't see the problem in citing a bunch of heavily left publications saying a heavily right publication is fake news.

Snopes is cool, though.

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

#166

Post by hef19898 »

tacitusarc wrote: post #161
tsimionescu wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their coverage leans left like Fox News leans right, particularly MSNBC. I don't think it detracts from your points, but the coverage of all these outlets leans Democrat, but not left. They are centrist papers. Left voices (think Chomsky) are almost completely absent from mainstream media.

This is changing the meaning of the word left, and then redefining Democrat as centrist, which is just incorrect.

Depends on where you are from. In most, if not all, western democracies the Democrats pass as centrist. People like Bernie pass as slightly left of center in Germany for example. And passes as left parties over here would considered full-blown communist in the US.

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

#167

Post by s1artibartfast »

godelski wrote: post #147
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kind of makes me wonder what the trust numbers would be if the media outlets weren't increasingly becoming echo chambers. See also this: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... Compare median Republican and median Democrat in 1994 (earliest year in the data, pretty close together) to where they are in 2017 (the latest year in the data).

Is that graph set to keep the republican median constant and the rest relative from there? The associated link tells a much more nuanced story that I don't think really results in "mixed" being a fixed center point. But the article and graphic do show a deeply disturbing divide.

I agree the associated link doesn't really support the infographic, as it shows the changes in party mean, not the heterogeneity of views held by individuals. That said, it makes total sense to me. It seems inherent in the definitions of a conservative/traditionalist party and progressive/change based party.

On an anecdotal level, think about views and behaviors that were commonplace in the 80s and 90s, and how they are perceived today. Values of many on the right would be aligned with the older views, while many on the left have come to reject those views.

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

#168

Post by phtrivier »

mr_toad wrote: post #62
denimnerd42 wrote: post #4

I wish the NYT would clarify or retract this piece/headline https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/russia-cyber-... > Widely Used Software Company May Be Entry Point for Huge U.S. Hacking > Russian hackers may have piggybacked on a tool developed by JetBrains, which is based in the Czech Republic, to gain access to federal government and private sector systems in the United States. My company has banned Jetbr…

If your company bases security decisions on articles in the NYT then they’re beyond helping. Frankly that’s both laughable and incompetent. No professional (in any field) should base a decision solely on something written in any secondary source. Even if it was a specialist publication, a competent professional should do their own research, and look at the primary sources. Imagine if a doctor or civil engineer based…

> Imagine if a doctor or civil engineer based professional decisions on what they read in magazines and newspapers. The thought is horrifying.

Naaah, don't worry, doctors are only basing their treatment on what their most obnoxious patients are requiring, based on things they have read on Facebook and Twitter. (I mean, how can you trust journalists ? As the linked article says, those people are "wrong" , too.)

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

#170

Post by creamytaco »

The NYT is nothing more than a den of yellow journalism at this point, calling it a tabloid would be giving it too much credit. A complete waste of time. Aaron Schwartz was prescient in his disgust for the mainstream media, if only he could have seen how much worse they’ve gotten..
Post reply on HN