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

201–210 of 266 posts

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

#201

Post by hef19898 »

spiralx wrote: post #197
hef19898 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's just not true of the Democratic Party by any useful metric and likewise there is nothing about Bernie's platform that would be centre-left anywhere in Europe, the majority of his proposals being to the left of anything implemented anywhere. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunda...

If I understood the NYT article correct, the Democrats are put left, among other things, because of support for climate measures. Fun fact, the CSU, as far right as you get in Germany when you ignore the AfD, is also supporting measures to fight climate change now. The CSU also kind of opposes gay marriage, are among the more extremer views regarding abortion. And support public health care. They do not fight to make abortion illegal so. No do they with gay marriage. I see that as them being more "left" than anything I see coming from the GOP at the moment. And the CSU, as I said, considered the most right / conservative of our mainstream parties.

Bernie on the other hand would fit in perfectly well with the SPD, our social democrats. "Die Linke", the leftest one in the article, is a joint party of the SED (the former DDRs government party), some communists from western Germany and the far left wing of the SPD. They are as much left as the AfD is right.

I do see a lot of parallels between the AfD and the right wing of the GOP so. Especially regarding immigrants, muslims, the Covid pandemic and views of family values.

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

#202

Post by bestnameever »

amrx101 wrote: post #196

NYT last Feb had published article encouraging readers to go to China amidst the pandemic, the logic being that China is safe and our xenophobic bias might be responsible for us considering China unsafe.

Sounds like an opinion piece.

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

#204

Post by tehwebguy »

Daho0n wrote: post #192
soared wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems weird that every post is in image. Yes changelogs with text would be challenging, but you can't search/etc images.

Because Twitter sucks and let you post lots of text in images but not in text. It's awful.

Also no rich text so it would be difficult to indicate what text was removed, added and unchanged in a readable format without the image.

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

#205

Post by tsimionescu »

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.

It's not, the US left is represented by papers such as Jacobin, intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, and politicians like Bernie Sanders, (who has only recently - ~last 10 years of his half a century career- joined the Democratic party), and organizations like the Nurses Union.

Sure, it's true that the Democratic Party is to the left of the Republican Party, and that there are actual leftists in the DP, such as Bernie or AOC, but the vast majority of the party is centrist at best, especially on economic issues.

On many economic issues, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi are on the right of someone like Marine LePen or Viktor Orban.

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

#206

Post by jaks6 »

MrMember wrote: post #134
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?

I use RSS feeds for Reuters's business section for business and finance news and the AP for general news. I guess I don't know how either of them handle retractions or updates but I like my news to be as dispassionate as possible and I think Reuters and the AP are as close to that as you can get. I'm sure the journalists for both have their biases but at least they aren't as obvious as other outlets.

Didn't Reuters kill off their RSS service? How did you set it up? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23576022

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

#207

Post by brabel »

mike_hearn wrote: post #200
cyberlurker wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar experience, where Jetbrains is effectively banned. Do you have any updated source that I could circulate to clear their name?

They wrote about it on their blog. https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2021/01/07/an-update-on-sola... https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2021/01/08/january-8th-updat... Summary: they have no idea what anyone is talking about, nobody has told them anything and there are no known issues with TeamCity. Later they did a blog post with security tips for locking it down but they're all pretty generic things that'd apply to any C…

> decision makers who are now making snap anti-Russian decisions on the basis of prior articles.

This is how you get the public to support hostile actions later, including even armed conflict. We all know the only reason for the relative peace between the West and Russia has been nukes... But Russia is still seen as the enemy and anything criticizing them can go almost completely unchallenged in popular media.

China is also on the same boat. Not that they do not deserve criticism, they certainly do... but when people don't need any fact checking at all to believe whatever allegations come to light (as you mention, examples of fake allegations going unchallenged are endless) you do need to start worrying that the rethoric can go too far and cause undue harm, eventually.

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

#208

Post by rendall »

Context_free wrote: post #100

About a week after the US invasion of Iraq happened, something which New Yorker editor David Remnick heavily pushed, the magazine ran a 10000+ word hit piece on anti-war critic (and theory of computation Chomsky Normal Form creator) Noam Chomsky https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/the-devils-acc... To pull one thing from this long article - one of the thousands of petitions Chomsky signed over the years was…

These sorts of hit pieces from formerly respectable media have, more than anything else the traditional media have done, chipped away at their credibility for me over the last 2 decades. It has now become my operating assumption that they're lying, to the point that it's difficult for me to communicate about current events with people who look to newspapers for a source of truth. Our operating assumptions are so different.

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

#209

Post by jimz »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #172
notimetorelax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Critical thought. Other journalists and free speech can be censored by private companies that have no obligation to follow any due process. During information war critical thought is the most important asset, without which you're as good as illiterate.

Um, in countries where the government can play the ultimate arbiter of truth in speech they also get to determine what due process is, which usually is exactly what suits them. Private companies reflect the values of their shareholders and customers, which at least is made up of citizens without the coercive and exclusive power to say, lock you up for your reporting, or literally kill you and your loved ones over your reporting, which still happens to this day. If there is demand, and placed out of the state's hands, at least alternate channels, whether more accurate or not, more ethical or less, with or without an agenda, can exist. The alternate scenario easily renders them unable to exist in the first place. "Due process" when applied outside of official government action is simply coercing a standard set by the government upon collectives of private individuals even if - especially if - it is unwanted. It's an illusion of fairness that masks coercion, because there's either enforcement mechanisms for compliance - coercion - or there isn't - which is a charade and meaningless. Neither produces positive outcomes. Those in power will simply use it to cover up mistakes or intentional wrongdoing first.

Companies can't literally speak as in vocalize as a person, but they can, as entities, create the equivalence of speech in the societal sense, and shifting the arbiter of truth to the state will simply centralize that power in an entity that, in addition to dominating the marketplace by default - you can't exactly pick where you're born, nor where you can move to realistically for the most part - they can bring real consequences. Deplatforming is child's play compared to actual imprisonment or getting pushed out of an airborne helicopter.

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

#210

Post by rendall »

"And it’s not like any of those outlets are pro-Trump! And neither am I!"

What is spectacularly frustrating about today's climate is that one cannot criticize the extremely poor, biased coverage of Trump as illustrated in the article without discussion-ending accusations of being pro Trump and even a Russian asset.

This quoted qualifier needed to be in there or else people would forever henceforth refer back to this article as evidence that the author supported Trump.

As I said elsewhere here, hit pieces more than anything else have eroded the credibility of traditional media for me, and the last 4 years have been unending, overlapping series of anti-Trump hit pieces. Speaking as a non-supporter of Trump, I found their coverage disheartening

Post reply on HN