What happens when the NYT and New Yorker make mistakes • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by lordloki » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

redis_mlc wrote: post #136

underseacables wrote: post #19

“ Most educated people believe that premier news outlets are inherently trustworthy.” Let’s stop right there. I think the last 8 years have shown the media to have lost significant amounts of public trust. I would say that most educated people inherently believe that the media should not automatically receive benefit of the doubt any longer.

I go to cnn.com when I want to see the latest draft of "1984 v2.0". It's really that bad. Glenn Greenwald explained that when he asked his US journalist friends why they only parrot leftist narratives, they replied they had to or they'd lose their job and all their friends. One of the NY Times editors "resigned" because he said burning downtowns should be countered with the National Guard - in other words stopping an…

The NY Times editor who "resigned" didn't say burning downtowns should be countered with the National Guard. He approved the publishing of an op-ed from a US Senator that approved of sending in the national guard. The editor was attacked for allowing "hate speech" in the paper and forced to resign.

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

#252

Post by Twixes » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

h2odragon wrote: post #227

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?

Journalism was "stories without religion" until they succeeded in killing religion. Now they've become priests and built a Temple to no god.

Wow, that is dramatic.

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

#253

Post by aksss » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

tsimionescu wrote: post #250

aksss wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is different when referring to politics in a two-party system like the US, versus political philosophy . In the US political system, the center is relative to where the two parties are - there is no “absolute truth” of the center. The democrats are the party of the left like republicans are the party of the right — meaning political views will roughly trend according to party membership. Centrists are def…

Politics in the US is not limited to the two parties. The population of the US has a wide range of political opinions that don't neatly aligned to the mainline Democratic or Republican views. Especially in the US, with its system of primaries, the real politics of the population are relevant even when the official election essentially only offers 2 candidates. And in the real US, the Democratic party is to the right…

In practical terms the US is limited to two parties. Name the last time a third party won the Presidency. This is woven into the structure.

This doesn't limit the spectrum of opinions of individuals by any means but it does compel some degree of consensus and organization to mount a serious campaign.

> They will likely pull the Dem party to the left

Yes, the parties vacillate in how far left or right they are, and the center moves accordingly. Still, the center of US politics isn't defined by some "objective truth" it's defined by the relative position of the two political parties. Some ideas that have been centrist in the past are now extremist, some ideas that have been considered extreme in the past are now considered the accepted consensus.

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

#254

Post by philwelch » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:40 AM UTC

skinnymuch wrote: post #229

philwelch wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most of those supporters still support Fox though, no? How many are actually against Fox, never watch it, and advocate against it? Perhaps that number is bigger than I’m imagining, but I doubt it. Edgy comments online saying Fox sucks for a week because they didn’t do a good enough job isn’t the same thing. That’s still on Fox’s side. I don’t think the comparison is the same. Maybe for Democracy Now and some progress…

> Most of those supporters still support Fox though, no? How many are actually against Fox, never watch it, and advocate against it?

Seems like a lot. That's why OAN and Newsmax grew so fast.

> I don’t think the comparison is the same. Maybe for Democracy Now and some progressive YouTuber/online shows.

Democracy Now and TYT are the progressive version of OAN/Newsmax. MSNBC is the progressive version of Fox.

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

#255

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 5:33 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #238

s1artibartfast wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It seems inherent in the definitions of a conservative/traditionalist party and progressive/change based party. I don't really buy this. Despite parties using those terms, they don't really mean anything when any given thing had been the status quo at some point in history. Were the people who opposed sodomy laws in the 20th century agents of change, or reactionaries pining for the way things were in the time of th…

>I don't really buy this. Despite parties using those terms, they don't really mean anything when any given thing had been the status quo at some point in history.

I think that most conservatives don't look to some distant point in the past, but the status quo now, or perhaps some time earlier in their lifetime. If you view all over your examples through this lens, the ambiguity is resolved.

If you look at conservative views and values, they are more consistent through time than liberal views. I think the data presented a few parent threads up clearly supports this view.

I'm not saying there is a moral high ground in being more resistant to change or less resistant to change, but in my mind, it is clearly part of political reality we live in, and a valuable lens to understand the current political divide.

If you don't agree with this view, what alternative do you propose? Are conservative and progressive values and interests random? What values inform the positions they take and how they change over time?

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

#256

Post by tsimionescu » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:13 AM UTC

aksss wrote: post #253

tsimionescu wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics in the US is not limited to the two parties. The population of the US has a wide range of political opinions that don't neatly aligned to the mainline Democratic or Republican views. Especially in the US, with its system of primaries, the real politics of the population are relevant even when the official election essentially only offers 2 candidates. And in the real US, the Democratic party is to the right…

In practical terms the US is limited to two parties. Name the last time a third party won the Presidency. This is woven into the structure. This doesn't limit the spectrum of opinions of individuals by any means but it does compel some degree of consensus and organization to mount a serious campaign. > They will likely pull the Dem party to the left Yes, the parties vacillate in how far left or right they are, and th…

In the end this is just a matter of definitions. For my own understanding, I define left and right and center in terms of the relative opinions of the population, not the parties. You define them by the parties' positions - that's fair of course, it's a workable definition.

I do think there are advantages to my definition - by your definition, the majority of the US population has an extreme left position on Medicare for all, as an example.

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

#257

Post by tsimionescu » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:19 AM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #233

Daho0n wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see a situation where the word left means something different if you are talking about national politics versus international politics as a good idea? Because that is the situation you are in if you won't acknowledge that the Democrats are centrist. What then do you call left leaning politics outside the US? Left left? Foreign Left? Communists? This misuse and redefining of words is one of the reasons we have…

Left and right are relative really. Wanting to shift to a constitutional monarchy was once "the left" or having only Chrisianity as first class citizens in comparison to only Catholicism or Protestantism. International politics should be contextually anchored essentially. So you say "Party X from country Y is further left than part A from country B." That is putting aside "mixed political aspects". Is a communist cou…

Sure, but in my opinion you should base that on the political leanings of the population of the countrybypu are analyzing, not only on its political parties.

Mixed political aspects are a good argument to be careful in discussing 'overall' political leanings. There are real-world mixups like you describe - for example, Marine Le Pen, while a frighteningly far right extremist on social and foreign policy issues, was to the left of someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton on many economic policy aspects.

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

#258

Post by mike_hearn » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 11:09 AM UTC

cyberlurker wrote: post #243

mike_hearn wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the Russian government (as opposed to all of Russia) is absolutely a legitimate threat to the integrity of US networks, as are the governments of many other countries. And of course the US government is a proven threat to the integrity of both US and non-US networks. Unfortunately the reporting on purported Russian hacking events seems invariably to collapse when examined. My conclusion from all this is that…

Attribution is always hard but SolarWinds has some obvious fingerprints. If you consider it hacking, the Russian bot farms (IRA) is well documented too. Maybe they are good at not leaking, I’m not sure. I will say, I’ve heard some grudging respect for the SolarWinds operation in security circles. They have a functioning offensive cyber organization, that’s for sure.

What are those fingerprints, in the SolarWinds case?

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

#259

Post by Daho0n » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 12:11 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #233

Daho0n wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see a situation where the word left means something different if you are talking about national politics versus international politics as a good idea? Because that is the situation you are in if you won't acknowledge that the Democrats are centrist. What then do you call left leaning politics outside the US? Left left? Foreign Left? Communists? This misuse and redefining of words is one of the reasons we have…

Left and right are relative really. Wanting to shift to a constitutional monarchy was once "the left" or having only Chrisianity as first class citizens in comparison to only Catholicism or Protestantism. International politics should be contextually anchored essentially. So you say "Party X from country Y is further left than part A from country B." That is putting aside "mixed political aspects". Is a communist cou…

Well, personal freedom is neither left nor right but rather up (Libertarianism) versus down (Authoritarian). If you divide the political spectrum in a XY scatter chart you get both Bush, Trump and Obama at Top Right pretty close to each other in Authoritarian Right. Someone like Sanders is to the Left but still pretty Authoritarian in some ways, so not really what is seen as Left outside the US. Someone who is what is normally called Left (left and down) would be Jill Stein (or Noam Chomsky if not only looking at politicians). So in short, both your examples are likely in the Top Right; Right Authoritarians, if they are from the US.

>Wanting to shift to a constitutional monarchy was once "the left"

Yes, in many places they still have names from back then. For example one of the biggest political parties from Denmark is named "Venstre" which literally means "Left", even though they are to the Right (conservative-liberal). Quite funny that a close match from Norway is called "Høyre" which means "Right". They rooted for Joe Biden in the election though and had a big party back when Obama won, because US Left is their Right to center-right and the republicans are just way too extreme for their taste.

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

#260

Post by robin21 » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #141

The death of Brian Sicknick by a fire extinguisher at the capital riots is false. It is still uncorrected on the NYT. It matters because it might have been due to irritants used inside the building and we need to know this stuff. But NYT won't risk passing blame.

You don’t know it’s false. However your comment made me curious and I was amazed that it’s still inconclusive what caused his death. And why was that...

> on Wednesday, pro-Trump rioters attacked that citadel of democracy, overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening.

- NYTimes

> He died the day after he was by rioters from the mob at the Capitol.

NYTimes now links to the above article when referencing the incident.

> Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, 42, a 13-year veteran of the force, died as a result of injuries sustained while engaging with rioters. The exact cause of his injuries has not been made public, with investigators lacking evidence that could prove somebody caused his death.[349] Reuters reported that Sicknick suffered a thromboembolic stroke[350] and collapsed after returning to his division office

- Wikipedia

So the cause is not known yet, there is no evidence, and he wasn’t rushed to hospital after immediately sustaining injuries but instead returned to the precinct and then felt unwell. Also texted his brother that he was maced twice but felt fine.

NYTimes is such bullshit, I can’t believe how brazenly they do this stuff. If someone is “beaten on the ground and rushed to hospital” you don’t really question that or feel you need to fact check - because it seems like something that would be easily falsified if it weren’t true.

Yet the NYT manage to do it.