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

NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

greenwald.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 368 posts

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#211

Post by themaninthedark »

astrange wrote: post #194
tehjoker wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusing Greenwald of being a Nazi is pretty uncalled for. I (a Jew) despise Nazis, but I can certainly distinguish between someone calling for the older liberal line of free speech for everyone (something Noam Chomsky has done [0]) and advocating for racial purity via ethnic cleansing. You can say that such a position might help Nazis, but to draw zero distinction is troubling. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faur…

I am not making a general claim, I’m making a specific claim about him. https://twitter.com/heresysquad/status/1191762909325492225?s... He was so enthusiastic about defending his clients (who were neo-Nazis, yes real ones, they do exist) that NY judges called him unethical in court and the bar banned his behavior after the fact. https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1110344950674186240?...

I'm sorry but is there anything in that twitter thread that actually shows Glen Greenwald is a Nazi or is this one of those "If you defend one, you are one" cases?

https://twitter.com/heresysquad might be a little biased.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#212

Post by chipotle_coyote »

baryphonic wrote: post #177
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #137

So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivial to start with. And... this is exhibit A for the prosecution about how no one is doing real journalism anymore, they're just playing hall monitor. Or turning into the modern Stasi. Sure, those two things don't seem very similar, but we always forget how the SS…

> So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivial to start with. And... this is exhibit A for the prosecution about how no one is doing real journalism anymore, they're just playing hall monitor. Or turning into the modern Stasi. Sure, those two things don't seem very similar, but we always forget how the…

Okay, let's grant for the sake of argument that Taylor Lorenz is overly focused on Andreessen blocking her on Clubhouse.

(1) You leapt from "Taylor Lorenz did this" to "The New York Times sends out agents to harass and stalk perceived enemies"; those two things are not the same, and I suspect if we were talking about entities you had more positive feelings about, you wouldn't conflate the two. (This is not to say that what an NYT reporter does on their own time can't reflect on the Times, but that the NYT is not automatically responsible for it.)

(2) "Going so far as to spread demonstrable lies about them" is... not how I would be comfortable describing what happened in this case. Again, Taylor Lorenz's Twitter account is not the same as a bylined article in the NYT, and you seem to be conflating them. Furthermore, there's no compelling evidence that her original accusation about Andreessen was made in bad faith. "She tried real hard to get into those private chats" may be a demonstration of nosiness, but not automatically one of ill intent.

(3) "Stasi seems only mildly hyperbolic": Sorry, but I'm going to insist that comparing four decades of what's widely considered to be one of the most oppressive state security agencies that ever existed and a reporter falsely tweeting "Marc Andreessen called somebody a retard in a private chat" is more than mildly hyperbolic.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#213

Post by tootie »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #129
CivBase wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Stasi-like" is an extremely hyperbolic way to describe the situation. However, I think "big mistake, but she owned it" is far too forgiving a response. She is a NYT reporter - a profession which trades on trust - and clearly uses her Twitter profile as an extension of her profession. She used that platform to make a false accusation regarding a member of an event of little-to-no public interest using details taken e…

Additionally, this is perhaps the most overt or high-profile example of her untrustworthiness, but there's a long tail of slightly subtler and lower-profile incidents that undoubtedly factored into her termination. It's not like this was a one-off, out-of-character incident.

Not sure what you're talking about, but she hasn't been terminated. She just made her twitter private because she was getting harangued.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#214

Post by mdoms »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #156

Some thoughts on the bigger picture- 1: Really? Do you have to write "r-word" instead of "retard" when you're writing about someone saying something? What if Marc literally said "r-word" and I'm vastly underestimating how woke this reporter is? Wait, I have a solution. Use the actual word that a person said when quoting them. Just write the exact sentence where you think Marc said the word retard. Nobody should prose…

Reminds me of a Louis CK bit where he says that when you say "n-word" you're not saying the n-word but you're making ME say it in my head.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#215

Post by call_me_dana »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #124
freedomben wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take John Brennan at his word, yes, it is coming. Many powerful Democrat lawmakers are working toward allowing law enforcement (FBI, etc) to have the same tools against "domestic terror" as they do again foreign terror. Greenwald himself did a great write up about it: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-new-domestic-war-on-ter...

I'm still wondering how the incredibly large intelligence gathering apparatus in this country was unable to thwart an attack that was being planned openly on social media, in broad daylight. If you can't even stop an attack you should have known was imminent, how does giving them even MORE tools stem the massive failure that allowed the attack to happen in the first place?

Well... simply, it was allowed to happen. Specifically to build support for new draconian domestic terror laws. The government is incredibly paranoid about a domestic uprising so they collectively start drooling when an opportunity to pass laws like this presents itself.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#216

Post by germinalphrase »

Person5478 wrote: post #201
germinalphrase wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Midwestern upbringing was certainly peppered with people using ‘retard’ as a slur, so... mileage may vary?

I think the idea is that a slur is a much stronger insult typically aimed at one's ethnicity. What's being said here is that the word retard is an insult, but does not rise to the level/strength of a slur.

Feels like you’re cutting that a bit thin.

In any case, my experience (and - probably - the context of my cultural upbringing) was that the word was used to both denigrate people with developmental disabilities and to degrade those who did not. This wasn’t calling someone a “loser”. This was using an immutable characteristic of someone’s personhood against them and attacking others by asserting a resemblance.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#217

Post by kgog »

betwixthewires wrote: post #209
kgog wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean your employer should fire you for your HN comments and tweets from personal accounts?

A person with a blue checkmark on Twitter verifies themselves to give themselves professional legitimacy. Especially considering that in the example we are discussing, the person's profession is to reach people and share words , associating their publicly shared words with their professional life is not beyond the pail. They've associated their name with their job, not me.

Is that a yes or a no?

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#218

Post by dogman144 »

call_me_dana wrote: post #203
dogman144 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God I'm pretty lefty but "problematic" is becoming... problematic. On top of that, just completely asinine tech reporting is becoming problematic. Bloomberg supermicro? Never retracted, lead reporter on it is now BBG's cyber reporting czar. NYT's NSA hacked Baltimore author? Came out with that smooth brained "Jetbrains == SolarWinds" story. The wear and tear from a complex field only getting more complex, it governin…

When we see the rise of citizen journalism and independent media. Mainstream media is completely biased and not trustable. Matt Taibbi keeps stressing the need for a unbiased news site but if it has corporate backing, it will eventually become compromised.

I think I am with you on your first sentence being a way forward. Substack is pretty interesting in that regard.

I run into some issues with your use of Taibbi as a good anecdote though for unbiased reporting, and I won't touch your MSM comment.

I think Taibbi is a competent, honest, and candid reporter. That said, I was around during his coverage of GS in the Rolling Stone in '08-'09.

Is he good at speaking truth to power and creating compelling narratives? Yes. But he's biased in his coverage in the same way that Greenwald is. I don't necessarily agree with blurring* the line between OpEd and reporting is the direction that solves the disconnect.

Additionally, honest, citizen journalists with independent funding can misunderstand tech the same way a NYT reporter can. It's still a complex field only getting more complex.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#219

Post by betwixthewires »

astrange wrote: post #197
betwixthewires wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care if he's speaking truth to power. You just called him a Nazi. You've turned a word that meant "mass murderer and genocide sympathizer" into a meaningless low effort character attack used only when no attacks of substance exist. You've even internalized it. You've desensitized us to it, if we were to one day elect a true Nazi you'd be partly to blame.

[flagged]

Again, I'm not trying to attack you, but you're going to learn one day that the public is tired of constant character attacks. It looks to me like you're going to learn the hard way, when nobody pays any mind to a word you have to say one day.

Side note, that link you linked to is not "holocaust denial", and I'll prove it, I'll quote it directly for you: "Noam Chomsky famously defended a French professor against attempts to have him fired because he questioned Holocaust orthodoxies. People understand Chomsky found the ideas repulsive but academic freedom sacred. That's the noble leftist tradition I support." I don't know how you can interpret that the way you framed it when you linked to it, but I'm beginning to doubt that even you genuinely believe the arguments you're making.

Re: NYT reporter falsely accuses tech investor of using a slur

#220

Post by mdoms »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #137

So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivial to start with. And... this is exhibit A for the prosecution about how no one is doing real journalism anymore, they're just playing hall monitor. Or turning into the modern Stasi. Sure, those two things don't seem very similar, but we always forget how the SS…

> I mean, sure, it was fine when they were cancelling Bari Weiss, because he was on board with that

He literally calls out Kyle Chayka for trying to shame Substack for hosting Weiss in this very article. Greenwald was no fan of Weiss but I've seen no evidence that he was in favour of her cancelling.

Post reply on HN