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

351–360 of 368 posts

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

#351

Post by zepto »

whakim wrote: post #344
zepto wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you assume the headline wasn’t written in service of pushing an agenda? It can both be intended to get more clicks, and to push an agenda. In fact it’s reasonable to assume every headline is like this, since they must generally conform to the agendas of the publication and must be interesting. Headlines are generally written by editors, not the authors. However at this point, why does that change anything?…

Why would you believe that? Copy editors don't spend a lot of time on each headline. Publication style guides for headlines aren't particularly ideological. Copy editors aren't like reporters, who narrowly focus on a single subject - whoever wrote this headline probably writes hundreds of headlines for articles across a vast array of subjects. To me, having worked at a newspaper (not the NYT of course) and having see…

Copy editors are part of the organization.

If the organization has an ideological position, they will reflect it. It doesn’t take some special deep thought to do so.

It seems like you are working hard to make the case that these headlines are somehow random, or that bias takes a lot of work to coordinate.

That’s implausible. They are a result of the organizational culture as much as any other writing they produce.

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

#352

Post by alentist »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #271
alentist wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stasi-like citizen-surveillance. And there's nothing ironic about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26069728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070040

The irony is that this piece is, to use Glenn’s words, “penny-ante, trivial bullshit”. Again, it’s a 3,000 word polemic rant in response to… a mistaken allegation in a tweet. It’s not speaking truth to power. It’s not shedding light on corruption. It’s just Glenn up on his high horse, spewing the same boring right-wing outragebait that he’s peddled for years.

Your description of this (now failed) attempt at character assassination as simply "a mistaken allegation" is very disingenuous.

Why are you so angry that it was foiled?

An NYT reporter trying to ruin people's lives and reputations for petty ideological reasons is anything but "trivial bullshit".

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

#353

Post by jakelazaroff »

alentist wrote: post #352
jakelazaroff wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that this piece is, to use Glenn’s words, “penny-ante, trivial bullshit”. Again, it’s a 3,000 word polemic rant in response to… a mistaken allegation in a tweet. It’s not speaking truth to power. It’s not shedding light on corruption. It’s just Glenn up on his high horse, spewing the same boring right-wing outragebait that he’s peddled for years.

Your description of this (now failed) attempt at character assassination as simply "a mistaken allegation" is very disingenuous. Why are you so angry that it was foiled? An NYT reporter trying to ruin people's lives and reputations for petty ideological reasons is anything but "trivial bullshit".

I’m not being disingenuous, I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt. I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this.

Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about. Glenn is coming to defend a powerful person against an allegation that would have had literally no impact on his life or work.

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

#354

Post by alentist »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #353
alentist wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your description of this (now failed) attempt at character assassination as simply "a mistaken allegation" is very disingenuous. Why are you so angry that it was foiled? An NYT reporter trying to ruin people's lives and reputations for petty ideological reasons is anything but "trivial bullshit".

I’m not being disingenuous, I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt. I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this. Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about. Glenn is coming…

> I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt.

I suggest you read how she reacted to being exposed.

> I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this.

Again, what "shit" are you referring to? Why are you so angry that he's reporting on this issue?

> Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about.

So you give the perpetrator a free pass because their victim in this case happens to be a high-profile person who might be able to defend themselves against the slander and all its consequences?

What hope is left for the little guy?

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

#355

Post by whakim »

zepto wrote: post #351
whakim wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you believe that? Copy editors don't spend a lot of time on each headline. Publication style guides for headlines aren't particularly ideological. Copy editors aren't like reporters, who narrowly focus on a single subject - whoever wrote this headline probably writes hundreds of headlines for articles across a vast array of subjects. To me, having worked at a newspaper (not the NYT of course) and having see…

Copy editors are part of the organization. If the organization has an ideological position, they will reflect it. It doesn’t take some special deep thought to do so. It seems like you are working hard to make the case that these headlines are somehow random, or that bias takes a lot of work to coordinate. That’s implausible. They are a result of the organizational culture as much as any other writing they produce.

Again, that doesn't reflect my experience working at a newspaper, where many other factors play a much stronger role in headline selection. Perhaps you're right and I don't see that deep-seated bias that's informing headline selections. Happy to continue this discussion elsewhere (should be easy to find my contact details based on my username) if that's something you're interested in.

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

#356

Post by mint2 »

da_big_ghey wrote: post #349
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If retarded is a slur, then so is moron, idiot, imbecile, cretin and other past accepted medical terminology for the cognitively disabled that were adopted by the public as slurs. If you look up the history, "mentally retarded" was itself coined to escape the negative connotations of those previous terms. It's unfortunate but inevitable that referents to the cognitively disabled will continue to be abused, no matter…

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make; thanks for articulating it well. Idiot was a clinical designation for those with IQs between 0 and 25; imbecile, 26 to 50; and moron, 51 to 70. Stupid originated to refer to retarded people, too. And yet, these words are benign enough for kids to use. Why are these somehow "less offensive" than retard? I use it the same way I would any of the former, and have ever since I…

His account is literally named throw away “r2” in a thread where people are talking about “the r word”. I made the mistake of assuming that account is a throwaway... did you notice what his account was named?

While what you say about the account is true, it’s literally called a throw away. Even with the age, it’s questionable whether it’s an alt account. But yes my bad. I was misled by the misleading name.

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

#357

Post by perl4ever »

orestarod wrote: post #333
perl4ever wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSB wasn't all that alt-right/Nazi/whatever before the GameStop insanity, but after some clickbait articles equating them with Trump supporters, something like 6 million new people descended on them, some noticeable number of them being Trump/QAnon cultists. I suspect it was a self-fulfilling thing.

No Trumpists were spotted - people just wanted a piece of the pie and say fuck you to the criminals at Wall Street - but it seems the media did their job.

Oh, no. They were spotted. Afterwards. I am not talking about hearsay or "journalism". There was a thread with several tens of thousands of upvotes and someone innocently said to the effect of "that sounds almost like one of those worshippers of the orange god..." and another person said (paraphrasing) "it literally IS, they are an antivaxxer and EVERYTHING, just check their posting history". They were not lying.

That doesn't prove any particular percentage of the newcomers were, but when you see one like that...

But I say again, I believe this was an effect of the articles, not the cause.

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

#358

Post by vorpalhex »

kenjackson wrote: post #159
da_big_ghey wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retarded is not a slur. Never was. People keep picking arbitrary words and saying they're "offensive", but there's no reason why. I have heard kids call each other "mentally challenged" and "developmentally delayed", I kid you not. Younger kids have trouble pronouncing those, so maybe that's something? Anyway, I refuse to partake in the euphemism treadmill.

Retarded can definitely be used as a slur. And, in general, you don’t need to be offended for a word to be offensive to others.

I was at some point describing a friend and used the word "gypsy". Another friend got very upset at me and went on a long rant about how the word is offensive and wrong and I should be ashamed for using it.

I used gypsy because it's the title the person I was describing used. It's how they asked to be referred to, and as it's their literal blood heritage, I'm going to refer to them however they want to be referred to.

This happens today with words like "transsexual" - there are people very offended by that phrase and there are people who self-label using that phrase and want to be called that.

If we as a species are going to continue down a path of globalization where we have a lot of different cultures and communities around us, we're going to have to understand a word is not verboten universally. There's a difference between someone not wanting to be called retarded and taking offense anytime the word itself is used - even in non-derogatory contexts.

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

#359

Post by lawnchair_larry »

apostacy wrote: post #281
whakim wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your reasoned response. But the misinformation that we tend to focus on isn't "we faked the moon landing" or "the sky is a layer of impenetrable foil." It's anti-muslim riots in Sri Lanka[1] or the fact that a large percentage of the US electorate believes that the 2020 election was fraudulent. These are clearly cases of "real and demonstrable harm," even if you believe that other things also sometimes c…

> I also wanted to point out that there's a technical term for true information that causes harm, "malinformation." Wow, that is such an Orwellian thing to say. The definition you just gave could be used to justify censorship of any truthful information. Yes, this factual information is upsetting, but we need to let Facebook cover our eyes and decide how outraged we are allowed to be. Otherwise we might hurt ourselve…

Haha, you went there. Brave! But some good points. But how do you determine when all the facts are out and it’s appropriate? When circumstances do not favor the deciders as a class or their allies, the facts will probably tend to take far longer to come out. When they are favorable, they would likely determine that all facts are known immediately.
Post reply on HN