Statement on New York Times Article • Hacker News Board

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#31

Post by pm90 » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 3:49 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #21

outoftheabyss wrote: post #14

This is the second article I’ve come across today lambasting the NYT for a hit piece, the second in my opinion is much worse given what the subject has been exposed to and has had to endure. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-the-... It seems the publication is in the midst of a takeover by woke radical authoritarians. It used to be that you should be cancelled and/or made a pariah of society for…

>It seems the publication is in the midst of a takeover by woke radical authoritarians. I'm skeptical it's an actual takeover per se, and not the older generation being completely blindsided by the force with which the younger generation(s) release their demands. They probably just don't know how to deal with it, and so are giving too much deference to them because doing otherwise risks the online twitter mob. Is leg…

> Is legacy media really leaking talent and cash like I hear so often (honestly asking, haven't seen the data)? If that's true, and social media and technology have neutered their position atop of opinion-forming institutions, that is going to build some very bad incentives in these legacy media companies as far as journalistic integrity goes.

They're definitely in decline financially, but that does mean there are a lot of great journalists that are available to hire.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#32

Post by seieste » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 3:53 AM UTC

donohoe wrote: post #27

As someone else said (and I agree): This gets at part of what I find irritating about the self-described Rationalist community: they talk about "free speech" when what they really want is unrestricted, consequence-less speech that allows them to guiltlessly harm certain people in the name of innovation. Source: https://twitter.com/espiers/status/1360793868816556033

If you believe that's the case, perhaps you could provide an example of Scott's writing that shouldn't be allowed, and what you think the consequences should be?

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#33

Post by gnramires » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 3:57 AM UTC

For anyone interested, seems like a good overview:

https://jasoncrawford.org/guide-to-scott-alexander-and-slate...

hn discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26128579

(seriously, don't miss on reading some of Scott's posts -- you will be disappointed by almost every piece of nonfiction you read afterwards)

It's definitely one of those cases of "If everyone thought a little more like X, Earth would be a much better place.", (let X=Scott Alexander) -- and notably it becomes quite clear how to think like he does (he just tells you!).

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#34

Post by john_moscow » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 4:01 AM UTC

I am wondering, what are the legal perspectives of suing NYT for libel at this point. If Scott started a crowdsourcing campaign to fund legal defense, I would gladly throw in a couple of grand. Given the support Scott received when the situation with NYT's plans got public in the first place, this could set a very interesting precedent.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#35

Post by stefan_ » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 4:03 AM UTC

The most hilarious part of the New York Times decline was the "public editor". Every public editor piece was carefully selected and prepared to admit the least amount of negligence possible, to frame even blatant lies in a mere "he said, she said" or a confusion of the moment.

Eventually, it dawned on them that having an obviously incompetent, incapable public editor is worse than having none at all, so they unceremoniously canned the position.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#36

Post by jhpriestley » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 4:14 AM UTC

For reference of the many people who apparently have no clue, this is an example of a "hatchet job": https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/10/the-fanatic-frau...

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#37

Post by lenkite » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 4:17 AM UTC

Ignore the politics, foreign affairs and opinion sections of the NYT. They basically peddle outright lies and exaggerations with ridiculous levels of bias.

Stick to the non-environment science pieces. Admittedly, not much of the paper left, but whats left is rather good. Until those writers get fired.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#38

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 4:24 AM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #34

I am wondering, what are the legal perspectives of suing NYT for libel at this point. If Scott started a crowdsourcing campaign to fund legal defense, I would gladly throw in a couple of grand. Given the support Scott received when the situation with NYT's plans got public in the first place, this could set a very interesting precedent.

[deleted]

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#39

Post by outlace » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 4:26 AM UTC

Tenoke wrote: post #18

throwmtlsPhD wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I suggest an alternative? The pieces of the NYT that you think are “some of the best journalistic context out there” might be in area that you are less well read than you believe yourself to be. I know this has been true for me many times. Try reading what someone who disagree with the NYT would consider a high quality alternative.

I'm aware of Gell-Mann Amnesia and read from a variety of sources. This was really a comment on how most journalism is even worse. The NYT does occasionally have pieces where I know about the topic and their representation goes into details that others aren't likely to. Those are, however, not a large percentage of their output.

thanks for referencing Gell-Mann Amnesia. Never heard of it before but after looking it up it is quite compelling.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#40

Post by andrewfong » Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 4:33 AM UTC

john_moscow wrote: post #34

I am wondering, what are the legal perspectives of suing NYT for libel at this point. If Scott started a crowdsourcing campaign to fund legal defense, I would gladly throw in a couple of grand. Given the support Scott received when the situation with NYT's plans got public in the first place, this could set a very interesting precedent.

Given that his explicitly stated goal is to move on from this, probably a bad idea. Right or wrong, a lawsuit would invite the Streisand effect.

As for whether there's any legal basis to sue, it's doubtful. There isn't a whole lot that's factually inaccurate in the NYT piece. It's innuendo and words taken out of context. California has a "False Light" claim that might apply, but I doubt any court would take that up. At its core, taking stuff you said in a public forum out of context is endemic to free speech in America. If we penalized it legally, a good chunk of Hacker News would be legally questionable.