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

Statement on New York Times Article

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 437 posts

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#41

Post by thisiszilff »

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…

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/inside-the-new-york-... is a great article about changes at NYTimes in the past few years.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#42

Post by grapehut »

NhanH wrote: post #13

This is shameful, and the second time this month NYT puts out such a shameful piece (the first time was the JetBrains/ Solarwinds article). I guess this should be enough to disregard everything NYT will write, and stop reading them. Another commenter said that NYT still produces comparably some of the best journalistic content. I will have to stop reading news if this is the case. After the whole fiasco of Scott dele…

Third time if you include the bizarre Ayaan Hirsi Ali hit piece too.

I guess it's a product of actual-journalism not paying the bills.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#43

Post by jrochkind1 »

alexpetralia wrote: post #26

I think it's now worth considering The New York Times as a hostile actor, in the same category as Google and Facebook. (Of course this is a gross generalization, but the beneficent- or neutral-actor model no longer seems appropriate.)

I am not sure I understand what you mean by these "models" of corporations. You believe that some corporations organize their actions to try to help... everyone? And others organize their actions to try to hurt... everyone? And you decide what category to put what corporation in?

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#44

Post by jumelles »

graeme wrote: post #28
donthitme wrote: post #17

Reading the NYT piece was mortifying.[1] They were my primary source of all things news and then published this strange hit that's just... off base. They were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. How can a reliable news source write an article like that? Why throw your reputation down the toilet for what seems like a grudge? [1] https://www.nytimes.c…

The Times has a long history. There was the WMD scandal where Judith Miller credulously wrote about the Bush administration’s lies on Iraq. Then in the 2016 election the NYT had a front page spread implying major scandal regarding Clinton’s emails. This probably cost Clinton the election. https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-elec... I could come up with more examples but the times have a very clear…

> Then in the 2016 election the NYT had a front page spread implying major scandal regarding Clinton’s emails. This probably cost Clinton the election.

I didn't realize James Comey worked at the Times.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#45

Post by remarkEon »

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

I’m attempting to find a charitable way to engage with those tweets, since on first read they seem a) deliberately false about the content of SSC, b) invoke a sneering tone common amongst folks who subscribe to certain segments of “woke” progressivism (especially in tech), and c) attribute maximum malice of forethought by the targeted party to all of it.

The arguments are also just bad. “Why don’t these free speech people take into account existing power structures?” But this is of course exactly what they are doing when they advocate for absolute free speech. How else do you account and adjust for the different levels of cultural power different groups, companies, whatever have in society?

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#46

Post by jumelles »

jancsika wrote: post #22

I want to hijack this thread to lend further credence to my conspiracy theory about an ongoing nation-state attempt to create nameclashes for maximum disruption in the U.S.: The author quotes a NYT articles which quotes the author's piece on "Radicalizing the Romanceless." In it, the author writes this: > And I made the horrible mistake of asking this question out loud, and that was how I learned about social justice…

Languages and the meanings of words change over time. It's not a conspiracy.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#47

Post by john_moscow »

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…

There's a huge tension in the society caused by the wealth shift from individuals to corporations. As a rank-and-file millennial, in most of the cases you are priced out of property ownership, are expected to do your shitty job until death, and you starting a family would be directly directly against your employer's interests.

The woke movement and is artificially splintering people based on identities. It is redirecting the tension between people and corporations into tension between artificially created identity groups. So far they are very successful at it. Plenty of people are so busy trying to ruin someone else's life, they completely don't notice the decline of their own long-term perspectives.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#48

Post by cowmoo728 »

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…

This is nothing new from them. The NYT, as the "paper of record" for America, has always been mired in politics and power. One of my favorite pieces from NYT is their blistering condemnation of MLK after his famous anti-Vietnam speech.

Never forget that there is a side that benefits politically from telling you that the NYT is being taken over by "woke radical authoritarians". The NYT is a political organization playing politics, just as it has been since 1851. I still mostly respect them because they tend to report facts accurately and mostly follow the ideal of journalistic integrity better than many other media outlets. But there are certain topics now, just as always, where their prevailing politics shines through loud and clear.

https://www.nytimes.com/1967/04/14/archives/dr-king-and-the-...

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#49

Post by alexpetralia »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #43
alexpetralia wrote: post #26

I think it's now worth considering The New York Times as a hostile actor, in the same category as Google and Facebook. (Of course this is a gross generalization, but the beneficent- or neutral-actor model no longer seems appropriate.)

I am not sure I understand what you mean by these "models" of corporations. You believe that some corporations organize their actions to try to help... everyone? And others organize their actions to try to hurt... everyone? And you decide what category to put what corporation in?

Of course it is reductive, but I do think some businesses pursue mostly non-zero sum games. Their gain does not come at my expense.

There are yet others which have "mined out" all the non-zero sum games in their industry (or choose not to pursue them), and so instead play zero-sum games. In these games, their gains come at the expense of their customers, the public or the environment. These tend to be monopolies because there is no recourse.

In categorizing some of these businesses as hostile actors, I am suggesting that they are predominantly playing zero-sum games. To cite some examples of businesses not playing zero-sum games, I need not look further than the small businesses in my local town.

Hopefully this provides a more nuanced answer you were rightfully asking about.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#50

Post by ufmace »

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.

I'm pretty sure that nothing they printed is technically libel. They should at least know by now how to write a good hit piece without technically committing libel.

I'm afraid there's not going to be a solution for what the American Media has become in the legal system.

Post reply on HN