I didn't perceive the NYT article as negative at all. As for naming him, that's their choice as journalists, and a risk he took with recording his thoughts online just as all of us do. I wish folks would rid themselves of the notion that the internet is anonymous or deletable. We'd all be much healthier by acknowledging the possibility that whatever you write here may be etched in stone. And if you become well known…
Statement on New York Times Article
91–100 of 437 posts
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#92Reading 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…
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#93I didn't perceive the NYT article as negative at all. As for naming him, that's their choice as journalists, and a risk he took with recording his thoughts online just as all of us do. I wish folks would rid themselves of the notion that the internet is anonymous or deletable. We'd all be much healthier by acknowledging the possibility that whatever you write here may be etched in stone. And if you become well known…
It Is also impossible not to get DDoS on the internet, you still would want people not to DDoS you.
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#94Reading 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…
// hey were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. You probably have heard of "Gell-Mann Amnesia" but in case not, it really explains a lot: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. ... Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect... you read with exasperation or amusement…
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#95One of the most recent examples that really struck me was NYT's article about why they decided to capitalize Black, but not White, in their paper: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/insider/capitalized-black...
Now, I can certainly understand, and consider valid, the arguments both for and against capitalizing Black. However, the decision to capitalize Black, but not White, is completely non-sensical to me, as is NYT's bizarre 1 sentence explanation in that article: "white doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does, and also has long been capitalized by hate groups." What? They don't even try to give any argument behind "white doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does", which reads like a poorly researched high school English paper. And the fact that some bad people have decided to capitalize White is their rationale that it must be lower-cased?
If anything, the top comments in response to that article make a hell of a lot more sense than the NYT's decision itself. I'll also note that many other news organizations, like the Washington Post and CNN, have decided to capitalize both Black and White, e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2020/07/29/washington-post...
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 play…
A publication can be politically titled to one side and still be factually accurate and stay true to journalistic integrity principles (or at least that's what I want). With social media and modern communication/publication mechanisms, it is much easier for individuals who know the ground truth to bring their perspective to the fore and poke holes into a major publication's journalistic flaws. This wasn't possible ju…
Being a partisan mouthpiece isn't itself a problem, the issue is when it pretends (and many of its supporters repeatedly and falsely claim) that items described in the paper are more objective and carries greater weight than those in your average political party's weekly newsletter.
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#97Reading 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…
// hey were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. You probably have heard of "Gell-Mann Amnesia" but in case not, it really explains a lot: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. ... Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect... you read with exasperation or amusement…
BTW, if you're interested in the facts, this report should help:
2018 - 035 - PK-LQP Final Report http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20...
If you want to argue with me, I'll just cite that report :-)
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#98Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#99Earlier 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.
It's pretty hard to find high quality alternatives. There is the wall street journal, maybe a few others, but not many. I personally read a few high quality news sources and science journals. Inexplicably many here seem to think that random blog posts are somehow remotely equivalent. I value opinion at zero, and trust a random person to do quality research at about zero too. Trust is earned. When random internet opin…
a discussion on how big institutions that are telling you the truth are competing both to keep their position and tell you the truth with a focus on medicine
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-...
A more poetic version discussing the concept in general.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Re: Statement on New York Times Article
#100Even Macron felt the need to tell them they fucked up.