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

The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#21

Post by matthewdgreen »

"[The NYT] decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry ... the press should try to normalize coverage of the tech industry as just another business sector."

The irony here is that a prominent member of the 'tech industry' (with enthusiastic support from other prominent tech industry luminaries) just bought one of the most important social media networks with the specific intention of making substantial changes to the way information is disseminated in the United States. That may turn out for the best, or it may not -- it doesn't matter.

What does matter: the NYT's decision to focus skeptical reporting on tech as an "important power center" sure seems to have been vindicated.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#22

Post by dralley »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #21

"[The NYT] decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry ... the press should try to normalize coverage of the tech industry as just another business sector." The irony here is that a prominent member of the 'tech industry' (with enthusiastic support from other prominent tech industry lumina…

Meanwhile Bezos owns the Washington Post, and while he doesn't seem to have messed with it too much, Amazon has absolutely been messing with the neutrality of IMDB where it comes into conflict with Amazon's media IPs.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#23

Post by MisterBastahrd »

Musk's acquisition of twitter was, among many other things, an attempt to use his wealth to steer the marketplace of ideas. The man lives in a world where he can freely attempt to destroy anyone who tells him "no" without consequence. The New York Times, then, would seem to have been fully warranted in their apprehension regarding social giants like twitter.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#24

Post by avgcorrection »

> What's happened is that they have mistaken their own resentment at journalists' unearned checkmark privilege for something that journalists themselves care deeply about and are either willing to pay for or are mad that other people will be able to buy.

This is telepsychology.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#25

Post by doomlaser »

dralley wrote: post #22
matthewdgreen wrote: post #21

"[The NYT] decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry ... the press should try to normalize coverage of the tech industry as just another business sector." The irony here is that a prominent member of the 'tech industry' (with enthusiastic support from other prominent tech industry lumina…

Meanwhile Bezos owns the Washington Post, and while he doesn't seem to have messed with it too much, Amazon has absolutely been messing with the neutrality of IMDB where it comes into conflict with Amazon's media IPs.

https://letterboxd.com is the best source for scoping out a movie now. The ratings histogram for each film is incredibly informative about quality. It also happens to be my favorite social network right now since it's so focused.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#26

Post by bpodgursky »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #21

"[The NYT] decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry ... the press should try to normalize coverage of the tech industry as just another business sector." The irony here is that a prominent member of the 'tech industry' (with enthusiastic support from other prominent tech industry lumina…

Tesla and SpaceX are not traditional members of the "tech" industry imo.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#27

Post by noAnswer »

m0meni wrote: post #16

I feel like people are forgetting the real value of verification. If you aren't verified, someone will pretend to be you on Twitter. Prominent people aren't paying $8 to get a check, they're paying $8 to make sure they can't be easily impersonated, which I think is really worth it.

I would be surprised if they do any "verification" at all. If you are a paining member, you will get a special icon. That's it.

I knew web forums that had that. Members that donated to the forum got a special status icon. It could get "trendy" and every one wants to show that they are part of the in-group.

Having to pay in order to be save from impersonation sound like extortion though.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#28

Post by lokar »

webmobdev wrote: post #18
m0meni wrote: post #16

I feel like people are forgetting the real value of verification. If you aren't verified, someone will pretend to be you on Twitter. Prominent people aren't paying $8 to get a check, they're paying $8 to make sure they can't be easily impersonated, which I think is really worth it.

Identity theft is a crime. If a platform facilitates this, it should be liable.

Identity theft is a crime when used to commit fraud. Just claiming to be someone but not otherwise defrauding anyone is fine.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#29

Post by ars »

mikkergp wrote: post #5
fullshark wrote: post #3

> As a longtime working journalist, longtime check-haver, and someone who knows lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of media professionals I can promise you that working journalists derive zero value, social status, or self-esteem from this. Blatantly false, as the childish histrionics over the new verification system from many journalists this past week have shown. A lot of journalists' entire self worth seems…

Most of the journalists I've seen have expressed just the oppossite, an ease with leaving twitter if these get enacted, what makes you say that " A lot of journalists' entire self worth seems wrapped up in their twitter audience frankly."

> an ease with leaving twitter if these get enacted

I'll believe that when journalists stop writing articles with unnamed sources, that are based on random twitter posts.

Re: The New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage

#30

Post by acdha »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #21

"[The NYT] decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry ... the press should try to normalize coverage of the tech industry as just another business sector." The irony here is that a prominent member of the 'tech industry' (with enthusiastic support from other prominent tech industry lumina…

It’s also weird coming after decades of tech reshaping media: local news is a fraction of what it once was, leaving important stories uncovered; things like Facebook’s infamous pivot to video, instant news pages, Google AMP, etc. all pulled control to tech companies and lost money for media companies; and the very way people write headlines and stories changed based on social media and search company decisions. Musk isn’t just some weird outlier, and it’s bizarre to me that someone who works in journalism is basically saying “we focus too much on the times where Lucy pulled the football away.”
Post reply on HN