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

71–80 of 134 posts

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

#71

Post by bagels »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #68
throwaway1777 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too on the nose. When I worked at faang almost my entire org was Indians.

The generalisation of "Indians" in the tech sector is doing a lot more harm than one may think. India is a massive country, with some of the most diverse range of cultures and people. The fact that most FAANG CEOs are Indians should speak volumes. Negative stereotyping hurts everyone, only by acceptance and embrace our differences can we move forward.

Do you consider "Indians" to be pejorative?

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #68
throwaway1777 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too on the nose. When I worked at faang almost my entire org was Indians.

The generalisation of "Indians" in the tech sector is doing a lot more harm than one may think. India is a massive country, with some of the most diverse range of cultures and people. The fact that most FAANG CEOs are Indians should speak volumes. Negative stereotyping hurts everyone, only by acceptance and embrace our differences can we move forward.

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by Hamuko »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #4

To save you a click, > 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. Basically he's arguing Musk's $8-check decision comes from a misunderstanding of the journalism industry. His point is only marginally related t…

This seems like wild conjecture. As far as I can tell, the only part where Musk ties into the story is the fact that he's monetising the checkmark. At no point is there actually any discussion on how Musk feels about journalists and their cbeckmarks.

I find the notion of "Musk overpaid for Twitter and is now desperately trying to figure out what people would pay for" as convincing if not more convincing, and to be backed up by as much evidence.

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

#74

Post by Hamuko »

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.

>Prominent people aren't paying $8 to get a check, they're paying $8 to make sure they can't be easily impersonated

If they're giving a checkmark to anyone with $8 to spare, then what is stopping me from registering the "realRealRealDonaldTrump" and paying $8 for that sweet checkmark?

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

#75

Post by d--b »

> I can promise you that working journalists derive zero value, social status, or self-esteem from [being verified]

That’s totally missing the point. Journalists want to be read. If Twitter decides to have verified accounts show up earlier in the search results, or in some aggregated feeds, journalists will pay the 8 bucks.

Twitter in that regard is the opposite of Youtube. Youtube’s bread and butter is make litlle known content creators famous because they’re good (and sell ads on top of it).

Nobody gives a shit about content on Twitter - Twitter is ALL ads. So journalists will pay to have their voices heard cause Twitter is in essence an ad network for personal brands.

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

#76

Post by LAC-Tech »

froh wrote: post #69
LAC-Tech wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech now is the most wealthy and powerful industry in the US. Nowhere near as powerful as media. Wealthy sure.

media == tech these days. twitter, Instagram, TikTok, FB, they are media, YouTube is media.

When it comes to the business of telling you what the nature of the world is and how to think, it's really impossible for me to conjure up something more authoritative than the New York times.

Sure there's people on social media saying things, but the stuff that's an echo of the NYT sounds right and true, the stuff that's against it sounds low-brow and coarse.

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

#77

Post by throwaway4aday »

What a joke, standing anywhere else other than the spot where this guy has found to lodge his head it's been clear that the people most enamored with pontificating on Twitter and checkmarks are journalists. The only reason Twitter has been so overrun and to some extent captured by journos is that before they were aware of its existence people had started to rely on it for news and reporting over the existing media outlets. As soon as they got wind of that they flooded in to mine it for red meat stories or easy topics they could latch onto. Now it's practically the de facto source for most reporting.

This guy is trying to spin it as the very bad, no good tech bros are really jealous because journos get free checkmarks with their laptops when they get hired? That tech execs are angry at the media for doing so much hard hitting, in depth Journalism about the tech sector? Does this guy think we were all born in 2017 and don't remember the Obama Twitter years when the media and tech were side by side in the big 'ol government circle jerk?

I guess the media have found their new Trump, his name is Elon and he's elected himself president of their little clubhouse so they've gotta try real hard to make it seem like they're the resistance fighting against the evil dark lord, cause everyone loves Star Wars. That's what the kids are into these days, right?

-----

I apologize for the snark but goddamn it's just revolting how fucking whiny they are right now. Twitter isn't real life ffs just do your job and write about real things that people care about, not shitty internet drama.

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

#78

Post by dan-robertson »

Related: https://twitter.com/i/status/1588231892792328192

And the first tweet here: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1588240007000911873 (I think it’s generally right even though I don’t really like the author)

I think the general thrust seems pretty reasonable: saying ‘we should cover all tech with an investigative lens’ isn’t actually a neutral policy because if you’re a newspaper then you already want to find good investigative stories anyway. Instead it’s saying that the only stories that go through must be critical or uncovering various hidden harms or issues. It doesn’t seem like a good way to learn what is true.

(Nitter links)

https://nitter.fly.dev/i/status/1588231892792328192

https://nitter.fly.dev/balajis/status/1588240007000911873

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

#79

Post by rrwo »

_zgx0 wrote: post #2

>Instead of covering the [tech] industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. ... >Tech executives and investors mostly did not like this change, for understandable reasons. And I mostly agree with them on the merits. The author agrees - that the tech industry should not be subject to inv…

I was going to post the same thing.

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

#80

Post by BurningFrog »

_zgx0 wrote: post #2

>Instead of covering the [tech] industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. ... >Tech executives and investors mostly did not like this change, for understandable reasons. And I mostly agree with them on the merits. The author agrees - that the tech industry should not be subject to inv…

> The author agrees - that the tech industry should not be subject to investigative coverage?

That this very basic failure of reading comprehension has been voted to the top is both sad and surprising.

Post reply on HN