Did they _really_ need to call out that the man (victim) was homeless? Is that a significant identifier important to the story?
[flagged]
A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
31–40 of 67 posts
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#32[deleted]
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#33[flagged]
Where was the biden administration mentioned in The article? Is this just a troll account?
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.
Then couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?
Yes. Happy to help you understand. Many homeless in SF are actually very mentally ill. They sometimes jump in front of traffic. This has happened to me a few times driving in SF. So the implication is that the bus driver may not at all have been at fault.
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#35Where's the video that contradicts the first responders account? Not casting aspersions, I've just looked through this article, linked tweets, etc. and I can't find it.
I suspect that you'd need to go to Cruise, for that. I suspect they have their own reasons for not publishing it on YT.
Because the cruise vehicle is sitting in the middle of the street blocking the road while an emergency vehicle tries to get by?
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#36[deleted]
[dead]
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#37> the takeaway for journalists here is clear: be skeptical of your sources, triple-check your facts, and don’t ever assume that your colleagues are doing the same. That should be the first thing they teach you in Journalism 101, these days. I get sick of reading news stories that are all the same AP story, with different ads around it.
The sfsrandard article included quotes from the Cruise spokesperson, and correctly attributed the statements they were made by first responders to those first responders.
I don’t see why TheIndustry would take this sanctimonious tone about “lessons for journalists” when they are doing the exact same thing here, just repeating the statements of spokespeople.
I don’t see a lesson for journalists, here. Readers need to correctly parse statements like “according to .” When an article describes multiple contradictory statements by different organizations, it should be possible for people to infer that it is too early to make a conclusion.
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It’s not journalism anymore, The "anymore" there means something changed. I don't think there was ever a time in which journalists did not regularly print statements from officials like police and firefighters as fact not worthy of questioning. Sometimes we get into a mindset that everything is getting worse when in reality it is just that we are now more aware of how bad it has always been.
There are certain things that are noticeable worse now; sometime in the last decade or so it became respectable to print news articles that boil down to: "Someone on Twitter said X" Which is next to useless, you can find someone saying anything on Twitter.
Newspapers have been dedicating space to that sort of thing for literally centuries. Reprinting an angry tweet from some rando isn't much different than printing an angry letter to the editor from some rando.
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#39I was struck by the anti AV attitude and poor arguments put forth on the original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37371539 From a presumably technical audience it was disappointing to read through those takes.
[dead]
Re: A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.
I don’t live there, could you provide the context in a paragraph or 2?
The subtext is that the individual was not of right mind, either due to sleep deprivation from being unhoused, or the stress itself of being unhoused, or, to be blunt, being on drugs. Not that it, in any way, makes it okay to have run over them, but the implication is that it's possible they got hit because they stepped out/jumped in front of the bus, and that it wasn't the fault of the bus driver. Not saying that's what happened here, but that's the framing that saying they're homeless gives for me.
For additional context, Harrison and 7th isn't located in the best neighborhood, which is to say there are numerous tent cities in that vicinity.