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

It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 258 posts

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#191

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

jameshart wrote: post #147
perihelions wrote: post #117

NYT had a near-identical fact pattern a few weeks ago. The military of Ukraine accidentally bombed its own city, killing 17 people. NYT falsely and without evidence attributed it to the Russian military—just like in Silver's example with the Gaza hospital. This is a recurring issue, and IMHO suggests a systemic problem with their reporting, not limited to one topic or bureau. Original, conclusory title captured by a…

When journalists hear hoof beats, you want them to think ‘horses’ not ‘zebras’, though, right? When party A is causing a lot of explosions in general in land controlled by party B, and party B is broadly not trying to cause explosions in its own land, when an explosion happens in land controlled by party B you should have a strong prior that the most likely culprit is party A. Journalists should be allowed to assume…

> When journalists hear hoof beats, you want them to think ‘horses’ not ‘zebras’, though, right?

No.

If they hear hoof beats, but don't know the animals involved, I want them to write "I heard hoof beats".

If they manage to collect enough evidence to be confident of the animals involved, then I want them to say "The hoof beats were those of the lesser Siberian Elk" (or whatever it was).

If they are unable to collect enough evidence to be confident (and they should have a high bar for this), I want them to say "It appears difficult or impossible to identify the creatures that made the hoof beats".

These do not all need to be a part of the same report or appear on the same day.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#192

Post by seo-speedwagon »

names_are_hard wrote: post #159
seo-speedwagon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As soon as the story broke, it was clear to me that whoever did it, it was an accident. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter. It's an unfortunate casualty of war, in which innocent people suffer even when it's not intended. What’s this based on? Vibes? People are upset about this because it, in fact, does matter. Intentionally destroying a hospital is an atrocity; in the context of a war, it’s a war crime. Th…

Lofty even-handedness was not my intention, I have a definite side in this conflict because it personally affects me. I'm not unbiased and make no claim to be. I live in Israel and I'm scared of how this will end because I have skin in the game. It doesn't matter to me who hit the hospital because I don't believe it was intentional. That's not to say the deaths don't matter, they do, and we should mourn them. And tha…

Since you’re being forthright about your biases, it’s only fair I do the same. My words were harsh because I feel that the original sentiment I objected to is precisely the kind of sentiment those who would continue perpetrating the genocide against Palestinians would like to engender among the public. The sentiment for those who are too busy or too distracted to look beyond a superficial level and just read headlines from the major media outlets: “it’s a complicated situation”; “oh, there’s more unrest in the Middle East”; “it’s all such a shame, I wish there could be peace”. For genocidaires, this kind of muddying the water is exactly what you would want for incidents that would polarize fence sitters or those not paying attention. It’s precisely the same kind of attribution-less passive voice headlines people object to when talking about other more familiar things.

I disagree with any assertions that it’s likely an accident, or that Israel would not want to bomb a hospital. Several high profile Israeli officials have stated over and over that they don’t consider Palestinians as human beings. Yoav Gallant has said “we are fighting human animals” and I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that he really only meant that to apply to Hamas when in the same statement he talked about cutting off all good, water and electricity to Gaza. And now there’s news that St Porphyrius Church was struck by a “blast”. Am I to also believe this was an accident? Another case where a Hamas rocket somehow caused an order of magnitude more damage than has ever been been recorded when striking Israel?

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#193

Post by hintymad »

numlocked wrote: post #10

I don’t have a dog in the fight and have been a long time NYT subscriber but I concur with Nate on this one. The NYT coverage here has become even worse in the last few hours. It’s truly bizarre. Here is their latest: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/briefing/gaza-hospital.ht... The headline is: Gaza and the Trudeau Problem It begins with an inexplicable few paragraphs about Canada and India before taking a sharp l…

I really hope that we learn that narratives will sooner or later turn against us if we sacrifice truth for narratives. NYT and WaPo and what not may enjoy their "progressive" narratives now, but the party will not go on forever. Truth matters.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#194

Post by numlocked »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #125
numlocked wrote: post #10

I don’t have a dog in the fight and have been a long time NYT subscriber but I concur with Nate on this one. The NYT coverage here has become even worse in the last few hours. It’s truly bizarre. Here is their latest: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/briefing/gaza-hospital.ht... The headline is: Gaza and the Trudeau Problem It begins with an inexplicable few paragraphs about Canada and India before taking a sharp l…

>I don’t have a dog in the fight and have been a long time NYT subscriber but I concur with Nate on this one. This is so, so untrue, and it makes me sad to read this. Your dog is the one dying of self-inflicted wounds, and everyone would be better off if it would stop. Everyone benefits when reliable information sources exist, they report on a wide portfolio of events under that reliable letterhead, and we know where…

That is well said. I added that first phrase in an effort to create space for my comment to exist apart from whatever my own politics and opinion might be. But you are correct. The failure of news institutions is bad for everyone. Pretending the scales are balanced when they aren't works against the goal of collective sense-making. It seems some number of organizations and people have lost the plot, concluding that "objectivity" means "inability or unwillingness to apply judgement".

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#195

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

zaphar wrote: post #68
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #15

I actually think Nate is wrong on this, especially on how he states the wrong-ness of the two parts of the story. It seems very likely to me that initial death counts were overstated. But the probability that it was an Israeli bomb that went off in the parking lot carries a lot more uncertainty and I think there's still a decent chance that it's true. There's still a lot of investigation to be done but, if when all i…

On what basis do you believe the explosion was more likely to be Israeli than Hamas? From what I've been able to glean it seems like the exact opposite. 1. Hamas is extremely willing to sacrifice their own people in pursuit of their goals. 2. Hamas was making homemade rockets out of water pipe. Far less reliable than Israeli munitions. 3. Isreal has demonstrated over and over that they will bend over backwards to min…

>On what basis do you believe the explosion was more likely to be Israeli than Hamas?

First, you'll notice I never actually said this.

>1. Hamas is extremely willing to sacrifice their own people in pursuit of their goals.

Not even Israel claims it was Hamas intentionally bombing the parking lot.

>2. Hamas was making homemade rockets out of water pipe. Far less reliable than Israeli munitions.

Sure, but not sure the relevance of this, yes, it could be an accidental misfire Hamas munition. It could also be a purposeful firing of Israeli munition.

>3. Isreal has demonstrated over and over that they will bend over backwards to minimize civilian casualties

I do not believe this is true.

>4. Israel is not shy about taking credit for bombings even if civilians were causualties when they have credible evidence of Hamas presence.

Israel is pretty shy about taking credit for things that get them in hot water in the foreign press. For example, when IDF soldiers deliberately targeted, shot, and then denied medical aid (killing) to American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, the Israeli government blamed her death on Palestinians for months.

>5. Hamas are documented liars in the region and even their Arab neighbors don't trust them.

As noted, Israel are also documented liars.

Anyways, I liked this reporting from the UK which does a pretty good job of laying out the uncertainty one way or the other: https://www.channel4.com/news/who-was-behind-the-gaza-hospit...

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#196

Post by names_are_hard »

seo-speedwagon wrote: post #192
names_are_hard wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lofty even-handedness was not my intention, I have a definite side in this conflict because it personally affects me. I'm not unbiased and make no claim to be. I live in Israel and I'm scared of how this will end because I have skin in the game. It doesn't matter to me who hit the hospital because I don't believe it was intentional. That's not to say the deaths don't matter, they do, and we should mourn them. And tha…

Since you’re being forthright about your biases, it’s only fair I do the same. My words were harsh because I feel that the original sentiment I objected to is precisely the kind of sentiment those who would continue perpetrating the genocide against Palestinians would like to engender among the public. The sentiment for those who are too busy or too distracted to look beyond a superficial level and just read headline…

Thanks for replying in length and with sincerity. I'm not going to address everything in your comment not because it isn't worthy of a response but because I personally don't have a response that is substantive and thoughtful. If anyone else wants to reply they're welcome to. In any case I'm not a spokesperson for my country. I'll say two things:

0. "Human animals" bothers me - I disapprove of the extreme language I'm hearing in public discourse in Israel these days, after the events of Oct 7 there's been a shift in public discourse that normalizes this kind of language. I think it's wrong and harmful. I wish it would stop.

1. If you or anyone close to you is currently in Gaza (or the West Bank, or Israel, for that matter) - I truly hope they will be safe and come out the other end of this war ok, or as ok as is possible given the circumstances. From what I'm hearing on the news here in Israel, sounds like things are going to get worse before they get better. All I can do is hope that we see better days soon.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#197

Post by bryanlarsen »

hintymad wrote: post #193
numlocked wrote: post #10

I don’t have a dog in the fight and have been a long time NYT subscriber but I concur with Nate on this one. The NYT coverage here has become even worse in the last few hours. It’s truly bizarre. Here is their latest: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/briefing/gaza-hospital.ht... The headline is: Gaza and the Trudeau Problem It begins with an inexplicable few paragraphs about Canada and India before taking a sharp l…

I really hope that we learn that narratives will sooner or later turn against us if we sacrifice truth for narratives. NYT and WaPo and what not may enjoy their "progressive" narratives now, but the party will not go on forever. Truth matters.

The NYT article persuasively shows the evidence that the PIJ fired the rocket. That's not the far-left narrative.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#198

Post by chmod600 »

bluefishinit wrote: post #29
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing I'm finding frustrating. I don't care what "team" people think they're on. The reality on the ground is for regular people there are no teams and it's just tragedy. But I'm seeing a lot of vociferous blow-back on the Gaza hospital thing -- maybe rightfully so -- but so much less on the other "side." When concerns were brought up about the beheading things, and other claims of veracity it was treated…

I agree. The bombing didn't stop after the hospital. Shortly after a major bakery was bombed by Israel, another yesterday along with the third oldest church in the world that was harboring people who lost their houses. The bombing continues now, 6000 bombs were dropped before the hospital bomb. Thousands of civilians in Gaza have died and that's just getting started. The focus should be on an immediate ceasefire and…

There are different causes of violence and a ceasefire solves some kinds but not others.

For instance, fear is a major driver of violence: attack "them" to reduce their ability to attack "us". A ceasefire is a good solution here, because it develops a mutual trust that you'll leave each other alone.

But if there are other reasons for attack, e.g. one party is unhappy with the status quo and sees something to be gained by violence, a ceasefire doesn't work. They will just wait for the next opportunity and strike again, regardless of how peaceful the situation is.

I'm not making a moral statement here, just a practical one. A ceasefire today would not magically make everyone content to leave each other alone.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#199

Post by jahewson »

bobchadwick wrote: post #32
numlocked wrote: post #10

I don’t have a dog in the fight and have been a long time NYT subscriber but I concur with Nate on this one. The NYT coverage here has become even worse in the last few hours. It’s truly bizarre. Here is their latest: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/briefing/gaza-hospital.ht... The headline is: Gaza and the Trudeau Problem It begins with an inexplicable few paragraphs about Canada and India before taking a sharp l…

You do realize that the linked article is actually a daily newsletter, right? That's the explanation for the mixing of unrelated news stories.

Dated today but this story was debunked on X within a few hours of the event. NYT still pushing Hamas’ false narrative.

Re: It's easy to screw up on breaking news but you have to admit when you do

#200

Post by lazystar »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #191
jameshart wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When journalists hear hoof beats, you want them to think ‘horses’ not ‘zebras’, though, right? When party A is causing a lot of explosions in general in land controlled by party B, and party B is broadly not trying to cause explosions in its own land, when an explosion happens in land controlled by party B you should have a strong prior that the most likely culprit is party A. Journalists should be allowed to assume…

> When journalists hear hoof beats, you want them to think ‘horses’ not ‘zebras’, though, right? No. If they hear hoof beats, but don't know the animals involved, I want them to write "I heard hoof beats". If they manage to collect enough evidence to be confident of the animals involved, then I want them to say "The hoof beats were those of the lesser Siberian Elk" (or whatever it was). If they are unable to collect…

to sum it up... reporters should use static typing instead of duck typing.
Post reply on HN