New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism • Hacker News Board

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#111

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #87

brudgers wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes bait and switch via a presumption that the editorial direction wrought by the changes is improper. It's not if one presumes that the additional context makes for better journalism: then the changes are improvement. This appears to be the belief The New York Times 's editors.

Switching a neutral article for an opinion piece would bother me even if I agreed with the opinion.

I read this comment and was moved to summarize every graf in the piece to check whether it was an opinion piece:

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=9870891

Spoiler: I don't think "it's an opinion piece" is a colorable argument.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#112

Post by Natsu » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #46

reagency wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basic journalistic ethics, to post a log of corrections made to an article.

Right...but the implementation details matter. And not everything that is worth tracking is not necessarily a correction. In terms of corrections, for non-trivial ones, it sometimes takes more than a day to get the true story...and this is sensible, as no one wants to correct the correction. This process is pretty manual. In terms of changes , as described by the OP, it's not always clear what kind of changes deserve…

In this case, the edits were so large, I think they would have been better served with an entirely new follow-up story rather than replacing the original like that.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#113

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:01 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #104

tptacek wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it bad? Because you don't like Mitch Kapor? Seriously asking.

Just guessing, but it could be because he runs a competitor to Kleiner Perkins, who were tarred in the updated peice.

Kapor isn't quoted about the Pao lawsuit. He's quoted about the demographics of Reddit and the virulence of misogyny on Reddit. The conflict of interest in that seems six- degrees- of- Kevin- Rose to me.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#114

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

gambler wrote: post #56

rory096 wrote: post #4

I was hoping someone would write about how bad this article was. (Shocked to see it's the same one as the pretty good piece from earlier.) The worst part to me was the article quoting Mitch Kapor to back up its implicit support of internet censorship: >...charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web... >Mitch Kapor, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that R…

Yeah, it's a pretty good example of what has become of news reporting. It has an instance of almost every common issue, except misinterpreting statistics. Emotionally loaded language. Blatant fact framing. Suppositions. Presenting one side of a controversial issue as an opinion of absolute majority. Manufacturing "context" out of true, but mostly unrelated facts. It's especially striking in contrast to the original,…

Here is a breakdown of the article, helpfully numbered by paragraph.

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=9870891

Here is the actual article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/technology/ellen-pao-reddi...

My challenge to you:

Either (1) tell me which of those paragraph summaries is inaccurate, and how the accurate summary would reveal "suppositions" and "manufactured context", or (2) tell me which of those paragraph summaries directly implicates either of those two things.

Again, you made a list of things that bother you about news stories, but also affirmatively claimed that the article printed suppositions and manufactured context, so I'd like to see if you can back those two specific arguments up with evidence.

Thanks!

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#115

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #83

rory096 wrote: post #4

I was hoping someone would write about how bad this article was. (Shocked to see it's the same one as the pretty good piece from earlier.) The worst part to me was the article quoting Mitch Kapor to back up its implicit support of internet censorship: >...charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web... >Mitch Kapor, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that R…

Why is it bad? Because you don't like Mitch Kapor? Seriously asking.

Do you think Kapor really supports additional censorship on reddit?

My issue isn't with what he said in his quote. It's that the Times changed their well-balanced piece into one that implies the crappy parts of reddit need to be brought under 'control' and quoted a sentence from Kapor that lends support. I may be wrong (and to be honest I don't personally know much about Mitch), but I'd be surprised if a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation feels that reddit should be more restrictive on speech it hasn't moderated to this point. While his quote doesn't directly say he supports more censorship by any means, including it in the context of that article misconstrues his (probable) beliefs.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#116

Post by brudgers » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:06 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #87

brudgers wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes bait and switch via a presumption that the editorial direction wrought by the changes is improper. It's not if one presumes that the additional context makes for better journalism: then the changes are improvement. This appears to be the belief The New York Times 's editors.

Switching a neutral article for an opinion piece would bother me even if I agreed with the opinion.

Deliberate omission of some set of facts is just as much an editorial decision as their inclusion. Ignoring the context of Pao's history in tech is as editorial as its inclusion. The BBC's "Omar Sharif: Lawrence of Arabia star dies aged 83" is appropriate for mentioning his role in a movie more than 50 years ago. Journalism is about exposing the relevant facts and erring on the side of too much rather than witholding is reasonable. History matters.

The past is never dead. It's not even past. -- Faulkner

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#117

Post by toufka » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #103

toufka wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those edits regarding Mr. Sharif's handsomeness only go one way though. His description never increases in subjectivity. It's not to say the NYT has an agenda here, but rather that there is division, at least between authors and editors. If the paper wants that division to be opaque, and hierarchical internally, than such real-time edits do it a disservice as they bring into the public those debates. If real-time edi…

The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises. The quick-take piece mentions gender concerns; the final version fleshes them out and, in the process, alarms "TechRaptor" by increasing their emphasis in the story. I can go find other examples of this happening --- of a concern raised in a quick-take being fleshed out, and thus changing the emphasis of the narrative in the story. In fact:…

Yes, the revision between a quick-take and fleshed out article changes the emphasis of the narrative in the story. No, this is not okay if done without a note that it has been done IF you want to be called a document of record. This statement is irrespective of this particular piece.

>The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises.

With respect to this particular piece, I was pointing out later revisions that do change the directionality of a particular concept, namely its description of silicon valley.

"Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief" becomes "Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0".

"the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes

"the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley" becomes

"the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" becomes

"the entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley".

That is not just a fleshing out of a narrative, but an editorial flip-flop. Sexist is a particular and egregious charge to lay on an entire culture - an editorial statement. Male-dominated is a fact, separable from the concept of sexist. One can be proven, one cannot. Subjective vs objective. Opinion vs journalism.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#118

Post by thomasjames » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

For actual journalism on the internet, it is worth going to shared common sources. I almost always rely on Reuters and AP. Since they are cited so often by downstream media, which is a major part of their business model, their content is--by its very nature--somewhat static. I have also generally found their writing to be less biased, with the exception of Reuters being inherently pro-finance and globalization (again, due to their specialized business model). In terms of more immutable print media, back n the early 2000s, I was also a firm believer in that the ridiculously low word count limits and easier barrier to reader entry encouraged at the Metro (the free public transportation newspaper) left whatever was able to make it through less biased. This again is on the basis that bias would add too much complexity to stories whose sole purpose was to impart the basics of widely agreed upon fact (cf. Simple English Wikipedia).

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#119

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

toufka wrote: post #117

tptacek wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises. The quick-take piece mentions gender concerns; the final version fleshes them out and, in the process, alarms "TechRaptor" by increasing their emphasis in the story. I can go find other examples of this happening --- of a concern raised in a quick-take being fleshed out, and thus changing the emphasis of the narrative in the story. In fact:…

Yes, the revision between a quick-take and fleshed out article changes the emphasis of the narrative in the story. No, this is not okay if done without a note that it has been done IF you want to be called a document of record. This statement is irrespective of this particular piece. >The Pao NYT piece never changes the directionality of the concerns it raises. With respect to this particular piece, I was pointing ou…

Your best argument that the Times has "flip-flopped" is that they couldn't make up their minds between calling Silicon Valley "sexist" or "male-dominated"?

I don't find that argument credible.

That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean that this is not a profitable line of argument for us. I'll go ahead and assert that both of those constructions mean the same thing.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#120

Post by Brakenshire » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 7:15 PM UTC

nraynaud wrote: post #80

There are two convenient fact omissions when talking about sexism and racism towards Pao: the fact that the fired employee was female too. And the fact that Pao is of asian origins and that Asians are traditionally over-represented in SV and not traditional victims of racism in technology. Those facts made the case for a racist and sexist crowd a bit too nuanced for a front page. (Or maybe Asians and Indians are offi…

> And the fact that Pao is of asian origins and that Asians are traditionally over-represented in SV and not traditional victims of racism in technology.

Is the reddit audience particularly strong in SV? In the people on the board, and working for the company, yes, in the audience, I would say no.

Also, it doesn't necessarily matter about what people really think, the behaviour on reddit was more about trying to find the most unpleasant thing you can say, rather like when a football/soccer crowd tries to rile up opposition players with abuse - it's more bigotry than genuine racism. Although, just like with football crowds, the genuine racists do then get to ride in the slip-stream. And people don't necessarily go back into the real world and shake it off, these movements develop their own momentum. Much in the same way than 4chan started off being racist in an ironical or troll-like way, and is now unashamedly, sincerely racist.