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

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

#171

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 8:52 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #167

rory096 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd specifically point to the Hero vs Angry Mob motif and the quote "bullying, harrassment[ sic ] and ugly behavior are out of control on the web," which implies that they must be brought under control. Obviously within the context of the overall spin towards sexism as the sole cause we discussed over there -> ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9871281 )

The article doesn't saying bullying is out of control. The article says that the Pao incident will renew charges that bullying is out of control. And: Pao's resignation demonstrable did renew those charges!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

If they expressed any opposing view, that might be valid. But they may as well have stated it as fact.

(aside: that's not a WP: page anymore? lame)

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

#172

Post by anon3_ » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 8:57 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #91

slg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is very true, but you also have to keep in mind the flip side of this. The people who know the most about a subject, including ourselves, are likely the ones who will be most biased about it. Not saying that is exactly what happened in the NYT piece, but that is certainly feasible in situations like this. The first person who writes the article is the person who was on duty in the newsroom or its virtual equival…

In this case, Mike Isaac, the original writer, seems to have a good amount of domain expertise, as starting last week he has been posting frequently on Reddit in an official role, discussing/answering questions about his reporting on the site. (Also claims to have been a redditor for five years, presumably on some other account.) Oddly, all of his official account's posts have been in the GamerGate subreddit. https:/…

Good catch.

Up until now, no one has pointed out the article eerily resembles the tones that began GamerGate.

The more you look at it, the more it appears to be a deliberate troll to highlight the irony of injecting identity politics into journalism.

He's a trojan horse. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m...

Also, so called "anti-gamer gaters" don't simply go off and offer AMA's to "gamergaters".

Anti-GG's modus operandi is to cast aside any discussion as misogyny or harassment.

Both sides harass each other, unfortunately.

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

#173

Post by jchomali » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:01 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #53

danso wrote: post #30

I've believed since newsdiffs.org (mentioned in the OP) was launched that an in-house diff-tracker/displayer for the New York Times would be both a win in transparency, accuracy, and the company's bottom-line. The first two are mostly self-evident...in terms of improving the bottom-line...well, I often go to the NYT for breaking news. For a given event, they'll often have a main story which they update throughout the…

Inability to keep an immutable record of what's been published disqualifies nyt from its claim of being "the paper of record".

I totally agree with you.

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

#174

Post by reb » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:02 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #143

yzzxy wrote: post #62

NOTE: Techraptor is a site set up by Gamergaters to talk about games and tech news without reprecussions from people who find their views exclusive of progressives, minorities, feminists, and LGBTQ folks. They call this "ethical journalism" because they claim to not receive kickbacks or have special relationships with their journalistic subjects, as they perceive their ideological enemies do. The quality of journalis…

What I'm seeing is a news piece citing sources I can independently verify. This is really damning: http://newsdiffs.org/diff/934341/934454/www.nytimes.com/2015... Did "gamergaters" (whatever that means...) set up newsdiffs too? Oh wait, googling it brings me to a git repository created in 2012, years before "gamergate" was a word on the internet. So, I click that link, and I see exactly what the article talks about.…

>Are there really not enough stories of opressed women that you have to find Ellen Pao, a CEO (which already almost nobody can relate to) in the middle of extremely controversial fraudulent lawsuits, that is accused of being out of touch with its own userbase? And people try to make readers relate to her?

Welcome to Feminism: The Product. Reminds me of the business with Taylor Swift, defender of hardworking artists (oops, turns out she fleeces her independent contractors). Every powerful woman is a martyr for the cause of the common woman, despite every economic sign to the contrary. Meanwhile restrictive abortion laws are making a comeback, coverage of and investigations into campus rape have been roundly botched, the aggressive mainstream "feminist" narrative (at this point I'd argue feminism online is a news marketing gimmick, not a reflection of any real political ideology) stokes tensions that choke productive discussion. Women's rights are as critical as they've ever been but I get the sense all the talk I hear from self-proclaimed supporters is nothing but hot air with ads in the sidebar.

Such is the state of politics in this digital era.

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

#175

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:06 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #155

tptacek wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the entire Victoria graf: Ms. Pao’s departure from Reddit was prompted after the online message board’s tight-knit community broke into upheaval when news broke that Victoria Taylor, a prominent and well-liked Reddit employee, had been suddenly dismissed from the company this month with no public explanation. In protest, Reddit users shut down hundreds of sections of the message board. This graf: * Establishe…

> I do not think you can win an argument that the Times tried to spin the Victoria Taylor issue out of the article. That's not exactly what I said, and certainly nothing I meant to imply. Allow me to try again: The article ignored the complaints expressed by the moderators.

The article also ignores the fact that Pao didn't fire Taylor, and that the issue of how AMAs were going to be moderated was in Ohanian's portfolio, not hers.

That fact is more material to the article than the specifics of the moderator complaints about Taylor --- for instance, it speaks to the difficult situation Pao was in managing a team that included Reddit's charismatic founder and the chairman of the company, in an operational role. But it also isn't in the article.

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

#176

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:08 PM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #171

tptacek wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't saying bullying is out of control. The article says that the Pao incident will renew charges that bullying is out of control. And: Pao's resignation demonstrable did renew those charges!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word If they expressed any opposing view, that might be valid. But they may as well have stated it as fact. (aside: that's not a WP: page anymore? lame)

You're looking for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word...

And the problem Wikipedia has with them is that they can disguise special pleading. But that's clearly not what's happening here: there very obviously is a renewed concern over bullying in the wake of the Pao fiasco.

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

#177

Post by TorKlingberg » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

nbouscal wrote: post #168

TorKlingberg wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hate for Ellen Pao on Reddit seemed to start with her gender discrimination lawsuit. Also what monetization?

I'm not claiming the hatred for my hypothetical white male CEO would follow the same narrative pathways. I'm claiming that it's easy to imagine reddit hating a white male CEO as much or more than Ellen Pao. I won't disagree that race and gender were used as part of that hatred, that's obviously the case. I think, though, that it's easy to mix up whether things are tools that people use to attack someone they already…

I agree that the Reddit "hivemind" does not hate a woman just for being a woman, and they can definitely hate a white man. I still think they are more likely to hate a woman. The hate against Ellen Pao started with her lawsuit which is related to her gender.

To take a hypotetical, let's say Reddit's CEO was a gay man who had sued a previous employer for something related to discrimination based on sexual orientation. I think Redditors would have been less negative about that, as Reddit is very pro gay rights. Then, when Victoria was fired I think the anger would have been less directed at the CEO personally and more towards the admin team as a whole, or at Reddit's owners.

We could also compare the recent banning of /r/fatpeoplehate with /r/jailbait earlier. People were upset about that too, but I cannot remember outright hate directed at the CEO personally.

I do agree with you about the racist posts. That seems like it's just a tool used to attack her.

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

#178

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

spot wrote: post #140

rory096 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mention, sure. Highlight, sure. But this is the top article on a CEO's departure and it doesn't even mention the trigger incident until the 5th paragraph, below the second picture. It says nothing about /r/fatpeoplehate, even though that would support its argument that the internet is 'cruel' (though not that it's sexist). It solely tries make Ellen Pao into a martyr for anti-sexism in SV. And don't get me wrong, the…

I am trying to figure out what's happened here and having a lot of trouble. This is the first I heard about the shutdown of some hate subreddits. But how did that play into this? What I know: 1) victoria (and reddit management) shuts down 5 subreddits. 2) victoria is fired (maybe because she refused to move to sf and was otherwise insubordinate). 3) reddit erupts with support for victoria and hate for ellen. 4) ellen…

(assuming you're serious?)

1) Victoria, the admin who interfaces celebrities and /r/IAmA, was abruptly dismissed. No cause given, which grew a lot of conspiracy theories, but that's obviously standard practice when you fire an employee.

2) /r/IAmA mods find out when a PR rep reaches out to them after showing up at reddit offices and finding out their appointment with Victoria was canceled. Mods don't know how to get in contact with other people who are supposed to appear that day. They take the subreddit private, with a short message about having to figure the situation out.

3) Reddit uproar starts. /r/OutOfTheLoop post asks why /r/IAmA is closed, an /r/IAmA mod explains, people get upset about Victoria leaving. Separately (in my opinion) — or centrally (in tptacek's)— the hate subreddits from prior incidents like /r/FatPeopleHate deletion and GamerGate kick into high gear.

4) Other subreddits start going private in solidarity. This spreads until over 100 have shut down, pledging a 24 hour blackout. I think the petition starts around this time. /r/all is basically just this drama.

5) General shenanigans. Flaming, offensive content, etc. /u/kn0thing (Alexis Ohanian) posts a flippant comment in the heat of the moment, starts getting flamed too. Mostly though, he says "Not going to talk about Victoria. Chill, we're gonna get this /r/IAmA stuff figured out," on behalf of the admins (reddit staff).

6) /r/IAmA comes back up, says they're independent from the admins and are going to run things themselves. Ellen Pao talks to news media, posts eventually but gets downvoted to 0 - all her comments were thousands negative and had lots of angry/offensive replies. (Later we learn many positive things were said to her too.)

7) A week passes, mostly dying down. Petition gets more signatures, ultimately reaching >100k I think. Eventually they post an apology, to mixed reactions.

8) Sam Altman posts that Pao resigned, but includes a reproach of the behavior exhibited in the prior week. Seems to get positive reactions from both sides – people welcomed a return to civility and also Ellen's departure. People suddenly start realizing that the horrible things she's been doing to reddit might be because of reason and/or outside pressure, not because she hates freedom and happiness.

9) People start using this incident to complain about internet behavior more generally.

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

#179

Post by aklemm » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

clamprecht wrote: post #15

I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly inaccurate media articles are. Anytime I read an article about a subject I actually have first-hand knowledge of, it reaffirms the lesson.

When I started reporting for my college newspaper this jumped out at me immediately and it was maddening. So I recorded every interview I did, and then had to transcribe the quotes. It took forever, so I guess I can see how it isn't feasible in the professional world, but it never seemed right.

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

#180

Post by makomk » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #122

toufka wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, it might be burying the trigger precisely because the trigger itself (firing of Victoria) runs against the tone of the (new) article. The whole reason reddit went into lockdown mode was because one of their most beloved employees (who happens to be a woman) was fired. The uproar didn't happen because people were generically upset with Ms. Pao, but because they were passionately upset with how she handled the…

Almost no company will say why they fire someone. reddit is not unique in that regard. Personnel retention is a private concern, regardless of how it makes the community feel.

It's not just that they didn't mention why they fired her, it's that they didn't seem to have any plan in place to handle the work that she did, or indeed enough clue about her job to understand that they even needed one. If I remember correctly, one celebrity literally flew out to New York to do an AMA with her assistance and found when he got there that she'd been fired and it wasn't going ahead, and the admins didn't handle the other future AMAs that were relying on her any better.