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

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

#181

Post by gambler » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #114

gambler wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm going to ignore your implication that other problems I mentioned are unimportant.

Supposition:

"If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair"

Aren't news supposed to be about what happened, not about what might happen if something else happens? I could understand if the story was about the trial, but it isn't.

Which brings me to the manufactured context part. The story is about resignation from Reddit. I understand that sometimes you need to provide more information about the subject so your reader fully understands what's going on. However, information about the lawsuit against an entirely different company under different circumstances does nothing of this sort. The only seeming reason it's included (and takes almost half the space) is because it supports meta-narrative NYT chose to pursue.

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

#182

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:25 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #176

rory096 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh, that link just doesn't have the same impact.

The weaseling is in the reverse – by saying their article is only about 'some people' they imply that other people exist, but never give them any ink. Hence I say the sentence is equivalent to stating objectively that cyberbullying is a problem that must be stopped and this incident is proof.

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

#183

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:26 PM UTC

gambler wrote: post #181

tptacek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm going to ignore your implication that other problems I mentioned are unimportant. Supposition: "If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair" Aren't news supposed to be about what happened, not about what might happen if something else happens? I could understand if the story was about the trial, but it isn't. Which brings me to the manufactured context part. The story is…

What a weird quote. The full sentence is:

If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair, Kleiner (and Silicon Valley, symbolically) would be on trial again.

This is self-evidently true.

You might not like that Pao's trial keeps appearing in the Times story about Pao's resignation, but the giant petition for her ouster chose to lead itself off with it. It's materially part of the real context of the story.

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

#184

Post by mahranch » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:27 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #44

notcensorship wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not censorship to say that a private entity has the right to choose who gets kicked out of their dinner party. I keep hoping that somebody will write about the difference between censorship and private parties choosing not to support and/or tolerate certain behaviors. It shouldn't be necessary, but there's a generation of people so incredibly entitled and so incredibly insane that they actually need a primer on…

How is intentionally suppressing speech that you don't like, not censorship? It would seem to be the very definition of censorship.

I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use?

It might be technically correct to call water a 'clear liquid', but isn't there a better term or name to use, a more accurate and descriptive term to use? A clear liquid can also refer to vodka or rubbing alcohol or even many types of acids. Being clear and using the correct terms are important to the discussion. Overusing the word "Censorship" just because it might be technically correct dilutes the word's meaning. Especially since what's happening most of the time is content curation.

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

#185

Post by untog » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:29 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #164

tptacek wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the mainstream US news media consists of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, and the Washington Post. Could you cite an example in any of those four publications where undue weight was given to "antivax" people? Just so you know: I 1000% agree with you that giving equal weight to antivax crazies and professional epidemiologists would constitute "un…

I don't have a citation. It's more a vibe I get from listening to npr interviews. They have interesting guests with some neat theories about things -politics, economics, social justice, climatology, sexuality, etc. I would love for them to prod the guests for evidence and methodology rather than take what they say at face value. I want to know why something might work not simply feel good that something might work. L…

I don't have a citation. It's more a vibe I get

Ironically, something an anti-vaxxer would probably say too.

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

#186

Post by Lerc » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

Technically this should be quite easy to fix. Each story gets a git repositiory. URLs denote the state at the time of view. A visitor to the URL gets a small header giving them the ability to read the article as shared or the most recent version. The full commit history should be accessible.

The reasons for not doing this would be mostly non-technical. Face-saving and risk of liability would seriously inhibit implementation.

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

#187

Post by agumonkey » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

_red wrote: post #31

jpmattia wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Even better: Saying something to a reporter, and then reading what you supposedly said within quotation marks. (Although perhaps my data is old and things have gotten better since adequate interview-recording equipment is now on every smartphone.)

Yes, trying to give any sort of nuanced answer to a reporter is almost hopeless. For instance if you say: "Plan ABC is good, however the specific concerns are X, Y, and Z. If care is not taken in how these issued are addressed it will likely be a very expensive failure". The article will appear as: PLAN HAS BROAD SUPPORT. _red says, "Plan ABC is good".

The reader will reinterpret it anyway so why bother.

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

#188

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:42 PM UTC

gagew wrote: post #121

rory096 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that it's edited to somewhat more than just calling me out personally (and yes I'm a white guy, I currently live in Virginia and my startup is linked on my profile), there's a couple points to respond to. (I'd argue that your post just underwent self- or moderator censorship, of the justified sort.) > It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that having some guidelines on a private forum (e.g. https://news.ycombinat…

> The range of human opinion on every topic is incredibly broad. That means that there's a tiny minority of people who hold truly outrageous and objectionable views. If you simply hide those people with deletions and shadowbans, you relegate them to their tiny corner of the internet where they're free to reinforce each other's insane ideals. Let's take antisemitism as the truly outrageous & objectional view. Say that…

Good example, I am a Jew. Me, I'd probably toss some downvotes around and get out - maybe once in a blue moon if I'm drunk I'll write a response to one of the dumber/ridiculous comments. But there's more vocal people than me.

>Now let's say reddit is full of antisemites, homophobes, xenophobes, racists, fascists, and sexists. Do you say fuck it and leave?

Absolutely I'd leave a place like that. See, that's the great thing about reddit. It's not full of those people. 95% of people are not in the category of the "racist sexist 5%." So those people get drowned out, or downvoted to oblivion, or very occasionally rebuked by an authority figure to positive response. And yeah, those assholes who write the worst shit probably aren't going to change their mind. But maybe we can reach the guy who just browses, and make him think twice before hitting the upvote button.

> Why would you want to visit a site where terrible people aren't told to get the fuck out

I just want them to be told to shut the fuck up, not get the fuck out. And I limit this opinion to reddit generally, since I see it as the central place for internet discourse. Subreddits and non-reddit fora should absolutely censor content to create the desired community attitude.

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

#189

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #23

I don't understand what this post is implying. If the original article was neutral and information driven then the changes aren't a cover up, maybe you could call it a cover down? The people that read the original article and missed the updates are better off. So what's nefarious about it?

According to 'yzzxy, "TechRaptor" is a GamerGate spin-off site. So the subtextual nefariousness might be what you think it is: a bunch of people who don't like it when people write about gender discrimination making special pleading arguments about how the Internet should be covered by press outlets.

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

#190

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #17

brudgers wrote: post #6

As someone who frequently rewrites, revises, and deletes their online comments, to me the article's changes just look like part of the writing process in a world of realtime publishing. The New York Times did not have a front page story ready within minutes of the news breaking, and unlike CNN, they didn't publish random tweets about the event as news: there's better and worse. Maybe newspapers need git repositories.…

But why not add the new story as a separate analysis piece, as the NYT often does? What did they gain by changing the original?

For one thing, it's not an "analysis piece". The additional coverage in the later version includes new reported details. An "analysis" is what you write when you're done reporting and want to synthesize several stories you (and perhaps other outlets) wrote. That's not what happened here.