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

New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

techraptor.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 277 posts

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

#221

Post by makomk »

spot wrote: post #219
rory096 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, it didn't happen in the order you specified. It was more like 2-3-1-4 — Victoria fired, protest, subreddits shut down in protest, Ellen resigns (1 week later) — and it was moderators who took down the subreddits, not reddit admins (Victoria was pretty much uninvolved besides getting fired.)

that doesn't sound right. here's the announcement of 1, over a month ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/39bpam/remov...

Victoria wasn't involved in those subreddits being shut down by the admins at all, as far as I'm aware.

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

#222

Post by magicalist »

pervycreeper wrote: post #213
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'll bite. Here's your first point: >1. Pao is a hero to many online for her gender equality fight, but was ousted by people online as well. This is mostly beyond dispute, except for the presumption that the Reddit mob actually did oust her, which all the principals in the story deny. That interpretation favors the Reddit mob. Who is she a hero to? How many is "many"? What evidence do they have of this statement? Is…

> The change.org petition has been around for about a month.

Just to be clear, it was made in response to FPH being shut down.

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

#223

Post by Karunamon »

tptacek wrote: post #189
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.

Seeing you, of all people, peddling this genetic fallacy claptrap is rather discouraging.

Any such "subtextual nefariousness" is in the mind of the reader.

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

#224

Post by brymaster »

ender7 wrote: post #214

If you, like me, or tptacek [1], were confused why this is a big deal, that's because it's not. It's common practice for online articles to be changed after they are published, especially as new information comes in. If the article originally contained factually incorrect information that was later corrected that would be one thing, but that's not the case with this article; new information and context was added. Tec…

> If you, like me, or tptacek [1], were confused why this is a big deal, that's because it's not.

Ah yes, because you two are certainly the authorities on the matter.

> Standing up for "ethical journalism" was and continues to be one of GamerGate's most popular smoke screens.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's getting stale that the diverse group of people associated along with GamerGate are merely harassers: you know that isn't true.

Downvoted. You use scare quotes and have to link to someone else's post in an attempt to add weight to your clearly weak argument, make no attempt to add evidence to your points and eventually fallback on claiming thinly-veiled harassment and misogyny. Absolutely no legs to stand on.

For some reason, your particular group of people cannot have a real discussion about ethics without dismissing it all together and then dropping your boogeyman term "GamerGate".

Why do you think that is?

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

#225

Post by PhantomGremlin »

tptacek wrote: post #78
reagency wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe you should bring that up with Sullivan, their full-time public editor, or the full-time editor they have in charge of managing corrections and clarifications, or that editor's full-time assistant? If it's "basic", I'm sure they'll agree with you.

While I no longer pay much attention to their editors, previous NY Times public editors and "conservative" columnists have been quite milquetoast. They fully understood the direction of the prevailing political winds.

I'm sure those editors pick their battles carefully. I have zero confidence that they are interested in anything but the most egregious of errors or corrections.

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

#226

Post by stefantalpalaru »

declan wrote: post #147

I worked as a journalist for over a decade -- CBS, Time, CNET, Wired, etc. -- before founding https://recent.io/ and every news organization I can think of updates articles after publication. This practice predates the Internet by decades; wire services called updates "writethrus." Updated copy would be labeled internally for editors as 2nd-lede writethru, 3rd-lede writethru, with perhaps some details about what was…

This was not a simple update. This was a rewrite that changed the format and the content - from a factual report to an opinion piece chastising the evil white men of SV, all while managing to put a positive spin on a humiliating trial.

This may not be new in the dishonorable world of journalism, but it's the first time many of us outsiders get to look behind the curtain. We kind of suspected how the sausage is made, but actually seeing it is still shocking.

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

#227

Post by mark_l_watson »

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.

That happened to me: years ago, '60 Minutes' did a hit piece on a friend at work, and I knew that the story was far from the truth. First hand knowledge in that case turned me off of watching '60 Minutes' in the future and helped me develop the habbit of second sourcing stories, preferably from news media in different countries.

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

#228

Post by magicalist »

rory096 wrote: post #178
spot wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Just a small correction. The petition was made in response to the shut down of fatpeoplehate and others.

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

#229

Post by PhantomGremlin »

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.

witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media

You don't even need to read about it elsewhere. Your own recollection of the details of events you witnessed is usually very malleable. It's one reason why eyewitness testimony needs to be treated carefully. E.g. from Wikipedia[1]:

   Memory recall has been considered a credible
   source in the past, but has recently come under
   attack as forensics can now support psychologists
   in their claim that memories and individual
   perceptions are unreliable; being easily
   manipulated, altered, and biased.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

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

#230

Post by magicalist »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #226
declan wrote: post #147

I worked as a journalist for over a decade -- CBS, Time, CNET, Wired, etc. -- before founding https://recent.io/ and every news organization I can think of updates articles after publication. This practice predates the Internet by decades; wire services called updates "writethrus." Updated copy would be labeled internally for editors as 2nd-lede writethru, 3rd-lede writethru, with perhaps some details about what was…

This was not a simple update. This was a rewrite that changed the format and the content - from a factual report to an opinion piece chastising the evil white men of SV, all while managing to put a positive spin on a humiliating trial. This may not be new in the dishonorable world of journalism, but it's the first time many of us outsiders get to look behind the curtain. We kind of suspected how the sausage is made,…

This complaint and others in this thread all seem to be that you don't like the new content of the article and have nothing to do with the article being updated.
Post reply on HN