241–250 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seeing you, of all people, peddling this genetic fallacy claptrap is rather discouraging. Any such "subtextual nefariousness" is in the mind of the reader.
Don't be discouraged. Look at it this way: tptacek is the living proof that great things can be accomplished by people of average intelligence. It's quite uplifting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my pet peeves with reporters and writers is that they believe themselves to be studied, enlightened and informed, more so than their audience. And if true this would be great. If true they could inform me and give me better understanding of the world around me. Sadly, I find, most of them rely on gut, opinion and lack rigor. They lack basic scientific investigative techniques. So we end up reading mostly opini…
I think part of the problem of scientific reporting is that journalists deliberately look for sensationalist material, and how journalists discuss science is little different from how Bill O'Reilly might react if he just found an exclusive clip of Hillary Clinton getting drunk and saying stupid things. Bill O'Reilly and his team would probably be thinking about how this might be worth a month of material. The other p…
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,…
I will stipulate that the NYT editorial board has lectured Silicon Valley on diversity, though it is not diverse itself, and its female executive editor made less than her male predecessor: http://www.aei.org/publication/silicon-valley-gets-stern-lec... http://www.businessinsider.com/nyt-explains-female-editor-sm...
As for the rewrites, changing the lede graf to "entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley" is significant. It replaces neutral reportage -- "a week of ceaseless criticism" -- with the newspaper asserting as fact that Silicon Valley represents a more "entrenched sexist culture" than, say, the NYT newsroom itself. It's intended to frame the story in a typical high-level next-day NYT fashion by injecting the author's, or editor's, perspective. It's excellent journalism when it's accurate, but creates the type of controversy you see here when it's not.
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 w…
Whatever you might think of the issues "GamerGate" advocates for, another indisputable fact is that its troll faction very definitely turned the words "ethics in journalism" into a punch line. So much so that simply saying the words "ethics in journalism" is very effective code for "this is really about misogyny".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 800,000 Mexicans in Chicago, and the neighborhoods in Chicago that are dominated by them are nice. I don't know what you're trying to imply about American Mexican immigrants, but if it's what it sounds like you're implying, please educate yourself.
I used to work at construction sites in Brooklyn where mexicans were living 10 people a room in horrible conditions in Brighton Beach, so those "nice" neighborhoods that you see in Chicago are just a face of it, try going inside the actual houses...Looking at them from your office or just by driving by will not obviously show a real picture, so please educate yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 w…
I'm going to go with "because the loudest people who chose to adopt the label 'GamerGate' also managed to spoil the word 'ethics', so that in discussions of interest to 'GamerGaters', readers have to be cautious about whether there are actual ethical concerns, rather than fig leaves used to promote misogyny." Whatever you might think of the issues "GamerGate" advocates for, another indisputable fact is that its troll…
A running joke, "ethics in journalism", by detractors and the very same "journalists" being criticized for ethical transgressions is not effective for anything, besides perpetuating the "this is really about misogyny" meme.
If one is "cautious", one can certainly do their due diligence to investigate this matter and learn that reporting on games, tech and all sorts of other journalism really are cause for ethical concerns.
I'm aware you don't care about games or game reportage, but I'll cite a few examples anyway: take corrupt "journalists", such as Nathan Grayson (http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=nathan_grayson) or Jenn Frank (http://www.deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=jenn_frank) who collude, fail to disclose relationships and give favorable coverage and reviews to friends.
By the way, trolls and shit-stirrers are not the "loudest people" nor do they represent a label. No amount of Twitter reweets, likes and favorites will make that a reasonable argument.
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 from listening to npr interviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a citation. It's more a vibe I get Ironically, something an anti-vaxxer would probably say too.
Guy complains about lack obvious lack of rigour. HN asks him for citations. Srsly? ________ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity [3] with ref (1) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy [4] http://www.salon.com/2011/01/16/dangerous_immunity/ [5] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/13/science/la-sci-autis...
Just like the "it's a vibe" response, your own point on rigour isn't particularly rigorous.