Live data from Hacker News

New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

techraptor.net

261–270 of 277 posts

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

#261
post #251
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm not a journalist and don't have their gravitas. Journalists have some gravitas and it should be required that have some modicum of rigor. This is a forum where we exchange ideas not an organ of record and the one who is taken to be the preeminent news source in North America. There is a difference. They have whole teams dedicated to research. Use them. As someone upstream said, don't take one fact and weave a the…

And I asked where that was happening in the mainstream media, and you started talking about the minimum wage.

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

#262
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a journalist and don't have their gravitas. Journalists have some gravitas and it should be required that have some modicum of rigor. This is a forum where we exchange ideas not an organ of record and the one who is taken to be the preeminent news source in North America. There is a difference. They have whole teams dedicated to research. Use them. As someone upstream said, don't take one fact and weave a the…

And I asked where that was happening in the mainstream media, and you started talking about the minimum wage.

Robert F Kennedy was the source for the Salon Piece in footnote 4.

"He had written a much-discussed and much-challenged story for Rolling Stone last year linking childhood vaccines and a rise in autism."

"Nonetheless, perhaps more than any other Kennedy of his generation, he is looked upon as the next potential vessel for Something Bigger. In words, temperament and actions, he conveys a frenetic vibe of restlessness that invites the questions "What else?" "What next?" "What more?""

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/25bobby.html?pagew...

Its this kind of stuff that is ultimately problematic. Note that this is in the 'fashion' section of the NYT.

You could say that 'Salon' is outide your definition of mainstream media, but the issue is that the sites you mentioned still cover the stories, even if nothing more than as references in pursuit of 'journalistic integrity'.

Obviously google will turn up lots of materiel on this if you want it.

(Note that the current treatment of these topics is far more skeptical. The LA times in 2015 is not going to treat these topics the same as the NY times in 2006.)

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

#263

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.

Your account has violated the HN guidelines countless times, yet we've stopped short of banning you. We're not going to keep doing that. Kindly follow the rules from now on.

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

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, No I would not since he seems to go outside his knowledge base, gets political, and make some false statements. Check his validated Twitter feed for some examples. Now if Feynman was still around, I would trust him since he had a record of giving honest opinions.

It's not Neil's beliefs on politics that people care about. Instead, we care when he makes statements about the field of physics. Not a phenomena, but the field itself. It's because those statements can be incredibly useful to a lay audience. Imagine hearing this claim: "Most psychologists nowadays use cognitive behavioral therapy, or some kind of statistically-backed similar therapy involving cognitive work, while p…

"I trust Neil to say that "most physicists believe X" without spin or deceit."

See, that's the problem, I don't trust him to say that without spin or deceit. He makes claims about certain politicians making statements they didn't make (e.g. 360 degree turn or taking part of a quote out of time and context) which leads me to believe I cannot trust anything he says without independent confirmation. He has become a pundit not a teacher.

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

#265

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…

I think it's difficult to argue that sexism is a red herring when someone resigns in the wake of a petition that leads off by criticizing them for taking a sexual harassment case to court. It's also difficult to argue that sexism isn't a factor in a resignation preceded by many hundreds of misogynist rants.

So, your responses to my challenge. Thank you! I think the first one is valid, and that reasonable people can disagree; the second one, less so.

Who is Pao a hero to? Not so much me. I think it's fair to argue that she's less a hero than "someone with a cheering section". Is she fighting for gender equality? That depends on the semantics you adopt. Reasonable people will argue that taking a sexual harassment case to court is "fighting for gender equality". Pao's reasonable detractors will say that she's fighting for her own financial interests.

Did Pao resign abruptly? Categorically yes, so much so that I'm a little irritated at Altman and Ohanian to see how it was managed. In an orderly succession, the CEO announces that they're leaving at, say, the end of the month. That didn't happen here. Not only that, but this CEO resigned amidst loud, newsworthy clamor for her ouster. Reddit's choreography leaves open the question of whether Reddit mobs can oust people at Reddit --- certainly, the mob thinks it can! There's no practical reason Pao couldn't have been quietly replaced by Huffman, who could have joined the board, and then a few weeks from now announce her resignation at the end of, I don't know, September. Operationally, Huffman would be doing the same thing he's doing now, but the optics would be clearer.

They didn't do that because Pao resigned abruptly. Not only did she resign abruptly, but both she and the board noted in their announcement that that Reddit mob was a destructive factor in the resignation.

Pao would not have resigned had the last few months of drama --- most of which does not appear to have been her making, and before you settle on "the buck stops with the CEO" please note that in this weird company, the CEO's boss had an operational role, and was himself responsible for the most dramatic misstep the company made. She probably did leave because she genuinely didn't feel she was the right person at this point to grow Reddit's userbase. But that judgement was almost certainly based in part on the fact that anything Reddit did with her name attached would be trolled and harassed by the redpill "chairmin pow" mob.

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

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's called parajournalism. "Opinion piece" has a clearly defined meaning in journalism and is an entirely different genre. Parajournalism seems to be journalism — “the collection and dissemination of current news” — but the appearance is deceptive. It is a bastard form, having it both ways, exploiting the factual authority of journalism and the atmospheric license of fiction. Entertainment rather than information is…

People level this charge, or charges just like it, at every news story they don't like. Nerds are going to get a rude awakening if they think they're going to cow the Times (or the WSJ editorial board, for that matter) over "bias" in their newsrooms; these publications have been at the center of the real-world culture war for decades.

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

#267
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I asked where that was happening in the mainstream media, and you started talking about the minimum wage.

Robert F Kennedy was the source for the Salon Piece in footnote 4. "He had written a much-discussed and much-challenged story for Rolling Stone last year linking childhood vaccines and a rise in autism." "Nonetheless, perhaps more than any other Kennedy of his generation, he is looked upon as the next potential vessel for Something Bigger. In words, temperament and actions, he conveys a frenetic vibe of restlessness…

Salon is nowhere near the mainstream media. It's a punchline for people who think Slate is mainstream, and those people are themselves not in the mainstream.

The NYT piece you cite is not about vaccination, and notes on that subject only that RFKjr wrote an antivax piece that was challenged.

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

#268

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.

It's funny because it isn't even true, TechRaptor as a Tech reporting site has existed since early 2013, here is a Web Archive from about a year before "GamerGate" started: http://web.archive.org/web/20131124114156/http://techraptor.... In fact it was founded by Rutledge Daugette in March 2013, over a year before "GamerGate" started in August 2014. So apparently the site was "set up by evil GamerGaters" over a year a…

You know, my message board nerd instincts tell me I should attempt a grasping litigation of this point, attempting to establish for my faction the notion that TechRaptor is in fact a GG spinoff. But, you're right: I did some research, and while they are beloved of GamerGaters and the KotakuInAction crowd, that doesn't make them GamerGaters.

I retract the implication I created upthread that TechRaptor's story is weird because it's a GamerGate product. I'm back to "it's weird because I don't know why".

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

#269
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…

It's kind of a big deal. Real and ongoing issues with male-supremacy and misogyny in SV are being actively misappropriated for salacious clickbait. C.f. Newsweek's horrific cover story with a mouse lifting a woman's skirt.

C.f. the title "SV 2, Ellen Pao 0". I mean jesus, talk about derailing the convo from the start. Ellen Pao blew it with the Victoria firing, so there's at least one thread of this story that has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with typical tone-deaf executives.

I personally don't think the FPH incident is involved in her dismissal, nor her previous harrassment lawsuit -- if the latter was a problem they would have never made her CEO in the first place. Regarding FPH, yes that ruffled feathers but the management seemed united behind it.

So, I don't think it's anti-feminist to call out this article as gender-wars clickbait. The focus on edits is indeed a sideshow, but I'm not surprised it took a GG-focused site to bring it up.

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

#270
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert F Kennedy was the source for the Salon Piece in footnote 4. "He had written a much-discussed and much-challenged story for Rolling Stone last year linking childhood vaccines and a rise in autism." "Nonetheless, perhaps more than any other Kennedy of his generation, he is looked upon as the next potential vessel for Something Bigger. In words, temperament and actions, he conveys a frenetic vibe of restlessness…

Salon is nowhere near the mainstream media. It's a punchline for people who think Slate is mainstream, and those people are themselves not in the mainstream. The NYT piece you cite is not about vaccination, and notes on that subject only that RFKjr wrote an antivax piece that was challenged.

I suppose you could use the same argument for rolling stone, but frankly it doesn't matter. Look at the UVA rape case from earlier this year (covered widely). The RFK piece on vaccination was published originall in rolling stone. The hagiographic prose the NYT writes about the author (kennedy) and the editorial selection of the piece by rolling stone lend these ideas credibility regardless of the flaws in the articles. Again, look at the UVA rape article earlier this year (published: rolling stone) and see how much coverage it got in NYT, WaPo, LaTimes etc. Its worth noting That WaPo debunked alot of the Rolling stone reportage ultimately, but that just goes to show that not all newsrooms are single minded/purpose entities.

Lastly, if you look up (and read) the footnotes in my earlier not, you'll se that there is a clear link between the academic critique of 'journalistic integrity' and the anti-vaccination example, insofar as 'false balance' is a well defined sub-topic of that debate. Under the Wikipedia article for that...you notice (rightly or wrongly) that of the examples given, the anti-vaccination quakery (eg, kennedy in rollin stone etc) is a "well worn" example.

In other words, a commenter making reference to this is not making any novel or original argument that needs "footnotes". Footnotes are useful when there is a more subtle point, a nuance or something that is not obvious. Footnotes are less called for here, as a simple google search will attest.

Post reply on HN