All journalistic coverage of everything should be critical, or why does it exist?
NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
11–20 of 163 posts
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#12Why wouldn't they? They are more powerful than tech in being arbiters of truth, and the fact that they convinced everyone, even tech workers, about it proves that they are higher in the pecking order
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#13I don't get why this seems like a big deal or a negative thing. Why wouldn't you want reporters to be critical? Isn't that like the whole point. That's even why we have freedom of press in the 1st amendment, so journalists can be critical.
Agree, I don't think people need to realise the amount of $$$ for tech PR and there needs to be a counter to this.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#14I don't get why this seems like a big deal or a negative thing. Why wouldn't you want reporters to be critical? Isn't that like the whole point. That's even why we have freedom of press in the 1st amendment, so journalists can be critical.
Being critical when the facts warrant it is great. Deciding in advance what the tone of coverage will be before you know any facts, and forbidding ipso facto any positive coverage, is not the whole point. That's an appalling abdication of journalistic ethics actually.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#15All journalistic coverage of everything should be critical, or why does it exist?
Advertising?
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#16The obvious question, of course, being: what other subjects have classified top-down "the coverage will look like this" directives.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#17A lot of big tech is an existential threat to traditional media. It's a wonder that the coverage is as balanced as it is.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#18From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter: a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. Instead of covering the industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This…
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital.
They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian sources. Maybe from a strict mathematical definition that is still a "majority" but it's certainly not what anyone imagines when they hear the word. There were many other biases in the form of omissions or wording like this in their reporting too.
Interestingly, a few years ago I did notice that the NYT and also other newspapers started attacking tech companies relentlessly. At the time it really seemed like there was a coordinated intentional effort. Interesting to see that at least in the case of the NYT that is true.
In any case, I no longer trust the NYT as an accurate source that strives to be unbiased. They clearly have an agenda that is more to the right than I'm comfortable with.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#19So?
These companies became so big and powerful, they are basically our new governing bodies. They should be critically treated. Exactly like the political entities they are.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#20Tech Companies are the most valuable companies in the world right now.
Their CEO's/founders are some of the richest most powerful people in the world right now.
As a Technologist, I do find it unfair that there is a lack of "awe" in terms of the technological progress. But I think on a global societal scale, the non-technological impact of the largest corporations in the world and the richest people in the world is more meaningful than the impact of their technologies.
Put another way, the impact that Uber/AirBbnb has on employment, housing prices, and the health of cities and communities is much bigger than the impact they have on my ability to get a convenient ride to a destination, or to rent lodging on my vacation.