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

NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#111

Post by azinman2 »

glitcher wrote: post #72
brucelidl wrote: post #51

I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.

Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.

Leak why? This isn’t exactly controversial to say hey this sector that’s becoming insanely integrated into our society and economy deserves a critical lens. In fact I’d argue that’s exactly their job.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#112

Post by bilbo0s »

Bukhmanizer wrote: post #22
tayo42 wrote: post #6

I 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.

I don’t really get how people keep misunderstanding the point that it’s not that journalists are being critical, it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests. The absurdity of the NYT crying over big tech for practices the NYT uses all the time ( dark patterns, user tracking, algorithmic curation, etc. ) should not go unnoticed.

it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests.

So?

In a republic we need checks and balances. I want all the power centers in the country at each others' throats. I want bankers being critical of oil men. And oil men being critical of big tech. And big tech being critical of politicians. And politicians being critical of judges. And judges being critical of the cops. And cops being critical of the press. And the press being deeply critical of everything. And on and on and on.

NYTimes being critical of big tech is good. We need more of that sniping in all directions. That's what keeps us safe.

The only time we need to worry, is whenever they all speak with one voice. When that happens, I can guarantee we're getting screwed somehow.

Let big tech and the press go at each other, that's only a win for every regular American. In fact if the press is not doing that, then they aren't doing their job as the fourth estate.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#113

Post by [deleted] »

mountainb wrote: post #105
glitcher wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.

Journalism isn't a profession. Even nurses and some managerial employees are held to a higher standard of duty. You will have an easier time holding someone who is responsible for fixing ice cream machines to an objective standard of professionalism than you will a journalist. Some journalists have tried to conjure up "professional standards" that aren't binding, but the fact that they are not binding is why it's not…

[deleted]

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#114

Post by trs8080 »

barney54 wrote: post #95
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts? > it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it? A reporter in a position…

Can anyone find a NYT article that is pro-tech?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/technology/the-2021-good-...

https://www.nytimes.com/by/john-markoff

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#115

Post by AlbertCory »

nr2x wrote: post #101

The NYT basically IS a tech company at this point. They have gripes with the competition.

By the same token, some tech companies, especially Twitter, basically ARE media companies.

I tried to analyze News Corp's annual report to find their R&D spending, the same way I did for six tech companies (https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/should-elon-lay-off-all-...)

Unfortunately, their accounting treatments of software are different, so a direct comparison was quite difficult.

NYT sells ads and also subscriptions; Twitter sells ads and wants to start selling subscriptions. Yeah, NYT pays an editorial staff, but they've been downsizing that pretty relentlessly. The hypothesis is that the two business models will be converging.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#116

Post by fnordpiglet »

barney54 wrote: post #95
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts? > it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it? A reporter in a position…

Can anyone find a NYT article that is pro-tech?

It’s always read as the Luddite paper of record to me. Not only does it hate all over tech as an industry compulsively, it hates all over technology in general ritually. I can’t imagine how such a directive could change the paper visibly.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#117

Post by greenthrow »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #92
brucelidl wrote: post #51

I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.

Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts? > it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it? A reporter in a position…

Are you really stating that asking for proof of claims is too much?

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#118

Post by MichaelCollins »

barney54 wrote: post #95
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts? > it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it? A reporter in a position…

Can anyone find a NYT article that is pro-tech?

A thinly veiled advertisement extolling the virtue of parents who buy apple product for their kids: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-ch...

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#119

Post by bubblethink »

The thing is, what else can NYT, or any mainstream paper do ? The mainstream papers lack the talent or expertise to cover technology rigorously. There are specialized technical publications (e.g., at the level of lwn or anandtech), a few middle of the road ones (e.g., at the level of verge or ars), and then garden variety blog spam and youtube content. NYT has to find some niche that works for its core competence and its reader base. And that would be broad coverage with political undertones. That seems like what they do - mostly useless stuff with occasional well-sourced articles that may have tie ins with public policy.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#120

Post by fnordpiglet »

azinman2 wrote: post #111
glitcher wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.

Leak why? This isn’t exactly controversial to say hey this sector that’s becoming insanely integrated into our society and economy deserves a critical lens. In fact I’d argue that’s exactly their job.

Critical in the sense you’re using is being skeptical and investigative. Critical in the sense discussed in the tweet is monotone complaining.
Post reply on HN