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

NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#121

Post by fareesh »

isbadawi wrote: post #57
fareesh wrote: post #34

The NYT recently hired someone to their editorial board who appears to be a brazen and open racist. I don't mean some kind of innuendo racist, but someone with multiple tweets like this: "Are genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" The NYT excused this this as her way of "imitating the rhetoric" of those who were harassing her onlin…

https://twitter.com/awprokop/status/1025484876278112261

https://imgur.com/pPiOatP

The latter half of my comment deals with this - hint: I'm not opposed to people being given a chance to explain, or being charitable and permissive to all speech.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#122

Post by patrick5415 »

scotchio wrote: post #27
darawk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but they published something that confirmed their priors, and didn't due their due diligence on it because it confirmed their priors and was the kind of story they wanted to write. They have to be held to account for that.

Agree. Just don't see it as malicious

So you’re degrading the charge from maliciousness to incompetence?

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#124

Post by anchpop »

asdffdsa wrote: post #119
sametmax wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon and disney just have more firepower. Amazon has the expertise in hosting, disney in content making. Amazon can drain customers with prime, and disney with the existing portfolio. Both have infinite cash to aquire and create new licences. No matter how good I think netflix is, and despite their now long and good track record, they are entering a new fight bare handed against machine guns.

Netflix only needs to make a few good movies/comedy specials/tv shows a year and I'll keep my subscription. Amazon/Disney does not put out good content

I don't know about good, but Disney does put out content people want to watch. Star Wars and Marvel are both very very popular franchises, for example

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#125

Post by anchpop »

luckylion wrote: post #96
maceurt wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they usually say that it is its "street value", and is pretty accurate of how much money is being taken away from the drug economy.

Will it be taken away though? Wouldn't the prices just adjust to the supply that is now significantly smaller?

Reducing supply will remove money from the economy, although less than the amount of money that was taken (the same happens whenever the government levies a tax).

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#126

Post by chihuahua »

v7p1Qbt1im wrote: post #98
haditab wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but many think that Disney's launching it's streaming service will kill Netflix since it will pull all of it's content from Netflix and other streaming sites.

Hyperbole much? Granted I‘m not most people but what keeps me subscribed and using a streaming service is steady new content. Nobody does that better than Netflix. At least for now. Have you seen Prime Video? It‘s basically barren. I can count on one hand the originals they put out this year. Hanna, Good Omens and Homecoming (I think).

Prime Video is also going to have a new season of "The Expanse" later this year

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#127

Post by gipp »

in3d wrote: post #87

Why don’t these news publishers come together and make a competitor to Google News? Google News is a poor product. It cannot do basic NLP things right, like properly grouping related news. The titles that are chosen as the first ones to display often don’t convey the story. Irrelevant or extremely partisan stories are prominently listed. “More stories like this” or “fewer stories like this” does nothing. The publishe…

Absolutely none of the things you listed are anything close to "basic". Those are things that newsrooms full of talented and well-coordinated professionals regularly get wrong, let alone software algorithms. You're listing massive, completely unsolved problems and acting like they're table stakes.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#128

Post by dang »

nailer wrote: post #97
dang wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar. It's boring, nasty, and just what we don't need here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I understand the ideological flame war rule, as I've been here since it's introduction, but we're discussing the Times being misleading, and I'm not attacking or promoting any particular ideology in this post.

That may be true and yet you can still be taking the thread further into flamewar. At the dog park, when dogs get into a fight, I notice that there are sometimes other dogs who get in the middle of it, barking and racing around. They're not fighting at all, but they sure make the thing more intense.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#129

Post by nailer »

dang wrote: post #128
nailer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the ideological flame war rule, as I've been here since it's introduction, but we're discussing the Times being misleading, and I'm not attacking or promoting any particular ideology in this post.

That may be true and yet you can still be taking the thread further into flamewar. At the dog park, when dogs get into a fight, I notice that there are sometimes other dogs who get in the middle of it, barking and racing around. They're not fighting at all, but they sure make the thing more intense.

Point taken. I'll be more careful in future.

Re: NYT promotes questionable study on Google and the media

#130

Post by stochastic_monk »

kortilla wrote: post #91
stochastic_monk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s MSNBC, not NYT. In fact, their coverage goes out of their way to support centrist positions. (Unless you’re discussing their opinion columns, which include everyone from Gorbachev to Sean Spicer to Chelsea Manning.)

>their coverage goes out of their way to support “Out of their way” as in it’s difficult for them to support anything other than leftist views? Do you not see the problem there?

To be more verbose, giving plausible deniability to actors who are clearly malicious.
Post reply on HN