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

121–130 of 163 posts

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

#121

Post by rufus_foreman »

trs8080 wrote: post #103
Bukhmanizer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Nobody ever claimed they were doing it "to propagate their own interests." The original tweets say this: "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." Ok, define "unfair." Yeah, havin…

>> Ok, define "unfair."

OK, here you go:

the New York Times

/ðə ˌnjuː jɔːk ˈtaɪmz/

/ðə ˌnuː jɔːrk ˈtaɪmz/

The paper is published each morning in New York and can also be bought all round the world. There is also a large Sunday issue.

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

#122

Post by lr4444lr »

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.

Critical, yes. Oppositional, no.

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

#123

Post by Cupertino95014 »

greenthrow wrote: post #117
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…

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

How about "proof that the Mafia is shaking down small business owners" ?

How much proof would you be able to find for that? Do you insist an owner speak on the record? "Photographs or it didn't happen"?

So you ask for evidence, and attempt to correlate it.

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

#124

Post by trs8080 »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #121
trs8080 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests Nobody ever claimed they were doing it "to propagate their own interests." The original tweets say this: "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." Ok, define "unfair." Yeah, havin…

>> Ok, define "unfair." OK, here you go: the New York Times /ðə ˌnjuː jɔːk ˈtaɪmz/ /ðə ˌnuː jɔːrk ˈtaɪmz/ The paper is published each morning in New York and can also be bought all round the world. There is also a large Sunday issue.

ob·tuse /əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand

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

#125

Post by rufus_foreman »

trs8080 wrote: post #124
rufus_foreman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Ok, define "unfair." OK, here you go: the New York Times /ðə ˌnjuː jɔːk ˈtaɪmz/ /ðə ˌnuː jɔːrk ˈtaɪmz/ The paper is published each morning in New York and can also be bought all round the world. There is also a large Sunday issue.

ob·tuse /əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/ annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand

How about this one, I helped you out on a definition, can you explain what it means to "carry water for" someone?

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

#126

Post by trs8080 »

blululu wrote: post #88
tayo42 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, this is one of the complaints > Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. Why does it need to be in awe? that seems like an extreme in an unproductive direction. > it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests. where in the thread is the support for this?

It’s not but a basic Google search should show some of the more clear examples of the NYT using aggressive spyware for ads, AB modifying stories in real time to drive engagement, and subscription policies that are virtually impossible to back out of for people outside of California.

Therefore they're not allowed to report on malfeasance in the technology sector?

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

#127

Post by tootie »

nikodunk wrote: post #78

Careful! "Critical" is paraphrased. The thread says "tough investigative lens"! "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." Of course that will often lead to critical articles, but it is not precise to paraphrase the actual meaning here IMO.

"Critical" in journalism doesn't mean antagonistic or agenda-driven. It just means to not treat it like fluff. The Style section is not critical. Cooking is not critical. I can imagine Tech used to be soft news (David Pogue era) but had to pivot as it became so central to daily life.

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

#128

Post by another_story »

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?

Short answer yes.

This question can be easily answered with a search for NYTimes and green energy in tech or when Elon initially helped Ukraine using Starlink or any of the multitude of articles on advances in robotics or how new advances in computing help solve problems in healthcare.

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

#129

Post by rad88 »

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…

That is a very incisive analysis of "software engineering". I don't know how you did it.

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

#130

Post by all2well »

If I understand Yglesias' point, tech executives got annoyed that twitter would grant verification to journalists that gave them negative press attention? Why is everyone so obsessed with blue checks? Don't tech executives have their own PR departments?

The twitter thread doesn't mention any specifics, but I've seen self-driving cars mentioned in other comments as something "unfairly maligned" by major newspapers. So far as I can tell, the self-driving efforts of Tesla, Uber, and other startups have failed to deliver again and again on the promise of having a car that can drive itself without human supervision. Is that not deserving of criticism?

Not to mention how Google in particular has gone to war to not pay newspapers a single dime for reproducing their content. Business is business, and a lot depends on interpersonal relationships. Strong-arming somebody usually doesn't endear them to you.

Skepticism of new technologies has been around forever. The way to earn public trust is to actually deliver on things that make people's lives better.

Post reply on HN