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

Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

reich.hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#131

Post by rossdavidh »

scabarott wrote: post #114
rossdavidh wrote: post #40

As someone who has (once) written an opinion piece for the NYT, I wonder how much the published piece resembled the author's original text. My experience: https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/nyt_opini...

This is really fascinating. Had no idea just an HN comment can get you an invitation to write a NYT op-ed. Is this usual? Have you written for a newspaper before or do they randomly source semi-anonymous internet commenters for opinion pieces?

No, it has never happened to me before (and, I expect, will probably not happen again).

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#132

Post by rossdavidh »

iamdave wrote: post #68
rossdavidh wrote: post #40

As someone who has (once) written an opinion piece for the NYT, I wonder how much the published piece resembled the author's original text. My experience: https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/nyt_opini...

I (once) wrote a Sports Illustrated opinion article years ago (similar situation to yours: made a comment on twitter to one of the popular talking heads, talking head took notice and replied, SI took notice, asked me to write something), your experience matched mine from the editing and review standpoint. At first sitting back and reading the suggested edits and changes in place I had a similar first reaction as you…

Very interesting to hear that. I guess I am not surprised. I felt that my basic opinion was there, but an opinion of theirs had been layered on top, in a very politically-oriented way. I don't know if this was conscious or not.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#133

Post by rossdavidh »

lewis500 wrote: post #52
rossdavidh wrote: post #40

As someone who has (once) written an opinion piece for the NYT, I wonder how much the published piece resembled the author's original text. My experience: https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/nyt_opini...

wow this is brutal. thanks for sharing. I had mused on the idea of pitching them an opinion piece about my field, traffic, but not anymore.

I should say, their check did clear (and I didn't even expect to get paid when I agreed to do it). So there's that.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#134

Post by arkades »

mediaobserver45 wrote: post #113
_bxg1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read NPR now (only text; I can't speak to the audio segments). It's the most blessedly dispassionate news source I've yet found.

Ah no! If you want good, thoughtful news I suggest the Atlantic or the New Yorker (society, culture, politics), Talking Points Memo (politics only), or Propublica (no breaking news, just investigative). All of those four are controlled by journalists and have a more slow-news, news analysis focus. Add a local newspaper, just not one that is owned by a hedge fund or rightwing billionaire. If you want to listen to audi…

As regards propublica:

I’ve a great deal of experience in the healthcare field. Their recent series of work on healthcare has been amazing and amazingly bad: they’ve chased down data, analyzed it thoroughly, and apparently not bothered to speak to actual experts in the field to contextualize that data. Particularly where that would interfere with their agenda.

The result is, as they say, noise and fury signifying nothing. In honor of the gell-man effect, I couldn’t in good conscience use them as a source for a field I’m not an expert in.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#135

Post by myself248 »

arkades wrote: post #134
mediaobserver45 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah no! If you want good, thoughtful news I suggest the Atlantic or the New Yorker (society, culture, politics), Talking Points Memo (politics only), or Propublica (no breaking news, just investigative). All of those four are controlled by journalists and have a more slow-news, news analysis focus. Add a local newspaper, just not one that is owned by a hedge fund or rightwing billionaire. If you want to listen to audi…

As regards propublica: I’ve a great deal of experience in the healthcare field. Their recent series of work on healthcare has been amazing and amazingly bad: they’ve chased down data, analyzed it thoroughly, and apparently not bothered to speak to actual experts in the field to contextualize that data. Particularly where that would interfere with their agenda. The result is, as they say, noise and fury signifying not…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

AHA! Thank you for giving a name to a phenomenon I've talked about for years!

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#136

Post by marcus_holmes »

Newspapers aren't about truth. Newspapers are a business that runs on advertising, and advertising makes more money when the news is sensationalist. If you talk to a journalist then don't be surprised if you are then heavily mis-characterised and slandered. The journalist isn't there to tell your story, they're there to tell the story that will get the most clicks.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#137

Post by killjoywashere »

_bxg1 wrote: post #120
mediaobserver45 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah no! If you want good, thoughtful news I suggest the Atlantic or the New Yorker (society, culture, politics), Talking Points Memo (politics only), or Propublica (no breaking news, just investigative). All of those four are controlled by journalists and have a more slow-news, news analysis focus. Add a local newspaper, just not one that is owned by a hedge fund or rightwing billionaire. If you want to listen to audi…

I've found NPR to usually present "no sides", which exactly what I want. Simply facts. Minimal analysis or hypotheticals. Just, "X happened." The "both sides" mentality presumes a conflict, and implies that the content either lives in the sphere of opinion or includes "alternate facts". I've no interest in it from my news source. I do end up finding myself on The Atlantic fairly often through links. It has some good…

The funding for NPR says a lot. I suspect if you asked them in confidence, the staff would be fairly liberal, but the GOP hasn't defunded them because they realize the threat of defunding is more valuable than actual defunding.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#138

Post by ameister14 »

sgustard wrote: post #95
_bxg1 wrote: post #65

"I have mixed feelings about the NYT piece -- on the one hand it has a lot of valid criticisms and brings sorely needed critical eye to _________; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to _________ -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece." I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because I felt this way about many of their pieces.

The press as "enemy of the people" is one of the primary memes in the US right now. Are you comfortable with the side you're taking on that?

Cool, so I can't choose not to read the NY Post now?

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#139

Post by danieltillett »

rossdavidh wrote: post #40

As someone who has (once) written an opinion piece for the NYT, I wonder how much the published piece resembled the author's original text. My experience: https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/nyt_opini...

I have been through something similar (not with the NYT) with the same result. In fact I can't think of a single news story I have personal knowledge of that came out the media meat grinder showing any resembalance to what went in - pink slime more closely resembles a cow than these stories to the facts.

Re: Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times

#140

Post by lifthrasiir »

_bxg1 wrote: post #120
mediaobserver45 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah no! If you want good, thoughtful news I suggest the Atlantic or the New Yorker (society, culture, politics), Talking Points Memo (politics only), or Propublica (no breaking news, just investigative). All of those four are controlled by journalists and have a more slow-news, news analysis focus. Add a local newspaper, just not one that is owned by a hedge fund or rightwing billionaire. If you want to listen to audi…

I've found NPR to usually present "no sides", which exactly what I want. Simply facts. Minimal analysis or hypotheticals. Just, "X happened." The "both sides" mentality presumes a conflict, and implies that the content either lives in the sphere of opinion or includes "alternate facts". I've no interest in it from my news source. I do end up finding myself on The Atlantic fairly often through links. It has some good…

Presenting only facts is not same to having no sides, as the media can always control whether to present some facts or not. If you don't want to be manipulated by news, simply do not read news. By subscribing to the news stream you should constantly evaluate the possibility being manipulated.
Post reply on HN