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

131–140 of 163 posts

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

#131

Post by lr4444lr »

bhauer wrote: post #55

This should not be a surprise to anyone who has been reading the New York Times' technology journalism for the past several years. In fact, I'd argue that even before any such "directive" was made, the bias in high-profile papers was already predominantly anti-tech, except in rare circumstances where praising a technology sector or tech company served the overarching political narrative of the moment (e.g., then-nasc…

In a sense, it's totally understandable. For over a decade now, almost 2, the internet has put traditional news media in continuous peril of losing their reliable revenue and eyeballs: ads, local reporting, community postings, national, and international journalism have seen playing fields entirely leveled and reshaped due to (mostly) free technology interconnecting billions of people.

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

#132

Post by another_story »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #123
greenthrow wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to prosecute or persecute those mafia members, yes, evidence is necessary.

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

#133

Post by [deleted] »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #123
greenthrow wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#134

Post by Cupertino95014 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #118
barney54 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all.

It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly.

The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose it."

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

#135

Post by Cupertino95014 »

another_story wrote: post #132
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to prosecute or persecute those mafia members, yes, evidence is necessary.

There's a difference between "things that can be proven in a court of law" and "things that are generally considered true."

For the former, some shop owner has to risk his life testifying, or the cops have to have recordings. A newspaper does not and cannot hold to this standard.

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

#136

Post by tootie »

thmt wrote: post #2

From 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…

This is very easily disproven if you just go read the news they write. They are appropriately critical of things that deserve skepticism but they still write fun stories about cool internet stuff when they want. Consider this love letter to the Roku screensaver

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/style/roku-city-screensav...

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

#137

Post by MichaelCollins »

WalterSear wrote: post #30
TillE wrote: post #11

All journalistic coverage of everything should be critical, or why does it exist?

IMHO, you are using a different meaning of the word 'critical' than the tweeter.

The claim has been filtered through a game of telephone. It may well be the case that NYTimes management directed their journalists to produce critical coverage of tech in the sense that TillE means, which then got corrupted into the "no positive coverage" meaning of 'critical'.

I think this is probably what happened, but without any better source for this supposed directive, it's impossible to say for sure.

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

#138

Post by MichaelCollins »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #134
MichaelCollins wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all. It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly. The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose…

Ads often mention the price of the product. The article goes on and on about the supposed benefits of giving your kid a smart watch, specifically the Apple brand of smart watch, contrasting it favorably to buying them a phone instead.

At the very least, it's not negative coverage of Apple. Even if you think it neutral coverage (I don't), it's a counter-example to the supposed directive that all tech coverage have a negative tone. And they categorized it as tech news, not business news.

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

#139

Post by whamlastxmas »

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.

> I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others.

I wish this exact same method of sourcing wasn't the basis for 95% of journalism these days.

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

#140

Post by trs8080 »

elpool2 wrote: post #62
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.

It's the difference between a movie critic who carefully critiques movies honestly and one that decides to write a negative review before even seeing the movie. Both of them are being "critical", but in very different ways. I think the NYT probably wanted to be the former but drifted into becoming the latter.

> decides to write a negative review before even seeing the movie

Nobody claimed this was happening. Just because the NYT says "we're only doing investigative pieces on tech," doesn't mean that they start fabricating lies. It just means they don't do fluff pieces. This is the preferred approach - for example, I don't want coverage of the cuddly PR that the oil industry puts out, I want investigative pieces that uncover malfeasance.

Post reply on HN