NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by matt-attack » Sun, Nov 06, 2022, 10:06 AM UTC

blululu wrote: post #142

trs8080 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Logically no, but there are good reasons to distrust and despise hypocrites.

But when the proverbial kettle calls the pot black, what no one seems to admit is, the kettle is not wrong.

Statements are, in the most fundamental sense, either write or wrong. Whether they’re insensitive, irrelevant or hypocritical are entirely orthogonal concepts. People tend to focus on the latter when listening to people speak, and often disregard the for former.

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

#162

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 2:33 AM UTC

undoware wrote: post #63

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone here is calling for the government to restrict the NYT's editorial tone. They're saying that this behaviour is unbecoming of a newspaper of the NYT's reputation, and that their trust in this institution has been damaged as a result.

No one needs to -- the Free Speech Debate is not really about the government, is it? Elon didn't buy Twitter to protect it from the fed. He bought it to protect it from what he calls a "woke mind-virus" -- aka, progressive politics. This article is trending because -- and I'm generalizing here -- HN skews center-right (what I like to call 'business-right'.) As a result, it has fallen prey to the false narrative of co…

Without being inconsistent, I can simultaneously hold these views:

1: "Free speech is important; the NYT should be allowed to say whatever they want, maybe even including shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, whether using their own platform or Twitter's, and neither the government nor private companies should restrict them";

== A pro-free-speech stance

and

2: "the NYT embarrassed themselves by shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, caused public harm, and damaged the trust and reputation that they held with their audience, and I don't think it was wise of them to do so. I'm disappointed, I hope they fix this and do better next time."

== A the-NYT's-editorial-tone-is-within-my-rights-to-criticize stance

(Note: I'm not meaning to imply that a policy of deliberate non-objectivity-skewed-negative in reporting on tech is equivalent to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Just taking the example to the extreme limit, for clarity.)

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

#163

Post by another_story » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #135

another_story wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is why I included persecute, which is what people do in many cases online. I think it's good practice to not persecute others until you have sufficient evidence.

That can mean not making judgement based on things which are generally true in cases where it can damage another's reputation or result in the internet mob descending on them.