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

Statement on New York Times Article

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 437 posts

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#171

Post by sampo »

b112 wrote: post #159
runsWphotons wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has increasingly happened with topics I know about over the past five years at accelerating rate. [If you want to be uncomfortable, consider noticing this repeatedly is part of what has driven half of the US mad.]

An interjection here. Not directly related to the NYT article, just your comment. I feel the entire US has "gone mad". I'm a Canuck, and US and Canadian politics don't 'mesh'. So whenever I've spoken to Americans over the decades, often their politics make little sense, don't align, seem cogent to me. This, of course, I consider normal for a non-local such as myself. However over the last decade or so, I've noticed t…

Babylon 5, season 2, episode Geometry of Shadows. The Drazi civil war between green and purple factions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddxIfMRZemc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxds-Co7G1Q

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#173

Post by sanxiyn »

nanna wrote: post #148
twicetwice wrote: post #3

A great response, in my opinion. Succinctly and effectively points out what was wrong with the NYT article, then tries to move on. Somewhat more of a sober tone than Scott's typical writing, but still with a dash of his typical wit: > I don’t want to accuse the New York Times of lying about me, exactly, but if they were truthful, it was in the same way as that famous movie review which describes the Wizard of Oz as:…

> WebMD is the Internet's most important source of medical information. [WebMD, And The Tragedy Of Legible Expertise"] I had no idea WebMD was taken this seriously. Can I recommend to HNers especially across the pond to use the excellent NHS.UK instead, for level-headed and concise medical info.

Wow, I just looked up aspirin and warfarin (comparison used in the article) at NHS.UK, and it really is better. For example,

Q. What if I take too much?

A. (for aspirin) Taking 1 or 2 extra tablets is unlikely to be harmful. (for warfarin) If you take an extra dose of warfarin, call your anticoagulant clinic straight away.

This convinces me it's not that WebMD is a tragedy of legible expertise, but that WebMD is incompetent.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#174

Post by raspasov »

Very often when I read a NYT article, I get a paranoid Neo-marxist feeling that NYT doesn’t really care for equality of opportunity, minority rights, women’s rights or any particular oppressed group. They just hate the successful and the rich.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#176

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

forgingahead wrote: post #96
vinay_ys wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A publication can be politically titled to one side and still be factually accurate and stay true to journalistic integrity principles (or at least that's what I want). With social media and modern communication/publication mechanisms, it is much easier for individuals who know the ground truth to bring their perspective to the fore and poke holes into a major publication's journalistic flaws. This wasn't possible ju…

This seems to be contradictory. It's ok to be politically biased, but still factually accurate for things that fit their political bias? The NYT and others like it go out of their way to pretend they have no political bias, using the passive voice to give authority to slanted reporting which favours one "team" over another. Being a partisan mouthpiece isn't itself a problem, the issue is when it pretends (and many of…

You used the term "biased," not them -- just to be clear. Which way a publication leans can be determined by things that have nothing directly to do with integrity or truth telling -- which stories they cover, for instance. In practice, lean often comes along with audience. Like any publication, news outlets have audiences, and the interests of that audience group will determine what stories it covers and how it covers them. This can be done with full journalistic integrity; in fact, it's harder (and perhaps impossible) for a publication to have zero political lean.

Political lean != acting as a mouthpiece.

Do also please note that your personal political leanings will determine whether you view the reporting of any publication as unethically biased or not. No matter which sides we're talking about, what one party reports as truth, another will hear as politically motivated.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#177

Post by MrMan »

Hasu wrote: post #146
eatplayrove wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully understand your point re reddit, but I think a single person's blog is different than that. A blog is like a book and reddit is like a bookstore if you will, if you go to a bookstore selling a book that racists read that is not concerning to me (wrongly concerning to your mom as you said), but if you bought the book in question (even if non/anti-racists read it too) I would be concerned if I were your mother…

This seems pretty crazy to me - you're saying that if I happen to enjoy anything that also happens to be enjoyed by racists/sexists, you would be concerned? Guess what? Racists and sexists like Harry Potter, and Star Wars, and Marvel movies, and Coca-Cola, and everything else that people who aren't racists and sexists like . I guarantee that you enjoy many, many things that are also enjoyed by people who have detesta…

I never read that blog and don’t read the NYT but I will say in response only to your comment that racists and sexists don’t seem to enjoy Star Wars like they used to. Someone should write a (hopefully thoughtful-seeming) long form rumination on the parallels between what has (allegedly) happened to Disney and what has (allegedly) happened to the NYT.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#178

Post by csbartus »

Time to quit mainstream media. All outlets have an agenda. I quit NYT since they've predicted an 80-20% win for Hillary, and the day after the results I've read their main column. They didn't take any responsibility at all.

Re: Statement on New York Times Article

#180

Post by say_it_as_it_is »

The New York Times is no longer a thought leader in society who helps people consider important ideas. Speech and thought are both heavily regulated there. I refused to believe that it was committing acts of "fake news" for all these years, but now realize that it is a hollowed out institution advancing identity politics at the cost of unbiased truth.
Post reply on HN