Letter in Response to Jan. 17 Article in The New York Times • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by barry-cotter » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #6

I thought Razib Kahn also had a response worth reading. This is all out of line with my previous impression of the New York Times as a respectable paper. Is the new era of virality driven news taking its toll on them? My impression is that they wouldn't have published this 10 years ago but perhaps I'm being naive? https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2019/01/19/194105/

You’re being naive. Things were never better, it’s just that we live in an era when disseminating the counter narrative is easier than it used to be.

Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer was never revoked. He worked for the NYT as Moscow Burea Chief while the Holodmor, the Ukrainian famine was happening and didn’t cover it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

> What Duranty knew and when

> It was clear, meanwhile, from Duranty's comments to others that he was fully aware of the scale of the calamity. In 1934 he privately reported to the British embassy in Moscow that as many as 10 million people may have died, directly or indirectly, from famine in the Soviet Union in the previous year.[25]

> Both British intelligence[26] and American engineer Zara Witkin (1900–1940),[27] who worked in the USSR from 1932 to 1934,[28] confirmed that Duranty knowingly misrepresented information about the nature and scale of the famine.

> There are some indications that Duranty's deliberate misdirection concerning the famine may have been the result of duress. Conquest believed Duranty was being blackmailed over his sexual proclivities.[29]

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

#22

Post by pcstl » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #8

seibelj wrote: post #4

The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda. This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news…

Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are supposed to be like that. It's not an error; it's by design, and it's a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed. You, as the reader, are expected to be know enough about how newspapers are organized to tell that you're reading part of the opinion or editorial sections and what that means. In an ideal newspaper practicing journal…

Which would be perfectly fine, except that digital newspapers have a pesky habit of putting "Opinion" or "Editorial" in very tiny font on the piece's header, with no other indication that the piece being read is, in fact, an opinion/editorial piece.

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

#23

Post by detaro » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #2

This is in response to the hit piece. Upvote the parent. Spread the truth. > To the Editor: > Gideon Lewis-Kraus (Jan. 17) profiles the nascent field of ancient DNA, which in the last few years has contributed to a transformation in our understanding of the deep human past. His article touches on important issues that we, as a field, have yet to deal with fully: including how to handle ancient remains ethically and i…

What's the point of copy-pasting the content of the submission here?

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

#24

Post by dylan604 » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

taude wrote: post #17

da_chicken wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are supposed to be like that. It's not an error; it's by design, and it's a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed. You, as the reader, are expected to be know enough about how newspapers are organized to tell that you're reading part of the opinion or editorial sections and what that means. In an ideal newspaper practicing journal…

One problem I have with it, though, is that often all the most popular articles in their site, are the opinion pieces. I'm still a subscriber, but there's a strongly "promoted" bias, IMHO, and it requires reading news from several sources with an open mind to get the complete story. Also, NYT isn't immune to click-baity titles, where the meat of the story isn't necessary correlate with the title.

>and it requires reading news from several sources with an open mind to get the complete story.

I don’t consider this a negative. I have always had a bit of that “rebellious” streak in me, so I’ve been told. I have always questioned everything. I would ask “Why?” like 2 year old. I wasn’t asking to second guess coworkers, but because I wanted to learn to fish rather than being handed a fish. The question everything mentality stuck, so I’m constantly reading multiple sources to confirm or contradict any one single source.

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

#25

Post by ummonk » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #4

The opinion section of the NYT, and also many of the long form articles, are selected and shaped by the editorial staff which has an agenda. I’ve noticed that popularized science articles are especially bad, and if the science touches even slightly a controversial issue like race or ancestry the meaning and nuance can be warped to match their agenda. This isn’t only the NYT but given their status as the premier news…

Yeah, the only traditional outlet that I trust to actually present a diverse set of editorial viewpoints is The Atlantic. The others, like NYT, WaPo, etc. all seem to mostly provide a very narrow set of party-line editorials.

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

#26

Post by ForHackernews » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

pcstl wrote: post #22

da_chicken wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are supposed to be like that. It's not an error; it's by design, and it's a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed. You, as the reader, are expected to be know enough about how newspapers are organized to tell that you're reading part of the opinion or editorial sections and what that means. In an ideal newspaper practicing journal…

Which would be perfectly fine, except that digital newspapers have a pesky habit of putting "Opinion" or "Editorial" in very tiny font on the piece's header, with no other indication that the piece being read is, in fact, an opinion/editorial piece.

I would hope most literate readers could tell the difference.

There's an obvious distinction between a pundit advancing a point of view and factual accounting of some event. That's not the say that the news section never betrays bias with the facts a reporter chooses to include, or by omitting contrary perspectives.

But really, I hope readers do not need a giant header banner "THIS IS AN OP-ED" to recognize one.

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

#27

Post by 13415 » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

pcstl wrote: post #22

da_chicken wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are supposed to be like that. It's not an error; it's by design, and it's a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed. You, as the reader, are expected to be know enough about how newspapers are organized to tell that you're reading part of the opinion or editorial sections and what that means. In an ideal newspaper practicing journal…

Which would be perfectly fine, except that digital newspapers have a pesky habit of putting "Opinion" or "Editorial" in very tiny font on the piece's header, with no other indication that the piece being read is, in fact, an opinion/editorial piece.

You can increase the font size in your browser if you're unable to read the indications for editorials and opinions.

But it's also kind of odd that you consider there to be a problem in the first place, because it's also trivial to distinguish news articles from opinions and editorials just from their writing stile.

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

#28

Post by Topgamer7 » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

This response is very well thought out and well written. For someone who was likely incensed by the article in question, they responded in a cordial, professional manner.

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

#29

Post by dylan604 » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

sjroot wrote: post #13

The thing that annoys me about this the most is the use of anonymous sources. If you are writing a scientific article, or generally hope to establish some scientific fact, I do not think it is appropriate to hide behind a veil of anonymity.

I totally agree. People speaking on condition of anonimity because they are not authorized to discuss is one of the most annoying things about news today. As the reader, I just don’t trust the info. In recent news, BuzzFeed seems to have been recently burned and the SuperMicro hack sources seemed to have burned the journalists as well (don’t remember which outlet that was).

It seems like people are fed up enough to break confidentiality agreements to leak info, but not fed up enough to quit and leave the hostile environment. I still appreciate the Snowden method. Got fed up to the point that the info must be released, but did not hide to keep his job.

Also, some leaks are from official sources like a press secretary or similar official, but staying anonymous to float information as a trial balloon so there’s some plausible deniability if the balloon was made of lead. In marketing, the leaked photos seem to be an internally approved method to get free PR.

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

#30

Post by barbecue_sauce » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #26

pcstl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would be perfectly fine, except that digital newspapers have a pesky habit of putting "Opinion" or "Editorial" in very tiny font on the piece's header, with no other indication that the piece being read is, in fact, an opinion/editorial piece.

I would hope most literate readers could tell the difference. There's an obvious distinction between a pundit advancing a point of view and factual accounting of some event. That's not the say that the news section never betrays bias with the facts a reporter chooses to include, or by omitting contrary perspectives. But really, I hope readers do not need a giant header banner "THIS IS AN OP-ED" to recognize one.

That's assuming the op-ed is not intentionally taking a journalistic style to mislead readers.