21–30 of 163 posts
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…
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.
The absurdity of the NYT crying over big tech for practices the NYT uses all the time ( dark patterns, user tracking, algorithmic curation, etc. ) should not go unnoticed.
Why wouldn't they? They are more powerful than tech in being arbiters of truth, and the fact that they convinced everyone, even tech workers, about it proves that they are higher in the pecking order
This is just the classic short-term thinking on their end. If that directive becomes widely known, their trustworthiness and status as the arbiter of truth in the public eye will not remain as such for much longer.
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…
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital. They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian so…
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.
In 2022, I'd certainly give the same directive. Our industry can and should be held to account, just like any other seat of power. (Because that's what we are now, whether we like it or not.)
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…
All journalistic coverage of everything should be critical, or why does it exist?