New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism • Hacker News Board

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#201

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:29 PM UTC

spot wrote: post #197

rory096 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(assuming you're serious?) 1) Victoria, the admin who interfaces celebrities and /r/IAmA, was abruptly dismissed. No cause given, which grew a lot of conspiracy theories, but that's obviously standard practice when you fire an employee. 2) /r/IAmA mods find out when a PR rep reaches out to them after showing up at reddit offices and finding out their appointment with Victoria was canceled. Mods don't know how to get…

yes i'm totally serious and i am still looking for the answer to my question connecting 1 to the rest of the events which you have outlined in greater detail.

To be clear, it didn't happen in the order you specified. It was more like 2-3-1-4 — Victoria fired, protest, subreddits shut down in protest, Ellen resigns (1 week later) — and it was moderators who took down the subreddits, not reddit admins (Victoria was pretty much uninvolved besides getting fired.)

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#202

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:32 PM UTC

TorKlingberg wrote: post #177

nbouscal wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming the hatred for my hypothetical white male CEO would follow the same narrative pathways. I'm claiming that it's easy to imagine reddit hating a white male CEO as much or more than Ellen Pao. I won't disagree that race and gender were used as part of that hatred, that's obviously the case. I think, though, that it's easy to mix up whether things are tools that people use to attack someone they already…

I agree that the Reddit "hivemind" does not hate a woman just for being a woman, and they can definitely hate a white man. I still think they are more likely to hate a woman. The hate against Ellen Pao started with her lawsuit which is related to her gender. To take a hypotetical, let's say Reddit's CEO was a gay man who had sued a previous employer for something related to discrimination based on sexual orientation.…

The hate against Ellen Pao started with her lawsuit which is related to her gender.

My understanding is that her lawsuit was more related to her ethics, or lack thereof, than to her gender. Is that an unreasonable way to put it?

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#203

Post by corin_ » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:32 PM UTC

jclulow wrote: post #156

vonklaus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Feminist blogs and News Agencies" Is what I said. I don't understand what you are implying though.

One imagines this is precisely the confusion the Oxford comma might prevent.

Not only could the oxford comma not be placed there correctly (it needs a list of 3 or more items), but it wouldn't prevent it from being ambiguous and needing context.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#204

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:34 PM UTC

mahranch wrote: post #184

jsprogrammer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is intentionally suppressing speech that you don't like, not censorship? It would seem to be the very definition of censorship.

I think it depends on the context. If I'm a mod on reddit and I remove a submission because it's a clear rule breaker, am I censoring the person who posted it, or am I performing content curation? Which is the more accurate term to use? It might be technically correct to call water a 'clear liquid', but isn't there a better term or name to use, a more accurate and descriptive term to use? A clear liquid can also refe…

The distinction seems akin to freedom fighter vs. terrorist. If you're arguing in favor of improving the community, it's curation; if you just got shadowbanned, it's censorship. But it's the rules themselves that are at issue, not the mods enforcing them. Since the issue is further restricting discourse on reddit and I am opposed, I use the word censorship.

(I'll add that when it ventures into the realm of truly offensive behavior that can hardly be classified as content, the pro-restrictions term might start to become "justified censorship")

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#205

Post by selimthegrim » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:38 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #175

leereeves wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not think you can win an argument that the Times tried to spin the Victoria Taylor issue out of the article. That's not exactly what I said, and certainly nothing I meant to imply. Allow me to try again: The article ignored the complaints expressed by the moderators.

The article also ignores the fact that Pao didn't fire Taylor, and that the issue of how AMAs were going to be moderated was in Ohanian's portfolio, not hers. That fact is more material to the article than the specifics of the moderator complaints about Taylor --- for instance, it speaks to the difficult situation Pao was in managing a team that included Reddit's charismatic founder and the chairman of the company ,…

Surely Pao must have signed off on the decision at some point?

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#206

Post by innguest » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:39 PM UTC

cmdrfred wrote: post #195

tptacek wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the mainstream US news media consists of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, and the Washington Post. Could you cite an example in any of those four publications where undue weight was given to "antivax" people? Just so you know: I 1000% agree with you that giving equal weight to antivax crazies and professional epidemiologists would constitute "un…

If the New York Times gave the same amount of column inches to holocaust deniers as it does anti vaccination nuts there would be an outrage despite the fact that both camps are about as valid as each other.

There's a lot of prejudice in your sentence. Having some experience in this debate topic, I don't think there are "holocaust deniers", there are only gas chamber skeptics. Same with "anti vaccination nuts", I think there are only people that are against forced vaccination. No one is against you vaccinating your kids and living in a town where only vaccinated people are allowed.

If arguments were as simple as you're pretending they are, those argument would not have been going on for decades.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#207

Post by usaphp » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:40 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #191

usaphp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should see how some Mexicans live in USA or Africans in UK, not much different from how those mentioned in your quoted article live in Qatar, these people decided to do it themselves.

There are 800,000 Mexicans in Chicago, and the neighborhoods in Chicago that are dominated by them are nice. I don't know what you're trying to imply about American Mexican immigrants, but if it's what it sounds like you're implying, please educate yourself.

I used to work at construction sites in Brooklyn where mexicans were living 10 people a room in horrible conditions in Brighton Beach, so those "nice" neighborhoods that you see in Chicago are just a face of it, try going inside the actual houses...Looking at them from your office or just by driving by will not obviously show a real picture, so please educate yourself.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#208

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:41 PM UTC

TorKlingberg wrote: post #177

nbouscal wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming the hatred for my hypothetical white male CEO would follow the same narrative pathways. I'm claiming that it's easy to imagine reddit hating a white male CEO as much or more than Ellen Pao. I won't disagree that race and gender were used as part of that hatred, that's obviously the case. I think, though, that it's easy to mix up whether things are tools that people use to attack someone they already…

I agree that the Reddit "hivemind" does not hate a woman just for being a woman, and they can definitely hate a white man. I still think they are more likely to hate a woman. The hate against Ellen Pao started with her lawsuit which is related to her gender. To take a hypotetical, let's say Reddit's CEO was a gay man who had sued a previous employer for something related to discrimination based on sexual orientation.…

>I still think they are more likely to hate a woman.

Well sure. If 3% of people are virulently sexist (against women) and none or fewer are sexist against men, the overall sentiment leans towards sexism – especially when they're loud about it. But the opinions of the fringe should not indict the actions of the rest of the people on their side. I do not believe that most or even a substantial portion of the 200,000 people who signed the petition to remove Pao were motivated primarily by misogyny or racism.

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#209

Post by scrollaway » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:42 PM UTC

yzzxy wrote: post #154

yzzxy wrote: post #62

NOTE: Techraptor is a site set up by Gamergaters to talk about games and tech news without reprecussions from people who find their views exclusive of progressives, minorities, feminists, and LGBTQ folks. They call this "ethical journalism" because they claim to not receive kickbacks or have special relationships with their journalistic subjects, as they perceive their ideological enemies do. The quality of journalis…

Well, lots of vitriolic responses here. Let me say that I don't really have a strong opinion on this article here because I don't really wish to delve into the entire bibliography, but: 1. The points I mentioned are at very least closely related to the topic of the article. They are not totally an argumentum ad hominem, the moment TechRaptor began to commentate on journalistic integrity they opened themselves to comp…

I think came across as too aggressive in my reply, I apologise. Just yesterday when the news story broke, we saw people dropping the "gamergate" name randomly just to score some points on whatever they were arguing.

The name is extremely toxic, especially when there is a massive misunderstanding between people pushing for news stories which are less biased, written in a neutral point of view... and media spinning it as an anti-women movement. Wtf.

I'm of the belief the lack of neutrality in media is severely lobotomizing certain countries. I've lived in several european countries, each with strikingly different styles of media, and none of them are as shockingly bad as the american media.

Just like Pepsi and Coke, there's a symbiotic relationship between various media outlets where "rivalry" just helps drive the views up. Instead of having a handful of neutral stations where the reader can do their own research and form their own opinion (something which most readers are not interested in doing anyway), they divide their readership in camps, willingly driving away one camp while cultivating a soundproof echo chamber for the other. And within that space they'll do whatever it takes to get as many views, clicks, purchases as possible.

CGP Grey has two distinct really well written entry-level pieces on the subject; I'd recommend anyone to take a look if they aren't familiar with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-...

Re: New York Times' Reddit Piece Shows Dangers of Internet Journalism

#210

Post by penrod » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:44 PM UTC

pixelmonkey wrote: post #25

"This is a challenge that journalism faces today -- how to fairly update and keep stories current while informing readers as best we can." I work in and around the media industry, and I don't think most publishers see this as a "challenge" -- they have other things to worry about (like how to survive post-print, how to operate in an Internet ecosystem with Google/Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc.) Instead, I see a lot o…

Quite. Who cares whether the NYT revised the article? The more salient criticism is that the article is a deeply lazy and tendentious exercise in using insinuation to push a predetermined narrative.