I mean the NYT is wrong about everything. Krugman said the Internet was never going to be a thing, post Covid the editorializing was inflation wasn’t possibly a thing, the government should go bigger with stimulus and print more money. Their whole paper ages like milk, the only reason it persists is apparently Americans have no short term memory.
NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
41–50 of 163 posts
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#42Why 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
> They are more powerful than tech in being arbiters of truth 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.
They will convince people that it is for their own good. It s not like the mainstream media have a real competitor in terms of narrative-building
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#43From 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…
> They decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny
I mean, that is for sure true.
The tech has been enormous force against freedom, democracy, human rights and science. If it wasn't for Facebook and Twitter, we wouldn't have had Brexit, Trump wouldn't have been elected, antivaxx wouldn't become mainstream stance and millions more people would have survived the pandemic, oh and women in US would still have access to abortions.
Then there's Google and their mission to end privacy. Then there's Uber and Amazon and their mission to end labor rights. Then there's Airbnb and their mission to make cities unliveable. Then there's ... you get the point.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#44I 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.
Further in the thread:
> from an editorial integrity perspective there's a big difference between 'it's good to write hard-hitting exposes' and 'it's good to have a top-down editorial directive about the tenor of coverage'.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#45From 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…
What did anyone expect? Everyone's been getting smoke blown up their ass for years now by 'revolutionary' app makers that did very little except skate around regulations and make speculators money. The entire industry looks sleazy no matter which way you cut it. My only surprise is that the editors felt the need to say anything.
yeah, I can't even really be upset about it.
It's like the whitehouse, they SHOULD be skeptical.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#46Discussed yesterday:
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#47I 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.
That's not the whole point in my mind. What I'm looking for from journalists is a balanced, accurate, and objective reporting. That does involve being critical, but it also involves reporting on the positive aspects. A directive to cast an entire industry in a negative light regardless of the actual issues at play is NOT good journalism.
There is no such things as objective reporting. Everyone recounting an event be it journalists or historians will inject some bias in its récollection.
What you should want is journalists to be thorough in their fact checking and open about their editorial line and where their interest lies.
What’s annoying me here is that it’s both top-down and covert.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#48I mean the NYT is wrong about everything. Krugman said the Internet was never going to be a thing, post Covid the editorializing was inflation wasn’t possibly a thing, the government should go bigger with stimulus and print more money. Their whole paper ages like milk, the only reason it persists is apparently Americans have no short term memory.
[deleted]
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#49Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33459740
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#50It's wild that HN, forum that seems disproportionately in favor of unregulated speech should feel uncomfortable when a newspaper chooses a critical editorial stance. You agree that, by your own lights , editorial stances of newspapers are none of your business, yes? Free speech, yes? Everyone says 'both sides' but that's not actually the case, is it? Shoe, meet other foot. [EDIT]: typos removed
[deleted]