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

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

reich.hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 146 posts

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

#51

Post by dmix »

jackschultz wrote: post #5

Here's the New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/magazine/ancient-dna-pale... Boy that seems so story based. That's what's to be expected to get people to read, but also makes it so easy to come up with examples of misinformation when the story is trying to make a subject more easily understandable.

You could solve those issues by having the actual scientists you mention get involved in the process and ask their perspective on something before you write about them.

The laziness of journalists today, even in long form articles like this, with a full graphics team and everything, never ceases to amaze me.

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

#52

Post by lewis500 »

rossdavidh wrote: post #40

As someone who has (once) written an opinion piece for the NYT, I wonder how much the published piece resembled the author's original text. My experience: https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/nyt_opini...

wow this is brutal. thanks for sharing. I had mused on the idea of pitching them an opinion piece about my field, traffic, but not anymore.

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

#53

Post by dpflan »

whatshisface wrote: post #39
snackematician wrote: post #37

I've worked in the ancient DNA field but left (at least for now). I haven't worked with David but have with competing labs. I have mixed feelings about the NYT piece -- on the one hand it has a lot of valid criticisms and brings sorely needed critical eye to this hyped field; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to David -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece. The industrial anc…

> The industrial ancient DNA publication machine is real. A few giants control the vast majority of ancient DNA samples behind a wall, and these giants decide when and where to release these samples. Who controls the samples? That sounds like a sci-fi thriller plot in the making.

Agreed. This interesting. How does one get access to these samples? Do the custodians have a website with order requests -- something like that? Is there a bidding process for access?

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

#54

Post by sjroot »

Symmetry wrote: post #33
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 didn't find that part of the story particularly problematic. If there were people in a field capable of ending the careers of people who criticize them then you're going to need anonymous sources.

That’s why I clarified that my thought applies to scientific writing. If you’re going to criticize the claim (and evidence that supports the claim) made in a research paper, then you should bring your own body of evidence and stick your neck out. Science can’t be done behind closed doors.

That said, the world I’m describing is ideal, unlike our own.

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

#55

Post by snackematician »

dpflan wrote: post #53
whatshisface wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The industrial ancient DNA publication machine is real. A few giants control the vast majority of ancient DNA samples behind a wall, and these giants decide when and where to release these samples. Who controls the samples? That sounds like a sci-fi thriller plot in the making.

Agreed. This interesting. How does one get access to these samples? Do the custodians have a website with order requests -- something like that? Is there a bidding process for access?

I should have been more precise. The vast majority of unpublished samples are controlled by a few. Of course, once they are published they are open.

To gain access to unpublished samples, you need to form collaborations with the gatekeepers, who decide the ultimate form of publication -- usually, a big Nature/Science paper with 100 authors.

I liked this twitter thread about some of the challenges of smaller groups in obtaining samples: https://twitter.com/paleogenomics/status/1086402894641971204

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

#56

Post by fgandiya »

ummonk wrote: post #25
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.

Doesn't David Brooks and Barris White write for them as well?

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

#57

Post by rhizome »

laretluval wrote: post #18
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…

Every individual article will have some bias. But GP is complaining that the entire editorial staff seems to share a bias, indeed a single agenda, meaning that there is a lack of rigorous discussion.

There's a long-existing term for this: "editorial policy," which is a fundamental feature of all publications. All.

In programming, this would be like complaining about the existence of indenting.

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

#58

Post by dpflan »

snackematician wrote: post #55
dpflan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This interesting. How does one get access to these samples? Do the custodians have a website with order requests -- something like that? Is there a bidding process for access?

I should have been more precise. The vast majority of unpublished samples are controlled by a few. Of course, once they are published they are open. To gain access to unpublished samples, you need to form collaborations with the gatekeepers, who decide the ultimate form of publication -- usually, a big Nature/Science paper with 100 authors. I liked this twitter thread about some of the challenges of smaller groups in…

Thanks for clarifying and sharing that tweet. Who is the owner of the samples when they are discovered? Does the nation authorize/grant ownership to the discoverer? Where are the financial incentives in this "supply chain"?

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

#59

Post by fgandiya »

burlesona wrote: post #10

I heard it this way once: You open the paper and read an article about your field. “This thing is crap, they got all the details wrong and are drawing ridiculous conclusions!” Then you click to the next article, about something else. “Wow, this is really fascinating. We need to do something about this!” ... I think this idea has a name, though I don’t remember it.

I've heard about it too but I don't know what the solution would be.

If a journalist was really knowledgeable about something they were writing, would they still be in journalism when their insight could fetch more elsewhere?

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

#60

Post by kauffj »

Perhaps there was a time when the New York Times could be trusted, but that era ended at least several years ago.

Off the top of my head:

- The New York Times fired Quinn Norton basically for being willing to talk to weev (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-n...)

- The New York Times fired Razib Khan for reporting on facts that are basically consensus opinion among geneticists and intelligence researchers.

- The New York Times kept Sarah Jeong despite her offenses being substantially beyond the above. (I think it would have been fine to keep Jeong if they also kept Norton and Khan).

- The New York Times published a completely uncritical review of Democracy in Chains, despite it's dishonest scholarship. Even NPR added an editor's note to their report on this book.

Post reply on HN