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

NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#61

Post by chomp »

pbourke wrote: post #36
tensor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital. It certainly seems like you wouldn't have any bias when discussing this topic as well. > 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 sources. Maybe from a st…

How about “Although a majority of funding came from Canadian sources, nearly half (46%) came from foreign donations.”

Seek the whole truth, don’t settle for media narratives.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#62

Post by elpool2 »

tayo42 wrote: post #6

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.

It's the difference between a movie critic who carefully critiques movies honestly and one that decides to write a negative review before even seeing the movie. Both of them are being "critical", but in very different ways. I think the NYT probably wanted to be the former but drifted into becoming the latter.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#63

Post by undoware »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #56
undoware wrote: post #31

It'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

I don't think anyone here is calling for the government to restrict the NYT's editorial tone. They're saying that this behaviour is unbecoming of a newspaper of the NYT's reputation, and that their trust in this institution has been damaged as a result.

No one needs to -- the Free Speech Debate is not really about the government, is it? Elon didn't buy Twitter to protect it from the fed. He bought it to protect it from what he calls a "woke mind-virus" -- aka, progressive politics.

This article is trending because -- and I'm generalizing here -- HN skews center-right (what I like to call 'business-right'.) As a result, it has fallen prey to the false narrative of corrupt left-wing mainstream media unfairly maligning good honest billionaires.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#64

Post by tensor »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #47
tensor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand that's the current thinking in journalism, but I actually disagree with it. I think giving people free license to editorialize is harmful. Even given that it's true that it's impossible to be bias free, I think it's important to try to be bias free. When you stop trying things get even more biased which is exactly the problem with journalism today.

It is highly biased and inflammatory and actually encourages people to be more tribal rather than try to come together and compromise despite their differences. I'm ok with not agreeing with the journalism industry here. I think they had it right 20 years ago.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#66

Post by snovv_crash »

mehlmao wrote: post #38
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no, it's important to have critical reporting, but imagine say that all reporting on medicine could only be critical, no articles about breakthroughs in cancer treatment or curing disease, all malpractice and ballooning costs. That wouldn't be wrong, but it'd be incomplete?

I'm sure if Facebook cured cancer that would get them favorable coverage. Right now their products decrease quality of life, not increase it.

They're doing awesome things for VR hardware but all people can seem to see there is that it isn't making money.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#68

Post by aussiesnack »

tayo42 wrote: post #6

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.

There's an ambiguity between 2 uses of the word 'critical'. Journalism should by default be 'critical' in the academic sense (questioning, probing, analytical). When reporting on powerful entities who throw resources into media management (governments & corporations), journalists should be particularly careful not to parrot PR.

It's clear to me from the context that the Piper & Yglesias are not talking about this - they're saying there was top-down pressure on journalists to be critical in the popular sense of tone or judgement: ie. negative, carping. That's entirely different. The NYT claims to uphold the traditional news media distinction between reportage and opinion. Directives of the type Yglesias & Piper claim would clearly violate that distinction.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#69

Post by snovv_crash »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #47
tensor wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because journalists are human and as such can't be completely objective, doesn't mean they shouldn't strive to be objective. This is what civilization is built on, constraining our base impulses and acting with logic and empathy.

Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

#70

Post by [deleted] »

brucelidl wrote: post #51

I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN