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

71–80 of 146 posts

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

#71

Post by smacktoward »

taude wrote: post #17
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…

One problem I have with it, though, is that often all the most popular articles in their site, are the opinion pieces. I'm still a subscriber, but there's a strongly "promoted" bias, IMHO, and it requires reading news from several sources with an open mind to get the complete story. Also, NYT isn't immune to click-baity titles, where the meat of the story isn't necessary correlate with the title.

> often all the most popular articles in their site, are the opinion pieces

It turns out people like to read other people's opinions. Who'da thunk?

> I'm still a subscriber, but there's a strongly "promoted" bias, IMHO

If you want a balanced overall view of the day's news, the place to start is the front/home page, not the "Most Popular" list. Newspaper editors spend extraordinary amounts of time agonizing over exactly what stories should go there and how much prominence to give to each. "Most Popular" skips all that in favor of the "wisdom of the crowd," which it turns out is not all that wise.

(If the nytimes.com home page still contains too much opinion for you, you can get a digital edition of each day's print paper's front page at this stable URL: https://www.nytimes.com/section/todayspaper)

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

#72

Post by hardlianotion »

weberc2 wrote: post #66
Symbiote wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choose a better paper! The Guardian labels comment articles with a big orange “ in the headline on the homepage, an orange "Opinion" on the article page, a pastel orange background in both places, the author's name under the heading in orange, and "commentisfree" in the URL.

But then the Guardian also publishes opinion pieces outside of their opinion section as well.

I think this is increasingly a feature of British newspapers: a strong editorial slant in news selection and presentation.

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

#73

Post by tzs »

pcstl wrote: post #22
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…

Which would be perfectly fine, except that digital newspapers have a pesky habit of putting "Opinion" or "Editorial" in very tiny font on the piece's header, with no other indication that the piece being read is, in fact, an opinion/editorial piece.

NYT opinion pieces at the start say "Opinion" in a font that is larger than the article text font and larger than than the article subtitle font. The only thing I see offhand that is in a bigger font is the article title. It's not at all tiny.

Once you start reading the article and scroll the above off, the fixed position thingy at the top of the of the page that has the hamburger menu, search box and says "The New York Times" centered changes to contain article specific controls, such as social media stuff, comments, bookmarking, the "The New York Times" string moves to the right, and the centered text becomes "OPINION | ", with "OPINION" in bolded all caps.

This seems fine to me. I can't think of an occasion where I've ever failed to realize when I'm reading an opinion piece or editorial there.

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

#74

Post by formerReader »

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…

The New York Times is no longer a premier news source.

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

#75

Post by globeSpin »

kauffj wrote: post #60

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 intelligen…

Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election.

For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty.

They were basically declaring a winner up front, and contributed to the spectacle of total upset.

Now as an outlet, it just spews shit on a daily basis. And I mean shit. It’s been unreadable since then.

The last time I observed good coverage on anything from The New York Times was during the first two years of the 2003 Iraq war. Since then, garbage. Hot garbage.

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

#76

Post by rjf72 »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #11
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

This leads to a possibility I'd not considered before. Trust in the media has deteriorated extensively. This seemed logically attributable to the rise of the internet thus ostensibly creating a race to publish, and publish sensationally, like never before. But something that always bugged me is that distrust of the media is nothing new. Writing in 1807 Jefferson stated [1],

"To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. ... I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

Yet in my own personal experience, the media seemed at the minimum 'better' before the internet. So what gives? Maybe there is a very simple explanation. What may have changed is that now the internet enables individuals to share their expertise (and the media's lack thereof). It's no longer just the man who is an expert in a field facing disillusionment, but rather now anybody at all that reads his testimony. In times past there was no way to get such messages out. In other words the internet did not create mediocrity in the media, but rather emphasized it loud and clear for all to bear witness to, even those who otherwise would have been none the wiser.

[1] - http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_spe...

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

#77

Post by taude »

smacktoward wrote: post #71
taude wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem I have with it, though, is that often all the most popular articles in their site, are the opinion pieces. I'm still a subscriber, but there's a strongly "promoted" bias, IMHO, and it requires reading news from several sources with an open mind to get the complete story. Also, NYT isn't immune to click-baity titles, where the meat of the story isn't necessary correlate with the title.

> often all the most popular articles in their site, are the opinion pieces It turns out people like to read other people's opinions. Who'da thunk? > I'm still a subscriber, but there's a strongly "promoted" bias, IMHO If you want a balanced overall view of the day's news, the place to start is the front/home page, not the "Most Popular" list. Newspaper editors spend extraordinary amounts of time agonizing over exact…

I typically just read the article notifications when they come in, so I think I get a pretty big mix? And I like their evening in review, or morning review sections when I have time.

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

#78

Post by darawk »

da_chicken wrote: post #8
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…

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…

> 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.

There's a difference between cherry picking stories to support a narrative, and bending the truth. The NYT is engaging in the latter.

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

#79

Post by fucking_tragedy »

porpoisely wrote: post #32
ronnier wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny. I just read another “suits back in style” story yesterday. https://www.france24.com/en/20190119-dowdy-no-more-men-suits...

Great catch and that's hilarious. I saw the same story from multiple sources/platforms yesterday. I thought the paul graham article was about yesterday's news and then I read the date "April 2005". 14 years ago. Anyone who pays attention to news for any amount of time sees redundant news and agenda. But PR stooges? If PR firms are so entwined with traditional news and media, I wonder how entrench PR firms are in the…

Most social media platforms are designed with their clients needs in mind. Often, those clients are PR firms.

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

#80

Post by magicalist »

globeSpin wrote: post #75
kauffj wrote: post #60

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 intelligen…

Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. They were basically declaring a winner up front, and contributed to the spectacle of total upset. Now as an outlet, it just spews shit on a daily basis. And I mean shit . It’s been unreadable since then. The last time I observ…

> Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election.

> For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty.

It's trivial to verify that neither of these things are true[1][2], so...just adding to the garbage, I guess?

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president

Post reply on HN