71–80 of 152 posts
When Trump is gone, what will the NYT do when an African-American is killed in a police matter? How will they spin incidents of unrest?
The Times has gone way past the pale in terms of left/right. They are now in the same boat MSNBC/CNN/NBC/etc. are in (the opposite boat than the one occupied by Fox/Breitbart/etc.) They won't be considered 'news' much.
Will they try to tack more to center, or go whole-hog on the left side?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And of course all the information is gathered in aggregators that automatically verify that multiple people did witness the particular event to verify authenticity. In other words, "and then a miracle occurs". I don't see how this requirement could ever be met in general. For particular cases (like first responders at an emergency being able to directly feed what they are seeing and doing), perhaps.
I think it could be quite simple actually. If Paxos can do it, so can we :). I also definitely got a chuckle that you thought this part was impossible, not the brain interface.
Take - for example - the question:
"Did Trump ask the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton in 2016".
The direct quote is this:
"Russia, if you are listening I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."[1].
That led to "Russian officials began to target email addresses associated with Hillary Clinton’s personal and campaign offices “on or around” the same day Donald Trump called on Russia to find emails that were missing from her personal server"[2]
Turns out that people disagree very strongly about what that means[3].
[1] https://youtu.be/-b71f2eYdTc?t=20
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the article? The Times now employs more people than it ever has and is doing better financially than ever.
Yes I did. It didn't mention anything about more employees (mostly policies to encourage more POC). Although it does mention the expansion of their digital media. That seems fine to me but what about total employees from both digital and paper? https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
"It has hired hundreds of journalists to staff a newsroom that is now 1,700 people strong — bigger than ever. Its stock has risen fourfold since Trump took office, and the Times has consolidated its Trump bump into a business that includes Serial Productions, the podcast juggernaut; Audm, the audio-translation business; and a TV show based on the Times series “Modern Love” that was filming its second season this summer, until a COVID-19 false positive on-set forced it to halt shooting. More than a million people subscribe to its Crossword and Cooking apps alone, and the company has been able to weather the pandemic in part because it now has more cash on hand—$800 million—than at any point in its history."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're ever looking to absolutely lose all faith in humanity the journal's comment section is even better than facebook. Never thought I'd see the day where someone unironically says "LIBERAL NOONAN"
I would have expected the $40/month price tag for the WSJ to be a more effective filter. I guess there's plenty of racist-grandpa types happy to shell out the cash.
I have $52 for 52 weeks here as a subscription option, then $9.95/mo.
(https://store.wsj.com/shop/us/ca/wsjcass21/?trackingCode=aaq...)
This is a good question: should news media like NYT report news without any political biases? Or is it OK for them to pick a side while reporting (progressive, liberal vs conservative etc). If it is OK for media to report news with a bias, then will that accelerate the echo chambers across the political spectrum where news media only report on angles they favor? Just wanted to raise this for discussion.
Other positions aside, I’ve found most rational people have a natural distaste for hypocrisy/double standards, especially when it’s institutionalized. I read Tom Cotton’s op ed about civil unrest in the US and then Regina Ip’s op ed about similar issues in Hong Kong. I’m struggling to understand why anyone would think Cotton’s piece needs the post-publication disclaimer and the other does not. A clear double standard…
I haven't read either article (because I'm not a subscriber), but I gather that the former is advocating using the US military to put down civil unrest in the US, and the other is defending the actions of Hong Kong police to put down civil unrest in Hong Kong.
If you suppose the principle being applied is very broad, something like "no support of any state action against civil unrest should ever be published," then that principle does seem to be applied inconsistently. But that seems very unlikely to be the principle NYT is purporting to have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not vote for Trump in 2016. Yes, for the past few months I have become a Trump supporter, ever since the fake impeachment attempt, I have supported the president. Supporting Trump for a few months after not supporting him for years is hardly some great evidence that I'm lying. EDIT: Oh look downvotes at me explaining my very plausible change of heart on trump. Apparently HN knows my ballot better than me!
I understand exactly where you’re coming from. The way that the MSM has portrayed and reported on Trump I think is a huge source of his ongoing support. For a more recent example, claiming Pfizer isn’t part of Operation Warp Speed, or that holding the samples on ice until the day after the election wasn’t partisan is bald faced denial. Gore spends 30 days pursuing recounts in 2000 before conceding but Trump is suppos…
Are you comparing pursuing recounts in a single state when the vote difference there is around 500 votes out of nearly 6 million (an amount that is well within the range that recounts frequently reverse) to pursuing recounts in several states where the differences are far larger than any recount has ever overcome?
Marshall McLuhan anticipated the change when he said the medium is the message. What he meant is that the UI and dynamics of each media format determines what kind of dialogs are possible.
Typographical media encouraged history, background, and timeless reflection. Television changed that by chopping news into 30 second pieces, with no background understanding required, infrequent depth, and a change of topic after every 3 stories for a message from our sponsor, after which you'd return to something completely different.
Neil Postman explains it in his classic 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death. News has become entertainment. Entertainment has become trivia and indulgences.
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/5/8/15440292/donald-t...
I still highly respect NYT but I agree that the tone of its headlines (if not the actual article text) in general has gotten more sensationalized over time. I now read both NYT and the news section of WSJ to get a more balanced perspective (I steer clear of the opinion section of WSJ because it's a total dumpster fire).
> In 2018, a group of data scientists at the Times unveiled Project Feels, a set of algorithms that could determine what emotions a given article might induce. ... “Hate drives readership more than any of us care to admit,” one employee on the business side told me.
Sounds like the exact same feedback-optimized gradient-descent optimization for engagement that is biting social media in the ass is affecting them, too.
What now, indeed. When Trump is gone, what will the NYT do when an African-American is killed in a police matter? How will they spin incidents of unrest? The Times has gone way past the pale in terms of left/right. They are now in the same boat MSNBC/CNN/NBC/etc. are in (the opposite boat than the one occupied by Fox/Breitbart/etc.) They won't be considered 'news' much. Will they try to tack more to center, or go who…
I didn't do a thorough search, but a brief search didn't turn up much difference between how the Times covered such things in the two or three years before Trump (BLM started in mid-2013) and how they covered them after. I'd expect they will continue to cover them the same way after Trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand exactly where you’re coming from. The way that the MSM has portrayed and reported on Trump I think is a huge source of his ongoing support. For a more recent example, claiming Pfizer isn’t part of Operation Warp Speed, or that holding the samples on ice until the day after the election wasn’t partisan is bald faced denial. Gore spends 30 days pursuing recounts in 2000 before conceding but Trump is suppos…
> Gore spends 30 days pursuing recounts in 2000 before conceding but Trump is supposedly a dangerous dictator for not conceding. Are you comparing pursuing recounts in a single state when the vote difference there is around 500 votes out of nearly 6 million (an amount that is well within the range that recounts frequently reverse) to pursuing recounts in several states where the differences are far larger than any re…
In any case, when he loses--and then looks like a sore loser--it can only possibly help democratic turnout in the GA runoff.
Anyway, that's arguing the finer points and missing the forest for the trees. The point is about the vitriol of the MSM toward Trump, and the role it plays in driving support towards Trump.
It's not hard to report that the election is over and Trump refuses to concede without calling him Hitler, but it sells more clicks when you do.