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

71–80 of 163 posts

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

#71

Post by parineum »

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.

I wouldn't really argue about that now, personally, but I know a lot of people who are still on Facebook for whom have compelling reasons to stay and I think that was much more true in the past.

That said, Meta isn't the only tech company. Twitter, for example, a place journalists love for the direct-to-consumer style reporting.

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

#72

Post by glitcher »

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.

Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.

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

#74

Post by tablespoon »

The post title here is misleading. What's being described here by Yglesias isn't a directive to be "critical" (in the colloquial sense meaning "negative"), but more a directive to be skeptical and investigate:

> 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.

A lot of tech people would like tech coverage puffy, un-skeptical, and positive, but that's totally inappropriate for an industry as influential and frankly difficult to understand (for a layman) as tech. It sounds like now they coverage like they cover the government, which to me is totally appropriate.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

tayo42 wrote: post #39
Bukhmanizer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really get how people keep misunderstanding the point that it’s not that journalists are being critical, it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests. The absurdity of the NYT crying over big tech for practices the NYT uses all the time ( dark patterns, user tracking, algorithmic curation, etc. ) should not go unnoticed.

For me, this is one of the complaints > Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. Why does it need to be in awe? that seems like an extreme in an unproductive direction. > it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests. where in the thread is the support for this?

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by z7 »

I feel like journalism needs to be re-invented in a way that accounts for our modern understanding of human psychology. We might need to define new standards and processes that counteract against a natural inclination towards various biases, herd effects, conformity, double standards, partisanship etc. The current system seems quite dysfunctional.

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

#77

Post by amadeuspagel »

undoware wrote: post #63
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

No one is calling for twitter to censor the New York Times either.

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

#78

Post by nikodunk »

Careful! "Critical" is paraphrased. The thread says "tough investigative lens"!

"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."

Of course that will often lead to critical articles, but it is not precise to paraphrase the actual meaning here IMO.

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

#79

Post by luckylion »

cbtacy wrote: post #59

Former NYT writer here.... NYT, as far as I know, has always had a "top-down" directive that coverage be critical. That's, you know, the job of journalism and all. Non-critical pieces are opinion, not reporting.

"And make sure to shit on tech, because everything else would be opinion, not reporting"?

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

#80

Post by undoware »

undoware wrote: post #27

You do understand that critical thinking is literally the point of journalism, right? In 2022, I'd certainly give the same directive. Our industry can and should be held to account, just like any other seat of power. (Because that's what we are now, whether we like it or not.)

I take great pride in achieving a -2 point rating on a post because it means that I've spoken truth to the powers that read HN.

I take even greater pride in talking about commenting of comments, _contra_ the guidelines, because a rule that you cannot discuss collective moderation decisions is like forbidding your subordinates from telling you that you have spinach in your teeth.

The spinach abides.

Post reply on HN