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

81–90 of 163 posts

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

#81

Post by aussiesnack »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #10
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.

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?

No. "Critical" (in the defensible sense) reporting of breakthroughs would involve checking of the science behind the breakthrough, probing the ethics and finances, etc. Ideally this should always be how tech journalism is conducted, otherwise it actually isn't journalism at all, it's just PR or trade writing. With fast news cycles this may not be practical for every single column cm, but it must be the default.

"Critical" in the pop sense (making a worthiness judgement) is not altogether avoidable, but it should be marginal in journalism. This is what Opinion is for.

What Yglesias & Piper are saying, in effect, is that the NYT made a top-down directive that tech coverage should be negatively-slanted Opinion.

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

#83

Post by bhupy »

TillE wrote: post #11

All journalistic coverage of everything should be critical, or why does it exist?

From the thread:

> I think it is broadly good to be on the lookout for hard-hitting exposes and write them where you see them, and broadly bad for your ability to do journalism if you have decided the tenor of your story before reporting it out.

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

#84

Post by tablespoon »

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #60

Journalism is supposed to be critical, no? Otherwise it is just rehashed press releases.

> Journalism is supposed to be critical, no? Otherwise it is just rehashed press releases.

But the people who put out those press releases, like tech executives and investors, want it just be rehashed press releases. They actually got their wish for a looong time, and came to feel they were entitled to it.

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

#85

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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 can create negative incentives. Case in point is Bloomberg's mandate to "move markets" leading to publication of lies like the Supermicro incident.

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

#86

Post by undoware »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #77
undoware wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...I can't tell if this is willful misinterpretation or not, but I certainly did not mean to imply anything at all about twitter censorship.

confused sounds

EDIT: above, read 'FOR EXAMPLE, ....' when I begin to talk about Twitter. HTH

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

#87

Post by friedman23 »

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.

How about journalists just report the truth?

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

#88

Post by blululu »

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?

It’s not but a basic Google search should show some of the more clear examples of the NYT using aggressive spyware for ads, AB modifying stories in real time to drive engagement, and subscription policies that are virtually impossible to back out of for people outside of California.

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

#89

Post by kodyo »

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.

Most of us normies had been operating under the impression that the job of journalists was to report facts about notable events.

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

#90

Post by lscdlscd »

snovv_crash wrote: post #66
mehlmao wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're also defining, in the public's imagination, the primary use case of VR to be corporate meeting space. That's bad for VR and bad for society.
Post reply on HN