NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
1–10 of 163 posts
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#2From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter:
a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. 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. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This was a very deliberate top-down decision. They decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry.
From journalist Kelsey Piper on Twitter in response:
People might think Matt is overstating this but I literally heard it from NYT reporters at the time. There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story. I'd never heard anything like it.
It's shocking to me that the NYTimes would make such an editorial decision, and it's disappointing to hear this about one of the newspapers that I trust the most. Certainly there are many aspects of the tech sector that ought to be criticized and exposed to the public, but I don't think it's good for truth-seeking to take an editorial stance that tech should generally be covered negatively.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#3So does that mean that this decision came from the Sulzbergers? If only our hall monitors could turn their gaze inward.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#4If you see coverage of any countries not part of the western countries, you will see a similar pattern in NYT, BBC, etc. This just looks like a domestic equivalent with one industry in cross-hairs.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#5From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter: a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. 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. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This…
It is not shocking to me, and like I commented in a separate comment here you see it in NYT's coverage of international politics. That is harder for people from US to notice as they don't have the ground truth to tell apart the nuances.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#6I 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.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#7From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter: a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. 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. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This…
I think it's a not-so-rude awakening to follow individuals rather than organizations. For example, Matt Levine could be the one you trust for finance, or Jason Schreier for news on video games.
It's potentially easier to understand an individual's biases on a per-article basis than something like the NYT, especially if you follow them and their perspectives over time.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#8From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter: a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. 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. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This…
I've thought it was one of the most overt editorial decisions by most media companies. Vast numbers of people survived a pandemic due to big pharma's vaccines, big tech's business tools, Amazon's logistics, businesses built on cloud tech, and using cars instead of public transport. There has been nowhere near enough credit given to those life saving services, and it seems obvious why.
Another fun story is this one, from 10 years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/04/cnn-internatio...
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#9Around the same time Sasha Baron Cohen started blasting Mark Zuckerberg, almost arbitrarily. I wonder what kind of war is going on in heaven.
Re: NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical
#10I 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?