4 ms·

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual elec

by cglouch 10y ago

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? To me that sort of slyly suggests that the actual election / voting process was hacked, which as far as I know did not happen. Perhaps "election-related hacking" would be more accurate. I don't mean to say the DNC and other such hacks weren't a big deal, but I worry that people who just read titles are getting the wrong impression.

serf 10y ago
NYT is a media outlet that requires additional personal scrutiny, espescially with regards to any active U.S. government talking points. I'm not the biggest Chomsky fan, but I feel a lot of his opinion about NYT [0] are probably right on. [0]: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_times_is_pure_proganda_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_ti...
- colordrops 10y ago
  You don't need to read Chomsky to have seen the numerous and obvious slanted articles and puff pieces that the NY Times has published over the years. The fact that all these media outlets even explicitly endorse candidates is crazy and the antithesis of ethical journalism.
- dmoy 10y ago
  Similar to that Chomsky criticism is Robert Fisk's constant railing on LA Times (and others') constant use of "US government sources say". Anything that comes after such a phrase needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt.
  - rqebmm 10y ago
    Right. Decrying the NYT for peddling government lies is the definition of shooting the messenger. We have to think critically about all our sources of information, whether it's the NYT, Fox, RT, Breitbart, or our facebook friends.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    That use is problematic, but it's worth pointing out why. Just like this, I fear many people will understand your comment as an insinuation that the LAT et. al. just made up these quotes. I haven't read all of Fisk's criticism, but I believe his case is mostly that it allows those government sources to spread misinformation behind the cover of anonymity.
    - dmoy 10y ago
      Oh yea it's definitely not the case that they've made up the quotes. Fisk is quite clear about that (if you can dig up the article, it's from like 2006-ish). It's just assuming what any government official says is true and printing it without doing any digging or checking for bias (or outright misinformation as you say).
usaphp 10y ago
> "but I worry that people who just read titles are getting the wrong impression." I think that's exactly what NYT is trying to do, after blasting Trump for the whole year, they need to at least make it look like he won illegally.
mathetic 10y ago
I think terms like "growth hacking" and "financial engineering" led the way on these things. Also don't get me wrong, I am sure people are deliberately framing events according to their own biases, but it is hardly a surprise in post-truth world, isn't it?
concinds 10y ago
Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy of the respect it has.
- colordrops 10y ago
  > The media is no longer proving itself worthy of the respect it has. They've been at this forever. It's just that the truth is leaking through alternative and social media so a lot more people aren't as fooled anymore.
  - concinds 10y ago
    True, but there is currently no strong competitor to fill the NYT's market. "Alternative and social media" are good for populists on both sides of the aisle, but they do not compete with the NYT. A set of strong, trustworthy centrist media outlets is desperately needed, as it's important to the political stability of a country. Without that, you end up with people joining the fringes, on both sides, and a big fat problem on your hands 10-15 years down the line at the polling booth.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- noobermin 10y ago
  Here you go[0]... That's not "50% believe." 35% thinking "Probably true" sounds to me like they believe it's possible. A nearly equal percent think it's "Probably not true" (32%) [0] http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/rh.jpg http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/rh.jpg
  - dmix 10y ago
mtgx 10y ago
This is why even NYT lost is reputation and credibility. It can't help itself not take the Democrats' side. Calling it "election hacking" could very well fit into some definitions of "fake news". Will Facebook ban this article now? This is a good example of why "banning fake news" is a terrible idea, because we don't know whose definition of "fake news" will be implemented. It's also very difficult to pinpoint exactly what fake news is or what is the "optimum percentage" of falseness in an article before it deserves a ban...and so on and so forth.
matt4077 10y ago
Headline space is limited. The first sentence is more precise: "...for its efforts to influence the 2016 election".
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? No, it's hacking with the purpose and manifest effect of causing the end result of the election to be more in the direction that the actor favors than it would otherwise be, so "election hacking" is concise and entirely accurate. > I worry that people who just read titles are getting the wrong impression People who just read titles will always get incomplete information that they will fill in with assumptions that will often be incorrect. Were that not the case, there'd be no point to having an actual article behind the title.
matt4077 10y ago
I appreciate your self-awareness that you may be "splitting hairs". That sort of nuance is unfortunately absent in the thread you kicked off. I'm really lost as to how this all-out hatred of "mainstream" media started. But even more so I'm left wondering what kind of media these critics would appreciate? Infowars and Breitbart? <somename>.blogspot.com? Does anybody honestly believe they'd be better informed in a world without professional journalism? I'm not just talking about Trump vs. Clinton, but also "the town council's plans for xxx". I mean, you see these comments glorifying "the press used to be", or saying the NYT "lost all credibility when they endorsed HC" which just leaves me wondering if they're just repeating their side's talking points or if public education has completely failed, possibly beyond the point of no return.

by cglouch 10y ago

serf 10y ago

NYT is a media outlet that requires additional personal scrutiny, espescially with regards to any active U.S. government talking points. I'm not the biggest Chomsky fan, but I feel a lot of his opinion about NYT [0] are probably right on. [0]: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_times_is_pure_proganda_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_ti...

colordrops 10y ago
You don't need to read Chomsky to have seen the numerous and obvious slanted articles and puff pieces that the NY Times has published over the years. The fact that all these media outlets even explicitly endorse candidates is crazy and the antithesis of ethical journalism.
dmoy 10y ago
Similar to that Chomsky criticism is Robert Fisk's constant railing on LA Times (and others') constant use of "US government sources say". Anything that comes after such a phrase needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt.
- rqebmm 10y ago
  Right. Decrying the NYT for peddling government lies is the definition of shooting the messenger. We have to think critically about all our sources of information, whether it's the NYT, Fox, RT, Breitbart, or our facebook friends.
- matt4077 10y ago
  That use is problematic, but it's worth pointing out why. Just like this, I fear many people will understand your comment as an insinuation that the LAT et. al. just made up these quotes. I haven't read all of Fisk's criticism, but I believe his case is mostly that it allows those government sources to spread misinformation behind the cover of anonymity.
  - dmoy 10y ago
    Oh yea it's definitely not the case that they've made up the quotes. Fisk is quite clear about that (if you can dig up the article, it's from like 2006-ish). It's just assuming what any government official says is true and printing it without doing any digging or checking for bias (or outright misinformation as you say).

usaphp 10y ago

> "but I worry that people who just read titles are getting the wrong impression." I think that's exactly what NYT is trying to do, after blasting Trump for the whole year, they need to at least make it look like he won illegally.

mathetic 10y ago

I think terms like "growth hacking" and "financial engineering" led the way on these things. Also don't get me wrong, I am sure people are deliberately framing events according to their own biases, but it is hardly a surprise in post-truth world, isn't it?

concinds 10y ago

Ever since the election, the media has been trying to confuse people about Russia's "hacking", and keep using the phrase "hacked the election", so frequently and rigorously that it's obviously deliberate. And it worked: 50% of Democrats believe Russia hacked the election results (that's right, the results themselves, not just the DNC) according to the latest YouGov poll. The media is no longer proving itself worthy of the respect it has.

colordrops 10y ago
> The media is no longer proving itself worthy of the respect it has. They've been at this forever. It's just that the truth is leaking through alternative and social media so a lot more people aren't as fooled anymore.
- concinds 10y ago
  True, but there is currently no strong competitor to fill the NYT's market. "Alternative and social media" are good for populists on both sides of the aisle, but they do not compete with the NYT. A set of strong, trustworthy centrist media outlets is desperately needed, as it's important to the political stability of a country. Without that, you end up with people joining the fringes, on both sides, and a big fat problem on your hands 10-15 years down the line at the polling booth.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
noobermin 10y ago
Here you go[0]... That's not "50% believe." 35% thinking "Probably true" sounds to me like they believe it's possible. A nearly equal percent think it's "Probably not true" (32%) [0] http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/rh.jpg http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/rh.jpg
- dmix 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

This is why even NYT lost is reputation and credibility. It can't help itself not take the Democrats' side. Calling it "election hacking" could very well fit into some definitions of "fake news". Will Facebook ban this article now? This is a good example of why "banning fake news" is a terrible idea, because we don't know whose definition of "fake news" will be implemented. It's also very difficult to pinpoint exactly what fake news is or what is the "optimum percentage" of falseness in an article before it deserves a ban...and so on and so forth.

matt4077 10y ago

Headline space is limited. The first sentence is more precise: "...for its efforts to influence the 2016 election".

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it does bother anyone that the NYT title calls it "election hacking"? No, it's hacking with the purpose and manifest effect of causing the end result of the election to be more in the direction that the actor favors than it would otherwise be, so "election hacking" is concise and entirely accurate. > I worry that people who just read titles are getting the wrong impression People who just read titles will always get incomplete information that they will fill in with assumptions that will often be incorrect. Were that not the case, there'd be no point to having an actual article behind the title.

matt4077 10y ago

I appreciate your self-awareness that you may be "splitting hairs". That sort of nuance is unfortunately absent in the thread you kicked off. I'm really lost as to how this all-out hatred of "mainstream" media started. But even more so I'm left wondering what kind of media these critics would appreciate? Infowars and Breitbart? <somename>.blogspot.com? Does anybody honestly believe they'd be better informed in a world without professional journalism? I'm not just talking about Trump vs. Clinton, but also "the town council's plans for xxx". I mean, you see these comments glorifying "the press used to be", or saying the NYT "lost all credibility when they endorsed HC" which just leaves me wondering if they're just repeating their side's talking points or if public education has completely failed, possibly beyond the point of no return.