4 ms·

I believe 'Hydraulix989 is interpreting the following as such: [T]he NYT is a traditional institution with strong publishing process and serious concern for "s

by grzm 10y ago

I believe 'Hydraulix989 is interpreting the following as such: [T]he NYT is a traditional institution with strong publishing process and serious concern for "separation of church and state, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13313026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13313026 I think they're saying that they can't be trusted to be honest about their own intent. I'm not sure if that's actually an fallacious appeal to authority, as I think that entails referencing some unqualified third party, but I may very well be mistaken. Regardless, if 'Hydraulix989 doesn't trust the NYT, I can't imagine anything short of an audit by a trusted third-party would be convincing on this issue. To be fair, I would only be convinced that the Pearl Automation article is a marketing piece if there were some concrete evidence of unethical behavior along these lines.

achompas 10y ago
Ah, I get you. I could understand that if, say, someone had not read comments from the NYT's public editor. One example: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fades-part-4-native-advertising-on-the-rise/?_r=0 http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fa...
- grzm 10y ago
  Thanks for the link! I fear that in today's polarized environment, distrust of the media, and the serious missteps made by the NYT in recent years, the fact that the public editor is a NYT employee and published in the NYT would make them untrustworthy to a great many people. And that seems to often taint those who would give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't see this as an issue that's unique to any one political persuasion. The level of automatic distrust if not suspicion of bad intent all around greatly concerns me. I find myself actively and repeatedly checking myself to extend the benefit of the doubt and charity. We're increasingly and alarmingly encouraged to view things in a binary fashion, bucketing everyone into one or the other, rather than recognizing there's a wide range of values on all different issues, and that we share many even when we disagree on others. </soapbox>

by grzm 10y ago

achompas 10y ago

Ah, I get you. I could understand that if, say, someone had not read comments from the NYT's public editor. One example: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fades-part-4-native-advertising-on-the-rise/?_r=0 http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/as-print-fa...

grzm 10y ago
Thanks for the link! I fear that in today's polarized environment, distrust of the media, and the serious missteps made by the NYT in recent years, the fact that the public editor is a NYT employee and published in the NYT would make them untrustworthy to a great many people. And that seems to often taint those who would give them the benefit of the doubt. And I don't see this as an issue that's unique to any one political persuasion. The level of automatic distrust if not suspicion of bad intent all around greatly concerns me. I find myself actively and repeatedly checking myself to extend the benefit of the doubt and charity. We're increasingly and alarmingly encouraged to view things in a binary fashion, bucketing everyone into one or the other, rather than recognizing there's a wide range of values on all different issues, and that we share many even when we disagree on others. </soapbox>