5 ms·

The article actually discusses the DNC email hack, and nowhere in the article does it allege that any election systems were compromised. The lexical ambiguity

by g_sch 10y ago

The article actually discusses the DNC email hack, and nowhere in the article does it allege that any election systems were compromised. The lexical ambiguity in the headline is not optimal, true, especially when allegations of the latter sort are being tossed around. But "fake news" (another term that has IMO become pretty loaded) is a rather uncharitable term for this article, which is largely a historical look at Wikileaks' vision in the context of the DNC leaks.

exabrial 10y ago
I disagree, there is no lexical ambiguity about the title. Those two words have a very exact meaning, and it simply is not true, per your own statement. If the title was simply the second half, and the facts were not begrudgingly acknowledged in the article, I'd feel differently about an otherwise interesting opinion piece.
- dekhn 10y ago
  "Election hacking" is a general term that exceeds your definition of it. Please accept that as a given, regardless of your own tendency to interpret it in a limited way.
  - TheIronYuppie 10y ago
    +1 - the election was an 18 month+ campaign. Constraining it to just the casting of a vote seems too narrow.
    - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
      wouldnt we call that campaign hacking ? Isnt there a difference between the campaign and the election? I had to check the dictionary to be sure.
  - snowpanda 10y ago
    I don't believe he exceeded the definition at all. It's naive to think at this point that the media isn't using the term "election hacking" (in a headline), as a means to push the false narrative that "the election was hacked". I think its limited to think that it was simply an unfortunate title, when put into context with 99% of the other headlines they put out. As OP stated, they are throwing a hissy fit because they didn't control the election.
  - digler999 10y ago
    so Hillary and Trump each "hacked" the election by posting negative campaign ads ? how come this pejorative term, "hacking", wasn't used against either of them ?
    - euyyn 10y ago
      Because this is about actual computer hacking.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Because negative campaign ads are a conventional, authorized method of affecting an election. For the same reason, getting a job and going to work every day is not considered a "life hack".
      - digler999 10y ago
        just like pay-to-play is a "conventional, authorized method" of converting power to cash ?
        burkaman 10y ago
        You could call bribery "governance hacking" or something if you wanted to, I guess.
    - aminorex 10y ago
      "Actual computer hacking" in the sense that someone exposed the truth hidden on DNC servers and Podesta''s IMAP server? Or "actual computer hacking" in the sense that someone downloaded Trump''s tax returns from the IRS servers and passed them to the NYT?
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    Oh come on. "Election hacking" is not a general term. Unless "general term" is a general term you're redefining - which I wouldn't rule out at this point. If such general term exists, it would be more appropriately used to describe the DNC's unconventional relationship with media employees. But please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, let us not randomly redefine english words - even if regurgitated by your favorite media news outlet.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      "Hacking" was redefined a long time ago. Growth hacking, life hacking, etc. Used in this way, "hacking" is a fairly general term.
      - smokeyj 10y ago
        But those are obviously non-literal uses of the word. Growth hacking would never be used to describe someone's legs getting chopped off. OP used the word "fake news" and got downvoted to oblivion, but it's truly a wonderful demonstration of how subjective terms are used to manufacture narratives. Down with the hyperbole, man.
        soundwave106 10y ago
        Personally, I feel that the "fake news" verbiage was too strong of a denunciation for a headline wording choice. Especially since: A) "Election hacking" has become a common shorthand of the event in multiple media sources (whether this reflects a "manufactured narrative", I cannot say, but I've seen "election hacking" as shorthand all over the place), and B) The article did contain a detailed description of the event, in a way I think accurately reflects the current state ("major data breaches of the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton adviser John Podesta, committed, allegedly, by Russian-sponsored hackers and fed to the world via WikiLeaks".) I do agree that this portion of the headline is inaccurate at face value, and that there are much better shorthands for this event, but calling an article "fake news" just for a bad headline is too harsh.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    Regardless of the voracity of your definition, 'Campaign Hack' would have been a much clearer, less ambiguous, and more precise term, especially given that this is an ongoing story with which most readers are already familiar. In a perfect world, the headline would be intended to provide unambiguous information. In that, it demonstrably fails as evidenced by this thread. In the real world, it must convey information, but also hook eyeballs. So while the term 'election hacking' may not be explicitly wrong, and while I do not fault the Times for going with it, it is at best ambiguous and quite probably meant to grab attention more than convey information.
- CPLX 10y ago
  If you can make up terms like growth hacking (formerly known as marketing) then it seems to me you can make up the term election hacking (formerly known as political advocacy) by the exact same mechanism.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    The person who is the subject of this article claims that it was not a hack at all though, but instead a leak. That seems like something significant that the NYTimes should at least mention.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      This feels a lot like equivocating between "site X hacked" and "site X DDOS'd", except on a more urgent topic. There's a lot of FUD achieved by failing to clarify when digital attacks are known-and-inescapable risks (leaks, legal harassment, site takedowns) and when they're actual system-level attacks.
- mynameishere 10y ago
  The title is indeed inaccurate (as far as we know) and I suspect that's due to the strange habit of newspapers having different people write the article and the headline.
digler999 10y ago
> and nowhere in the article does it allege that any election systems were compromised. Apparently you didn't check the headline

by g_sch 10y ago

exabrial 10y ago

I disagree, there is no lexical ambiguity about the title. Those two words have a very exact meaning, and it simply is not true, per your own statement. If the title was simply the second half, and the facts were not begrudgingly acknowledged in the article, I'd feel differently about an otherwise interesting opinion piece.

dekhn 10y ago
"Election hacking" is a general term that exceeds your definition of it. Please accept that as a given, regardless of your own tendency to interpret it in a limited way.
- TheIronYuppie 10y ago
  +1 - the election was an 18 month+ campaign. Constraining it to just the casting of a vote seems too narrow.
  - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
    wouldnt we call that campaign hacking ? Isnt there a difference between the campaign and the election? I had to check the dictionary to be sure.
- snowpanda 10y ago
  I don't believe he exceeded the definition at all. It's naive to think at this point that the media isn't using the term "election hacking" (in a headline), as a means to push the false narrative that "the election was hacked". I think its limited to think that it was simply an unfortunate title, when put into context with 99% of the other headlines they put out. As OP stated, they are throwing a hissy fit because they didn't control the election.
- digler999 10y ago
  so Hillary and Trump each "hacked" the election by posting negative campaign ads ? how come this pejorative term, "hacking", wasn't used against either of them ?
  - euyyn 10y ago
    Because this is about actual computer hacking.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Because negative campaign ads are a conventional, authorized method of affecting an election. For the same reason, getting a job and going to work every day is not considered a "life hack".
    - digler999 10y ago
      just like pay-to-play is a "conventional, authorized method" of converting power to cash ?
      - burkaman 10y ago
        You could call bribery "governance hacking" or something if you wanted to, I guess.
  - aminorex 10y ago
    "Actual computer hacking" in the sense that someone exposed the truth hidden on DNC servers and Podesta''s IMAP server? Or "actual computer hacking" in the sense that someone downloaded Trump''s tax returns from the IRS servers and passed them to the NYT?
- smokeyj 10y ago
  Oh come on. "Election hacking" is not a general term. Unless "general term" is a general term you're redefining - which I wouldn't rule out at this point. If such general term exists, it would be more appropriately used to describe the DNC's unconventional relationship with media employees. But please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, let us not randomly redefine english words - even if regurgitated by your favorite media news outlet.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    "Hacking" was redefined a long time ago. Growth hacking, life hacking, etc. Used in this way, "hacking" is a fairly general term.
    - smokeyj 10y ago
      But those are obviously non-literal uses of the word. Growth hacking would never be used to describe someone's legs getting chopped off. OP used the word "fake news" and got downvoted to oblivion, but it's truly a wonderful demonstration of how subjective terms are used to manufacture narratives. Down with the hyperbole, man.
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        Personally, I feel that the "fake news" verbiage was too strong of a denunciation for a headline wording choice. Especially since: A) "Election hacking" has become a common shorthand of the event in multiple media sources (whether this reflects a "manufactured narrative", I cannot say, but I've seen "election hacking" as shorthand all over the place), and B) The article did contain a detailed description of the event, in a way I think accurately reflects the current state ("major data breaches of the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton adviser John Podesta, committed, allegedly, by Russian-sponsored hackers and fed to the world via WikiLeaks".) I do agree that this portion of the headline is inaccurate at face value, and that there are much better shorthands for this event, but calling an article "fake news" just for a bad headline is too harsh.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  Regardless of the voracity of your definition, 'Campaign Hack' would have been a much clearer, less ambiguous, and more precise term, especially given that this is an ongoing story with which most readers are already familiar. In a perfect world, the headline would be intended to provide unambiguous information. In that, it demonstrably fails as evidenced by this thread. In the real world, it must convey information, but also hook eyeballs. So while the term 'election hacking' may not be explicitly wrong, and while I do not fault the Times for going with it, it is at best ambiguous and quite probably meant to grab attention more than convey information.
CPLX 10y ago
If you can make up terms like growth hacking (formerly known as marketing) then it seems to me you can make up the term election hacking (formerly known as political advocacy) by the exact same mechanism.
- 3131s 10y ago
  The person who is the subject of this article claims that it was not a hack at all though, but instead a leak. That seems like something significant that the NYTimes should at least mention.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    This feels a lot like equivocating between "site X hacked" and "site X DDOS'd", except on a more urgent topic. There's a lot of FUD achieved by failing to clarify when digital attacks are known-and-inescapable risks (leaks, legal harassment, site takedowns) and when they're actual system-level attacks.
mynameishere 10y ago
The title is indeed inaccurate (as far as we know) and I suspect that's due to the strange habit of newspapers having different people write the article and the headline.

digler999 10y ago

> and nowhere in the article does it allege that any election systems were compromised. Apparently you didn't check the headline