6 ms·

On one hand, having an ombudsman (whatever you want to call it) is a good thing for an institution like the Times. On the other hand... having Liz Spayd in tha

by cwyers 9y ago

On one hand, having an ombudsman (whatever you want to call it) is a good thing for an institution like the Times. On the other hand... having Liz Spayd in that role is pointless, so this isn't a loss. The past year has shown us how the New York Times has let false equivalence and the need to sell newspapers to both sides of the aisle has severely damaged the quality of the paper's coverage, and Spayd has continually carried water for this rather than hold the paper to account. I for one am tired of watching the Times sell itself with ads about how the truth is more important than ever and then follow it up with coverage like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/health-care-fact-check-preexisting-conditions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/health-care-f... Where Pelosi saying "Up to 17 million children" is supposed to be misleading because it chooses the high side estimate, when that is exactly what 'up to' means. Getting rid of the public editor won't make this better, but not having to read a public editor who won't confront this sort of coverage head-on will at least make me a bit less cranky about it.

humanrebar 9y ago
I'd feel more able to agree with you if the NYT didn't carry water for some whoppers ("you can keep you doctor", "insurers will compete for your business", etc.) back when the ACA was passed in the first place.
- specialist 9y ago
  Insurer's response to ACA reminds me of a Frank & Ernest comic, which I can't find right now, sorry: Two USPS workers. Package label says "Do not bend, fold, mutilate." One says to the other "Doesn't say anything about crumple!" Har har har. --- I had high hopes for ACA. I believed the 15% medical loss ratio was the poison pill that would eventually drive insurers out of business, and therefore lead to Medicare for All. For comparison, Medicare's is under 5%, meaning 95 cents for every dollar spent goes to patient care, vs coke and prostitutes for the execs. Silly me. There's no set of rules that can't be broken, gamed. So now I'm for dozing it all down and rebuilding with universal coverage, single payer, using the capitation model (reward wellness vs fee for service). No more incrementalism. Just do it. --- Aside: Mid 2000s, my team created, implemented, supported 5 regional health information exchanges (eg BHIX). It was clear then, to everyone in healthcare IT, that we were pushing cooked noodles across hot pavement. Since then, it's only gotten worse. Overhead continues to grow geometrically, due to things like ICD-10 and meaningful care, without nudging the patient care (outcomes) needle one bit. I can't explain it. I just read about cost disease. It seems to explain rising costs, but I don't understand the mechanism, or what to do about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease And this book blew my mind: "The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy" by David Graeber http://amzn.to/2mi169U http://amzn.to/2mi169U
  - koolba 9y ago
    Putting any kind of cap on efficiency of a middle man is asinine. The only outcome is the realization that the only way to make more profits is increase the top line number (i.e. Premiums).
    - specialist 9y ago
      Our government has capped APRs for credit cards. Then, banks added fees, reduced services. Then govt capped fees. Whackamole. Is this a legit analogy? If so, is either side wrong? How would you handle it, if you were King? My only notion for healthcare is to change the incentives. Reward wellness vs treat disease.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        > My only notion for healthcare is to change the incentives. That's only a recipe for lobbying over what bureaucrats designate "wellness" and "disease". The best way to fix healthcare is to cut out more middlemen. The person whose health is being cared for (or their loved ones) needs to decide when another $10k scan or $65k pill regimen is worth it compared to using the cash to pay off their (grand)kids' student loans. If all of this is filtered through insurers, lawyers, and government officials, there is incentives to meet budgets and increase revenue, but there's no win for the actual people and families all this is supposed to be taking care of.
        specialist 9y ago
        Wellness is easily measured. Life expectancy, sick days, patient surveys. The fight happens during rationing (bureaucratic triage). So you'd eliminate pharmacy benefit management companies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy_benefit_management#Litigation_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy_benefit_management#Li... Or are you saying eliminate insurers (insurance) altogether?
        humanrebar 9y ago
- untog 9y ago
  I don't see how reporting a politican's comments were "carrying water". At the time Obama said that you could keep your doctor I don't think there was any way to disprove his statement, because the ACA hadn't been enacted yet.
- cwyers 9y ago
  I'm not carrying water for the ACA, which I think is not-very-good law, and I remember back when even congressional Democrats thought it was "the stupid compromise we can get Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman to allow to pass the Senate" and not a hill worth dying on.
specialist 9y ago
What's the alternative? I remember similar things said of their prior ombudsmans (ombudsmen? ombudespersons? ha). I stopped reading NYT when they helped sell Bush's Folly in Iraq, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I ask because I've been eagerly awaiting the next iteration of journalism. Though I can't guess what that'd look like. Frederic Filloux (mondaynote.com) has some notions. Mostly how to make it viable. And I really wanted the Nerd TV 2.0 format experiment to happen (publish all source material as-is, much like we're asking for academics). And lastly I really wanted the wikipedia model, as envisioned by Clay Shirky in Cognitive Surplus, to become more mainstream, but I don't know why that format isn't replicated more widely.
pvnick 9y ago
> false equivalence and the need to sell newspapers to both sides of the aisle What does that mean? Are you saying you would prefer the paper take a more hardline stance in favor of one side because you perceive that side to be objectively superior in some manner?
- travmatt 9y ago
  Case in point: in the Washington Post story regarding Jared Kushners attempts to bypass government oversight of diplomatic negotiations with Russia, both WaPo and NYT both received comments from Kushner confidants alleging these contacts were intended to facilitate cooperation of military actions in Syria. WaPo refused to publish these comments unless they could specify that they were Kushner confidants speaking in his defense. NYT had no such qualms, instead allowing these partisans to be presented as anonymous neutral parties, in exchange for their continued access. Allowing Kushner to present his spin as neutral is a de facto false equivalence and shifting the 'objective' reality, which other organizations (WaPo) who practice investigative journalism, as opposed to access journalism, refused to allow themselves to be used for.
  - pvnick 9y ago
    Everybody is a political hack. There is no such thing as objective reporting. You are expressing a sentiment which reflects a suspicious and conspiratorial perspective on the Russia dealings. Rush Limbaugh would express a sentiment reflecting a dismissive attitude towards that topic. Both you and Rush believe that you are reporting the objective truth, but you would point out the false equivalence of comparing your enlightened and objective opinion with Rush's obvious partisan hackery. And so it goes.
    - travmatt 9y ago
      TIL that reporting on the potential conflicts of interest in a sources comments are signs of political hackery.
      - 9y ago

by cwyers 9y ago

humanrebar 9y ago

I'd feel more able to agree with you if the NYT didn't carry water for some whoppers ("you can keep you doctor", "insurers will compete for your business", etc.) back when the ACA was passed in the first place.

specialist 9y ago
Insurer's response to ACA reminds me of a Frank & Ernest comic, which I can't find right now, sorry: Two USPS workers. Package label says "Do not bend, fold, mutilate." One says to the other "Doesn't say anything about crumple!" Har har har. --- I had high hopes for ACA. I believed the 15% medical loss ratio was the poison pill that would eventually drive insurers out of business, and therefore lead to Medicare for All. For comparison, Medicare's is under 5%, meaning 95 cents for every dollar spent goes to patient care, vs coke and prostitutes for the execs. Silly me. There's no set of rules that can't be broken, gamed. So now I'm for dozing it all down and rebuilding with universal coverage, single payer, using the capitation model (reward wellness vs fee for service). No more incrementalism. Just do it. --- Aside: Mid 2000s, my team created, implemented, supported 5 regional health information exchanges (eg BHIX). It was clear then, to everyone in healthcare IT, that we were pushing cooked noodles across hot pavement. Since then, it's only gotten worse. Overhead continues to grow geometrically, due to things like ICD-10 and meaningful care, without nudging the patient care (outcomes) needle one bit. I can't explain it. I just read about cost disease. It seems to explain rising costs, but I don't understand the mechanism, or what to do about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease And this book blew my mind: "The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy" by David Graeber http://amzn.to/2mi169U http://amzn.to/2mi169U
- koolba 9y ago
  Putting any kind of cap on efficiency of a middle man is asinine. The only outcome is the realization that the only way to make more profits is increase the top line number (i.e. Premiums).
  - specialist 9y ago
    Our government has capped APRs for credit cards. Then, banks added fees, reduced services. Then govt capped fees. Whackamole. Is this a legit analogy? If so, is either side wrong? How would you handle it, if you were King? My only notion for healthcare is to change the incentives. Reward wellness vs treat disease.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > My only notion for healthcare is to change the incentives. That's only a recipe for lobbying over what bureaucrats designate "wellness" and "disease". The best way to fix healthcare is to cut out more middlemen. The person whose health is being cared for (or their loved ones) needs to decide when another $10k scan or $65k pill regimen is worth it compared to using the cash to pay off their (grand)kids' student loans. If all of this is filtered through insurers, lawyers, and government officials, there is incentives to meet budgets and increase revenue, but there's no win for the actual people and families all this is supposed to be taking care of.
      - specialist 9y ago
        Wellness is easily measured. Life expectancy, sick days, patient surveys. The fight happens during rationing (bureaucratic triage). So you'd eliminate pharmacy benefit management companies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy_benefit_management#Litigation_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacy_benefit_management#Li... Or are you saying eliminate insurers (insurance) altogether?
        humanrebar 9y ago
untog 9y ago
I don't see how reporting a politican's comments were "carrying water". At the time Obama said that you could keep your doctor I don't think there was any way to disprove his statement, because the ACA hadn't been enacted yet.
cwyers 9y ago
I'm not carrying water for the ACA, which I think is not-very-good law, and I remember back when even congressional Democrats thought it was "the stupid compromise we can get Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman to allow to pass the Senate" and not a hill worth dying on.

specialist 9y ago

What's the alternative? I remember similar things said of their prior ombudsmans (ombudsmen? ombudespersons? ha). I stopped reading NYT when they helped sell Bush's Folly in Iraq, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I ask because I've been eagerly awaiting the next iteration of journalism. Though I can't guess what that'd look like. Frederic Filloux (mondaynote.com) has some notions. Mostly how to make it viable. And I really wanted the Nerd TV 2.0 format experiment to happen (publish all source material as-is, much like we're asking for academics). And lastly I really wanted the wikipedia model, as envisioned by Clay Shirky in Cognitive Surplus, to become more mainstream, but I don't know why that format isn't replicated more widely.

pvnick 9y ago

> false equivalence and the need to sell newspapers to both sides of the aisle What does that mean? Are you saying you would prefer the paper take a more hardline stance in favor of one side because you perceive that side to be objectively superior in some manner?

travmatt 9y ago
Case in point: in the Washington Post story regarding Jared Kushners attempts to bypass government oversight of diplomatic negotiations with Russia, both WaPo and NYT both received comments from Kushner confidants alleging these contacts were intended to facilitate cooperation of military actions in Syria. WaPo refused to publish these comments unless they could specify that they were Kushner confidants speaking in his defense. NYT had no such qualms, instead allowing these partisans to be presented as anonymous neutral parties, in exchange for their continued access. Allowing Kushner to present his spin as neutral is a de facto false equivalence and shifting the 'objective' reality, which other organizations (WaPo) who practice investigative journalism, as opposed to access journalism, refused to allow themselves to be used for.
- pvnick 9y ago
  Everybody is a political hack. There is no such thing as objective reporting. You are expressing a sentiment which reflects a suspicious and conspiratorial perspective on the Russia dealings. Rush Limbaugh would express a sentiment reflecting a dismissive attitude towards that topic. Both you and Rush believe that you are reporting the objective truth, but you would point out the false equivalence of comparing your enlightened and objective opinion with Rush's obvious partisan hackery. And so it goes.
  - travmatt 9y ago
    TIL that reporting on the potential conflicts of interest in a sources comments are signs of political hackery.
    - 9y ago