8 ms·

"Silicon Valley is Not Your Friend...but we, at The New York Times, totally are."

by jrs95 9y ago

walshemj 9y ago
Yes don't forget that traditional newspapers bitterly resent their drop in power and status and have google or fb hacked into celebs email recently ?
mwnz 9y ago
+1 to this. Like the news media haven't spent the last century abusing their influence on society.
crispyambulance 9y ago
> ...but we, at The New York Times, totally are. That's a false dichotomy, but yeah, the NYTimes REALLY IS more like "my friend" than Facebook, Google, or other massive organizations that make money from using "me" as their product while pretending to serve my needs.
bogomipz 9y ago
What a total strawman comment that is. The free press is necessary for a functioning democracy, Silicon Valley is not.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Isn’t any media company’s ability to hide behind “we’re the free press and we’re necessary for democracy” even more potent than SV’s faux dedication to the interests of humanity? There’s a lot wrong with what SV companies do, but they don’t have the same direct power to define what is and isn’t “true” like the media does.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"Isn’t any media company’s ability to hide behind “we’re the free press and we’re necessary for democracy” even more potent than SV’s faux dedication to the interests of humanity?" You realize that the widely accepted idea of journalism being an essential part of a functioning democracy is not something that today's "media companies" made up right? See "The Fourth Estate": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate >"There’s a lot wrong with what SV companies do, but they don’t have the same direct power to define what is and isn’t “true” like the media does" Are you joking? The SV companies are the Goliath in terms of direct power. Did you miss this whole story of a major election, micro-targeting and dark ads? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/10/12/russias-facebook-ads-show-how-internet-microtargeting-can-be-weaponized/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/1...
    - jrs95 9y ago
      Of course they didn't invent it, but they've perverted it entirely. The difference between mainstream choices is essentially just which corporate agenda you prefer. The impact of that is a lot broader than micro targeted Facebook ads. That might sway an election, but the media has a role in selecting the candidates and defining their policies that Facebook ads don't. David Frum once said "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox.", but I think that idea applies to the corporate media and all politicians. These media companies are not benign, they're an integral part of an anti-democratic power structure.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        >"Of course they didn't invent it, but they've perverted it entirely." How have they perverted the idea exactly?
        jrs95 9y ago
        They’re supposed to be a check on power, but they’ve become a tool of it instead.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  When can we get some of this "free press" then? Mostly what I see is promoting one agenda or another and not much "free" about it.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"Mostly what I see is promoting one agenda or another and not much "free" about it." This is exactly what press freedom is. Anyone is allowed to own and publish a newspaper and have their own editorial policies, without government interference. That's exactly what makes it free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_Un... The word "free" in the context press freedom has zero do do with being free from bias.
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free). The Internet on the other hand is actually much more "free" as far as that goes. The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated. We need rights, methods and opportunity to distribute information in a free society, very true (which Silicon Valley has given us on a level paper never could). But what is really of very little use are media conglomerates shoveling unified propaganda. I don't sympathize much with NYT's hand-wringing.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        >"So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free)." You don't seem to understand how the news media actually works. The New York Times is paid for by advertisements and subscriptions. The New York Times doesn't take money from special interest groups. There is no K Street lobby for Newspapers. You seem very uninformed. >"The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated." You don't seem to actually understand what the word "free" means in the context of "free press." "Freedom of the Press" is established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It allows the press freedom to publish any news they see fit without interference from the State. It allows the the press to publish news without fear of retribution or censorship. The whole point in "Freedom of the press" is that it allows citizens to be informed in the case their government ever decided to grant themselves power that the people had not consented to grant them. If you actually believe this is overstated or don't believe having that ability is essential to a functional democracy then you probably should spend some time reading a book or two about Civics. You also might want to look at the media. Or you could look at the current state of News media and democracy in places like Turkey, Russia or the Philippines.

"Silicon Valley is Not Your Friend...but we, at The New York Times, totally are."

by jrs95 9y ago

"Silicon Valley is Not Your Friend...but we, at The New York Times, totally are."

Yes don't forget that traditional newspapers bitterly resent their drop in power and status and have google or fb hacked into celebs email recently ?

mwnz 9y ago

+1 to this. Like the news media haven't spent the last century abusing their influence on society.

crispyambulance 9y ago

> ...but we, at The New York Times, totally are. That's a false dichotomy, but yeah, the NYTimes REALLY IS more like "my friend" than Facebook, Google, or other massive organizations that make money from using "me" as their product while pretending to serve my needs.

bogomipz 9y ago

What a total strawman comment that is. The free press is necessary for a functioning democracy, Silicon Valley is not.

jrs95 9y ago
Isn’t any media company’s ability to hide behind “we’re the free press and we’re necessary for democracy” even more potent than SV’s faux dedication to the interests of humanity? There’s a lot wrong with what SV companies do, but they don’t have the same direct power to define what is and isn’t “true” like the media does.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Isn’t any media company’s ability to hide behind “we’re the free press and we’re necessary for democracy” even more potent than SV’s faux dedication to the interests of humanity?" You realize that the widely accepted idea of journalism being an essential part of a functioning democracy is not something that today's "media companies" made up right? See "The Fourth Estate": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate >"There’s a lot wrong with what SV companies do, but they don’t have the same direct power to define what is and isn’t “true” like the media does" Are you joking? The SV companies are the Goliath in terms of direct power. Did you miss this whole story of a major election, micro-targeting and dark ads? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/10/12/russias-facebook-ads-show-how-internet-microtargeting-can-be-weaponized/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/1...
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Of course they didn't invent it, but they've perverted it entirely. The difference between mainstream choices is essentially just which corporate agenda you prefer. The impact of that is a lot broader than micro targeted Facebook ads. That might sway an election, but the media has a role in selecting the candidates and defining their policies that Facebook ads don't. David Frum once said "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox.", but I think that idea applies to the corporate media and all politicians. These media companies are not benign, they're an integral part of an anti-democratic power structure.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"Of course they didn't invent it, but they've perverted it entirely." How have they perverted the idea exactly?
      - jrs95 9y ago
        They’re supposed to be a check on power, but they’ve become a tool of it instead.
mythrwy 9y ago
When can we get some of this "free press" then? Mostly what I see is promoting one agenda or another and not much "free" about it.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Mostly what I see is promoting one agenda or another and not much "free" about it." This is exactly what press freedom is. Anyone is allowed to own and publish a newspaper and have their own editorial policies, without government interference. That's exactly what makes it free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_Un... The word "free" in the context press freedom has zero do do with being free from bias.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free). The Internet on the other hand is actually much more "free" as far as that goes. The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated. We need rights, methods and opportunity to distribute information in a free society, very true (which Silicon Valley has given us on a level paper never could). But what is really of very little use are media conglomerates shoveling unified propaganda. I don't sympathize much with NYT's hand-wringing.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      >"So "free" as in "paid for by some interest". (Because after all, publishing isn't free)." You don't seem to understand how the news media actually works. The New York Times is paid for by advertisements and subscriptions. The New York Times doesn't take money from special interest groups. There is no K Street lobby for Newspapers. You seem very uninformed. >"The necessary role, and indeed the actual freedom, of the "free press" (in the traditional sense) in this democracy is in my opinion much overstated." You don't seem to actually understand what the word "free" means in the context of "free press." "Freedom of the Press" is established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It allows the press freedom to publish any news they see fit without interference from the State. It allows the the press to publish news without fear of retribution or censorship. The whole point in "Freedom of the press" is that it allows citizens to be informed in the case their government ever decided to grant themselves power that the people had not consented to grant them. If you actually believe this is overstated or don't believe having that ability is essential to a functional democracy then you probably should spend some time reading a book or two about Civics. You also might want to look at the media. Or you could look at the current state of News media and democracy in places like Turkey, Russia or the Philippines.