5 ms·

I think it’s important that this information be out there. At the same time I echo some of the other commenters’ sentiments about the tone of the piece. What’s

by ramzyo 9y ago

I think it’s important that this information be out there. At the same time I echo some of the other commenters’ sentiments about the tone of the piece. What’s the point after the initial first few paragraphs? The whole bit after the actual newsworthy part (that he was actually using Twitter for news consumption) regarding his CV framed in a suspicious tone doesn’t end in any meaningful conclusion. Just seems like an attempt at a takedown piece. FWIW, I found the original article in the NYT to be an interesting and thought-provoking read, regardless of whether or not the author was taking sips under the table of what he was arguing against. Where that falls on the spectrum of unethical journalism I’m not sure. Feels pretty tame as compared to some of the other things we see in today’s media climate, but that’s just one opinion.

prepend 9y ago
“FWIW, I found the original article in the NYT to be an interesting and thought-provoking read, regardless of whether or not the author was taking sips under the table of what he was arguing against.” I think this is the danger. I agree with the theme, so I ignore the data. The piece makes claims based on author’s direct evidence. That evidence is wrong. We have to have a strict policy of relying on data even if emotionally we support the hypothesis. Also the fact that news has to have a high standard for objectivity. The standard has to be high for banal stuff like this do we believe the important articles where it matters.
- ramzyo 9y ago
  Interesting and good points. I guess personally I’m more comfortable agreeing with the theme and ignoring the data for pieces like this, primarily because it’s more like a blog post than a serious news piece (the NYT might take issue with my characterization). I hold it to the same standard as conversation with peers about matters of personal choice and lifestyle. There may be fallacies and contradictions, but strict correctness isn’t as important to me in those settings, and hence not in a blog-post-like piece like this in the NYT. But, again, I see this as a matter of opinion because I don’t see Manjoo as having violated journalistic ethics here.
danso 9y ago
I admit a skeptical bias against Manjoo ever since his raving review of the Apple Watch, which made it clear he is unusually unable to handle his iPhone and social media/notification noise: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/technology/personaltech/apple-watch-bliss-but-only-after-a-steep-learning-curve.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/technology/personaltech/a... His recent column under discussion has the same kind of outlier perspective. I'm younger than him (he says he's nearly 40) but even though I too rely on social media (Twitter and HN) for much of my daily news diet, it still wasn't so long ago when I can remember getting my news in "slow" formats like print. I'm not saying it's easy to quit the digital newslife today, but I can't imagine how short his memory is for him to experience such a blissful epiphany. There are plenty of modern folks today (especially in the NY tech/media scene) who experience the quiet info ecosystem on a daily basis, judging by the huge success of Kindle ebook readers. Here's an example of what I just can't relate to with Manjoo: > Now I was left with the simple, disconnected and ritualistic experience of reading the news, mostly free from the cognitive load of wondering whether the thing I was reading was possibly a blatant lie. I follow just half of the number of Twitter accounts Manjoo does, and I bet I get in as many if not more Twitter discussions/fights than he does. But when I see people tweeting around links to the NYT or WaPo, I don't have such epistemological skepticism about their reporting that I think their web stories might possibly be a "blatant lie". This doesn't mean I automatically accept their work as truth, only that if these news sources required constant skepticism because they might be total bullshit, I wouldn't be following these news sources in the first place. This reminds me of Manjoo's Apple Watch review because it seemed then like he couldn't imagine how to turn off or reduce notifications before the Watch came along.

by ramzyo 9y ago

prepend 9y ago

“FWIW, I found the original article in the NYT to be an interesting and thought-provoking read, regardless of whether or not the author was taking sips under the table of what he was arguing against.” I think this is the danger. I agree with the theme, so I ignore the data. The piece makes claims based on author’s direct evidence. That evidence is wrong. We have to have a strict policy of relying on data even if emotionally we support the hypothesis. Also the fact that news has to have a high standard for objectivity. The standard has to be high for banal stuff like this do we believe the important articles where it matters.

ramzyo 9y ago
Interesting and good points. I guess personally I’m more comfortable agreeing with the theme and ignoring the data for pieces like this, primarily because it’s more like a blog post than a serious news piece (the NYT might take issue with my characterization). I hold it to the same standard as conversation with peers about matters of personal choice and lifestyle. There may be fallacies and contradictions, but strict correctness isn’t as important to me in those settings, and hence not in a blog-post-like piece like this in the NYT. But, again, I see this as a matter of opinion because I don’t see Manjoo as having violated journalistic ethics here.

danso 9y ago

I admit a skeptical bias against Manjoo ever since his raving review of the Apple Watch, which made it clear he is unusually unable to handle his iPhone and social media/notification noise: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/technology/personaltech/apple-watch-bliss-but-only-after-a-steep-learning-curve.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/technology/personaltech/a... His recent column under discussion has the same kind of outlier perspective. I'm younger than him (he says he's nearly 40) but even though I too rely on social media (Twitter and HN) for much of my daily news diet, it still wasn't so long ago when I can remember getting my news in "slow" formats like print. I'm not saying it's easy to quit the digital newslife today, but I can't imagine how short his memory is for him to experience such a blissful epiphany. There are plenty of modern folks today (especially in the NY tech/media scene) who experience the quiet info ecosystem on a daily basis, judging by the huge success of Kindle ebook readers. Here's an example of what I just can't relate to with Manjoo: > Now I was left with the simple, disconnected and ritualistic experience of reading the news, mostly free from the cognitive load of wondering whether the thing I was reading was possibly a blatant lie. I follow just half of the number of Twitter accounts Manjoo does, and I bet I get in as many if not more Twitter discussions/fights than he does. But when I see people tweeting around links to the NYT or WaPo, I don't have such epistemological skepticism about their reporting that I think their web stories might possibly be a "blatant lie". This doesn't mean I automatically accept their work as truth, only that if these news sources required constant skepticism because they might be total bullshit, I wouldn't be following these news sources in the first place. This reminds me of Manjoo's Apple Watch review because it seemed then like he couldn't imagine how to turn off or reduce notifications before the Watch came along.