5 ms·

Oh please. What a load of hogwash. NYT and CNN aren’t perfect but making some kind of comparison to the rantings of a lunatic like Jones is absurd. Get a grip.

malvosenior 8y ago
The NYT just hired a full blown racist to their editorial board so I think it's a very apt comparison.
- jimejim 8y ago
  No, they didn't. The people that think Sarah Jeong is a racist are the kind of people that take Alex Jones seriously.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    I and many others think she's racist and in no way take Alex Jones seriously.
  - ffgdgggg 8y ago
    If Sarah Jeong is not a racist, which I will concede, than she is an immature idiot mouthing off in public. Which tarnishes the reputation of her employer. Alex Jones is also an immature idiot. But he owns his show.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    This is directly related to the article. The NYT is literally doing a 180 of what they were saying two days ago. Also, you're not a mod so I don't see why you're trolling through a day old post to finger wag at people who don't agree with your politics.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Everybody feels their tangents are crucially related to the stories they add them to. On tech threads where we're all just riffing on stuff, that's fine. But all you had to say was that Sarah Jeong is "a full blown racist". Your comment is a textbook example of why we have the guideline. I'm sorry I don't keep up-to-the-minute with your comments.
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        Do you realize we're in a thread (that I didn't start) discussing the NYT's credibility on reporting this issue? How about you reply to the content of my comment instead of trying to take it out of context and spamming the thread?
_Tev 8y ago
Well for you it might be clear it is much better than Jones, but from the distance the "us vs them" narrative and the obsession with whatever is the latest "scandal" (Clinton's emails, Weinstein, Trump & Russia) makes it seem like pure tabloid. So you can actually make good argument about NYT being similar to Jones (better crap is still crap).
- tptacek 8y ago
  It's quite clear if you understand the distinction between journalism and infotainment. Journalism outlets spend millions of dollars to staff professional reporters and fact checkers; when they report a story, they've often got a whole team of trained professionals on multiple locations collecting details and interviewing primary sources. When the outlet we're talking about is the NYT or WSJ, those teams are in dozens of countries around the world operating out of large full-time bureaus. Infotainment outlets hire a couple dozen people to make shit up and put it on a web page and a Youtube video. Sometimes reality gets tabloidy. Sometimes editors make decisions that optimize engagement and viewership over clarity. CNN and Fox both run pundit shows along with hard news and blur the lines by hosting their hard-news pro's on the pundit shows. But no matter what happens to make CNN seem like infotainment, it simply isn't, because the process that generates it is journalism.
  - ffgdgggg 8y ago
    Editorial staffs have been decimated for decades. There is far less fact checking than before, far fewer corespondents and almost all military reporting is through access-journalism: “our give us pretty footage, we’ll write nice things” At which point I prefer Jones: so trashy that I know it’s BS
ffgdgggg 8y ago
CNN??? The ones who invented ADHD news: “not necessarily correct, we never check our sources, but you’ll forget by tomorrow” NYT is a tool of political control. More sophisticated than Jones, but so what? Their readers want to feign being better than their cab driver. NYT will publish mostly truths to Jones’ mostly trash but in a way that is as manipulative. NYT’s Friedman will write a peon on MBS while the man commits a genicide in Yemen Read Chomsky, Seymour Hersh, or Robert Perry. There is no journalism in America.

malvosenior 8y ago

The NYT just hired a full blown racist to their editorial board so I think it's a very apt comparison.

jimejim 8y ago
No, they didn't. The people that think Sarah Jeong is a racist are the kind of people that take Alex Jones seriously.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I and many others think she's racist and in no way take Alex Jones seriously.
- ffgdgggg 8y ago
  If Sarah Jeong is not a racist, which I will concede, than she is an immature idiot mouthing off in public. Which tarnishes the reputation of her employer. Alex Jones is also an immature idiot. But he owns his show.
tptacek 8y ago
Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  This is directly related to the article. The NYT is literally doing a 180 of what they were saying two days ago. Also, you're not a mod so I don't see why you're trolling through a day old post to finger wag at people who don't agree with your politics.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Everybody feels their tangents are crucially related to the stories they add them to. On tech threads where we're all just riffing on stuff, that's fine. But all you had to say was that Sarah Jeong is "a full blown racist". Your comment is a textbook example of why we have the guideline. I'm sorry I don't keep up-to-the-minute with your comments.
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      Do you realize we're in a thread (that I didn't start) discussing the NYT's credibility on reporting this issue? How about you reply to the content of my comment instead of trying to take it out of context and spamming the thread?

_Tev 8y ago

Well for you it might be clear it is much better than Jones, but from the distance the "us vs them" narrative and the obsession with whatever is the latest "scandal" (Clinton's emails, Weinstein, Trump & Russia) makes it seem like pure tabloid. So you can actually make good argument about NYT being similar to Jones (better crap is still crap).

tptacek 8y ago
It's quite clear if you understand the distinction between journalism and infotainment. Journalism outlets spend millions of dollars to staff professional reporters and fact checkers; when they report a story, they've often got a whole team of trained professionals on multiple locations collecting details and interviewing primary sources. When the outlet we're talking about is the NYT or WSJ, those teams are in dozens of countries around the world operating out of large full-time bureaus. Infotainment outlets hire a couple dozen people to make shit up and put it on a web page and a Youtube video. Sometimes reality gets tabloidy. Sometimes editors make decisions that optimize engagement and viewership over clarity. CNN and Fox both run pundit shows along with hard news and blur the lines by hosting their hard-news pro's on the pundit shows. But no matter what happens to make CNN seem like infotainment, it simply isn't, because the process that generates it is journalism.
- ffgdgggg 8y ago
  Editorial staffs have been decimated for decades. There is far less fact checking than before, far fewer corespondents and almost all military reporting is through access-journalism: “our give us pretty footage, we’ll write nice things” At which point I prefer Jones: so trashy that I know it’s BS

ffgdgggg 8y ago

CNN??? The ones who invented ADHD news: “not necessarily correct, we never check our sources, but you’ll forget by tomorrow” NYT is a tool of political control. More sophisticated than Jones, but so what? Their readers want to feign being better than their cab driver. NYT will publish mostly truths to Jones’ mostly trash but in a way that is as manipulative. NYT’s Friedman will write a peon on MBS while the man commits a genicide in Yemen Read Chomsky, Seymour Hersh, or Robert Perry. There is no journalism in America.