4 ms·

There's some really good research in this article and then some really poorly researched topics and it seems like the entire thing was written with an agenda to

There's some really good research in this article and then some really poorly researched topics and it seems like the entire thing was written with an agenda to please an anti-millenial audience. Specifically, an agenda to prove that millenials are given way more than previous generations (especially boomers) with really poor research and a really shaky narrative. This one part shows it pretty clearly: >n the television show “Thirtysomething,” which aired from 1987 to 1991, the all-white cast of characters seemed to be economically emancipated from their parents, who rarely factored into the story lines. Today’s series about 30-somethings portray a decade that seems far less adult, at least by traditional standards. (Think “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” or “New Girl.”)

hopler 8y ago
thirtysomething aired during the 1980s "Me generation", and portrayed that generation's fantasy. The main characters worked at an ad agency. By that standard, millennials are living the dream en masse -- between adtech and influencers and ad-supported apps and blogs, advertising is the Millennial industry. I'm suspicious of the analysis of someone who was unable to get the capitalization of the show correct.
screye 8y ago
A bit off topic but ,is it just me or have articles by the NYT become more and more ideology driven over the last few years ? The whole process seems to be structured around finding data to support their preconceived notions, rather than using the data and research to craft the hypothesis. I hate Trump as much as the next guy on HN, but his criticism of the MSM isn't totally unfounded. I used to look at NYT and WSJ are paragons of journalism, and they've routinely disappointed over the last few years. Many youtube channels seem to be a lot better researched than these 'prestigious' outlets. Channels like CGPGrey and Kurzgesagt give much better common-man explanations of complex problems. On the other hand, niche channels like Caspian Report and Healthcare Triage stick to things they have expertise in, and make no attempts to water down the news or risk losing nuance in the process. With big outlets, it is hard to calibrate an article to account for the implicit bias of the outlet itself. When it is instead a youtube personality who you feel like you know better, it is easy to identify the lens through with information is being delivered and build trust over time.
- burlesona 8y ago
  I agree, and actually I cancelled my subscription and wrote the NYT a letter to the editor over this. I ran an analysis on how many of the front page main headlines were about Trump in the year after his election, versus being about Obama, and it was ridiculous. I don’t have the exact numbers handy but something like 2-3x as many articles written about Trump vs. Obama and basically all negative. I get it, the guy is a clown show, but at a certain point not all of his antics aren’t newsworthy anymore and the media just comes across as obsessed. If anything they’re just playing into the opposition narrative that somehow he’s a good guy who is unfairly being persecuted by the media and that you can’t trust them.
  - rchaud 8y ago
    There really is something to be said about how many column inches and video minutes "liberal" media outlets spent on Trump rather than what the opposition was working on to counter those policies. That something is "attention = money", apparently.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    How much worse does an administration need to be before this amount of coverage is acceptable to you? I don't think the potential for audience fatigue is a valid reason to start ignoring a president continuously embroiled in legitimate controversy causing irreparable harm to our nation. You found your limit, I get that, but it's the administration who exceeded your capacity with their newsworthy actions - not the media.
    - Glyptodon 8y ago
      I hate how imprecise and tabloidesque a lot of the "reputable" coverage is. There's a lot to cover. And by any reasonable standard Trump should probably have been embroiled in an impeachment process already. But does that really mean speculation about the Mueller investigation is news and not speculation? I don't think so.
      - 8y ago

hopler 8y ago

thirtysomething aired during the 1980s "Me generation", and portrayed that generation's fantasy. The main characters worked at an ad agency. By that standard, millennials are living the dream en masse -- between adtech and influencers and ad-supported apps and blogs, advertising is the Millennial industry. I'm suspicious of the analysis of someone who was unable to get the capitalization of the show correct.

screye 8y ago

A bit off topic but ,is it just me or have articles by the NYT become more and more ideology driven over the last few years ? The whole process seems to be structured around finding data to support their preconceived notions, rather than using the data and research to craft the hypothesis. I hate Trump as much as the next guy on HN, but his criticism of the MSM isn't totally unfounded. I used to look at NYT and WSJ are paragons of journalism, and they've routinely disappointed over the last few years. Many youtube channels seem to be a lot better researched than these 'prestigious' outlets. Channels like CGPGrey and Kurzgesagt give much better common-man explanations of complex problems. On the other hand, niche channels like Caspian Report and Healthcare Triage stick to things they have expertise in, and make no attempts to water down the news or risk losing nuance in the process. With big outlets, it is hard to calibrate an article to account for the implicit bias of the outlet itself. When it is instead a youtube personality who you feel like you know better, it is easy to identify the lens through with information is being delivered and build trust over time.

burlesona 8y ago
I agree, and actually I cancelled my subscription and wrote the NYT a letter to the editor over this. I ran an analysis on how many of the front page main headlines were about Trump in the year after his election, versus being about Obama, and it was ridiculous. I don’t have the exact numbers handy but something like 2-3x as many articles written about Trump vs. Obama and basically all negative. I get it, the guy is a clown show, but at a certain point not all of his antics aren’t newsworthy anymore and the media just comes across as obsessed. If anything they’re just playing into the opposition narrative that somehow he’s a good guy who is unfairly being persecuted by the media and that you can’t trust them.
- rchaud 8y ago
  There really is something to be said about how many column inches and video minutes "liberal" media outlets spent on Trump rather than what the opposition was working on to counter those policies. That something is "attention = money", apparently.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  How much worse does an administration need to be before this amount of coverage is acceptable to you? I don't think the potential for audience fatigue is a valid reason to start ignoring a president continuously embroiled in legitimate controversy causing irreparable harm to our nation. You found your limit, I get that, but it's the administration who exceeded your capacity with their newsworthy actions - not the media.
  - Glyptodon 8y ago
    I hate how imprecise and tabloidesque a lot of the "reputable" coverage is. There's a lot to cover. And by any reasonable standard Trump should probably have been embroiled in an impeachment process already. But does that really mean speculation about the Mueller investigation is news and not speculation? I don't think so.
    - 8y ago