5 ms·

New York Times has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years. I don’t know the reason for it, but I find it very annoying

by yaacov 8y ago

gatherhunterer 8y ago
I think that they are trying to ride a wave of sentiment. You can see a similar strategy in their political coverage that causes them to do some weird things, like dismissing the accusations against Justin Fairfax. They have good writers on staff but I have found that more incisively factual coverage of major stories can always be found in The Washington Post.
csallen 8y ago
The media has a lot to lose in a tech-dominated world. They used to have a monopoly on reach. Readers came to directly to them. Today that role belongs largely to tech companies. Media companies are heavily dependent on the algorithms and whims of the likes of Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. And it's not just distribution: it's their business models, too. Apple taking a cut of NYC subscription revenue, Amazon doing similar things through its Kindle devices, Facebook and Google ads, etc. This would be an existentially terrifying position for any business to be in. And as much as the media likes to portray itself as putting truth-seeking and objectivity first, it's still very much a collection of self-interested profit-seeking businesses. When you're the media and you're faced with this situation, what do you do? What weapon do you have? Your content of course. It doesn't need to amount to full-scale propaganda or anything obvious. You simply hire writers and editors who are themselves anti-tech, and results will follow. Even if you don't hire that way as a media organization, your employees' incentives are aligned such that they should naturally lean anti-tech, given the realities of the business situation and its effect on their jobs.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  Most newspapers have a clear division between the editorial and money-making parts. Journalists look down on the advertising and classifieds departments. The consider it beneath their worthiness. If you think they're hiring because they give a shit about the lowlies who pay to keep the lights on, you haven't worked in the trade.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    True, you don't need to go out hiring journalists who have an anti-tech stance. But does anyone think print journalists haven't noticed their industry is fucked and loads of people are getting laid off? No need to break the firewall between editorial and ad sales to know that Gannett cut 400 jobs in January, McClatchy cut 450 jobs in February, BuzzFeed cut 200 jobs in January, and so on.
    - jacques_chester 8y ago
      > True, you don't need to go out hiring journalists who have an anti-tech stance. Reporting on shitty behaviour by tech companies isn't an anti-tech stance. It's reporting. If what you want is PR puff pieces and sloppy butt-kissing, Wired has the pro-tech angle well covered. I mean do you actually think it's an interview question at the Times? "Tell me how much you hate Google, in words of three syllables or less". This is a literal conspiracy theory, and it's embarrassing. Everyone hates journalists, who aren't used to dealing with them. Everyone feels victimised when it's their turn. I've seen it more than once. Hell, I've been on the receiving end of shitty coverage. But it wasn't an agenda any more complex than "does this make a good story?"
      - michaelt 8y ago
        I'm confused how you quoted my post saying you don't need to hire journalists with an anti-tech stance; and that lead you to ask if I think hating Google is an interview question at the Times? I merely find it plausible that a critical view on the tech giants is more popular among people whose jobs are threatened by tech than among the likes of us, whose jobs are created by tech. No conspiracy required for what I'm saying.
        Faark 8y ago
        So you think their business being endangered because of changes caused by tech makes them incapable of reporting about it. And that makes it totally fine to sweep their critical reporting about tech under the rug and ignore it, because there cannot be a strong bias of those criticized to live in a reality where they're not in the wrong? Yeah, I see a much stronger/more direct incentive for the second one. And this makes blanket statements in the spirit of "media cannot be unbiased about tech" on this site kinda worthless. Media does screw up and can be bias. Criticizing that on an individual case by case basis is fine. Spinning a general they-vs-us narrative less so.
- yaacov 8y ago
  Maybe... but I’ve noticed this far more at NYT than other newspapers
  - Scoundreller 8y ago
    Which doubly counters csallen's claims because the NYT is doing just fine (they're publicly traded). If anything, the majors (NYT, Guardian, The Economist, WSJ) have a lot to gain when local journalism dies because of technology.
    - csallen 8y ago
      The fact that Google was doing just fine didn't stop it from pouring everything it had into Google+ when Facebook looked unstoppable. Which is to say, the health of the current stock price doesn't preclude a business from being paranoid about the future.
- mr_toad 8y ago
  > The media has a lot to lose in a tech-dominated world. True, but the NYT was actually one of the first to try and move past their print origins and try a new business model. https://mashable.com/2014/05/16/full-new-york-times-innovation-report/ https://mashable.com/2014/05/16/full-new-york-times-innovati... They also employed Mike Bostocks (author of d3.js) for a while, and they had a highly regarded interactive section. https://bost.ocks.org/mike/ https://bost.ocks.org/mike/ Tech has been a public boogeyman for a long time. Tech causes everything from global warming to cancer.
  - DrScump 8y ago
    "the NYT was actually one of the first to try and move past their print origins and try a new business model..." One of the first? Actually, the San Jose Mercury News had its Mercury Center up and running in 1992[0]. For a time, only the Mercury and WSJ were serious players. [0] https://archives.cjr.org/feature/the_newspaper_that_almost_seized_the_future.php https://archives.cjr.org/feature/the_newspaper_that_almost_s...
jacques_chester 8y ago
> New York Times has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years. Let's be real. Tech has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
manfredo 8y ago
I've come to the conclusion that traditional media has a fundamental conflict of interest when it comes to reporting on tech. Established media players see tech as a fundamental competitor to people's attention. Tech is also eroding these media outlets' ability to steer public opinion. When readers can find primary sources easily, then there's a lot less room for editorializing. I regularly read NYT's technology section. It seems like most things have a negative slant towards them, especially when it pertains to Google, Facebook, YouTube, or other social media sites. Most of the positive pieces they run about tech serve to emphasize how different the subject is compared to the big bad tech giants.
BurningFrog 8y ago
Tech is - inadvertently, as a side effect, but still - murdering the traditional media world that NYT rules/ruled. When your whole world is being destroyed around you, it's not that strange if you develop a hostile attitude to the people doing the destroying, even if your job description is to be an "objective journalist".
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  But, corporately, NYT wants the journalism world around it destroyed. They're the best situated to benefit from it. Their stock price shows that there's no concern for their future.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    While the NYT might, their employees don’t.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jondubois 8y ago
It's anti-centralization and pro-meritocracy. If anything, it's pro-tech. There are a lot of people right now who have built great tech and real innovation which is being ignored completely because some financially successful firms with massive network effects are attracting all the talent and focusing it towards their lesser technical goals, slow processes and inferior tech. For example, AirBnB has thousands of employees and yet barely anything changed in their service in the past few years. The engineers who work there are not productive. Their main skill is in creating highly complex solutions whilst taking minimal risks; that's not what engineering is about. The same goes for almost all major software companies. Each engineer does very little work and contributes very little towards real innovation. These big network effects are holding tech back. They are draining cash away from pure tech and focusing it on social networks.

New York Times has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years. I don’t know the reason for it, but I find it very annoying

by yaacov 8y ago

New York Times has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years. I don’t know the reason for it, but I find it very annoying

gatherhunterer 8y ago

I think that they are trying to ride a wave of sentiment. You can see a similar strategy in their political coverage that causes them to do some weird things, like dismissing the accusations against Justin Fairfax. They have good writers on staff but I have found that more incisively factual coverage of major stories can always be found in The Washington Post.

csallen 8y ago

The media has a lot to lose in a tech-dominated world. They used to have a monopoly on reach. Readers came to directly to them. Today that role belongs largely to tech companies. Media companies are heavily dependent on the algorithms and whims of the likes of Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. And it's not just distribution: it's their business models, too. Apple taking a cut of NYC subscription revenue, Amazon doing similar things through its Kindle devices, Facebook and Google ads, etc. This would be an existentially terrifying position for any business to be in. And as much as the media likes to portray itself as putting truth-seeking and objectivity first, it's still very much a collection of self-interested profit-seeking businesses. When you're the media and you're faced with this situation, what do you do? What weapon do you have? Your content of course. It doesn't need to amount to full-scale propaganda or anything obvious. You simply hire writers and editors who are themselves anti-tech, and results will follow. Even if you don't hire that way as a media organization, your employees' incentives are aligned such that they should naturally lean anti-tech, given the realities of the business situation and its effect on their jobs.

jacques_chester 8y ago
Most newspapers have a clear division between the editorial and money-making parts. Journalists look down on the advertising and classifieds departments. The consider it beneath their worthiness. If you think they're hiring because they give a shit about the lowlies who pay to keep the lights on, you haven't worked in the trade.
- michaelt 8y ago
  True, you don't need to go out hiring journalists who have an anti-tech stance. But does anyone think print journalists haven't noticed their industry is fucked and loads of people are getting laid off? No need to break the firewall between editorial and ad sales to know that Gannett cut 400 jobs in January, McClatchy cut 450 jobs in February, BuzzFeed cut 200 jobs in January, and so on.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    > True, you don't need to go out hiring journalists who have an anti-tech stance. Reporting on shitty behaviour by tech companies isn't an anti-tech stance. It's reporting. If what you want is PR puff pieces and sloppy butt-kissing, Wired has the pro-tech angle well covered. I mean do you actually think it's an interview question at the Times? "Tell me how much you hate Google, in words of three syllables or less". This is a literal conspiracy theory, and it's embarrassing. Everyone hates journalists, who aren't used to dealing with them. Everyone feels victimised when it's their turn. I've seen it more than once. Hell, I've been on the receiving end of shitty coverage. But it wasn't an agenda any more complex than "does this make a good story?"
    - michaelt 8y ago
      I'm confused how you quoted my post saying you don't need to hire journalists with an anti-tech stance; and that lead you to ask if I think hating Google is an interview question at the Times? I merely find it plausible that a critical view on the tech giants is more popular among people whose jobs are threatened by tech than among the likes of us, whose jobs are created by tech. No conspiracy required for what I'm saying.
      - Faark 8y ago
        So you think their business being endangered because of changes caused by tech makes them incapable of reporting about it. And that makes it totally fine to sweep their critical reporting about tech under the rug and ignore it, because there cannot be a strong bias of those criticized to live in a reality where they're not in the wrong? Yeah, I see a much stronger/more direct incentive for the second one. And this makes blanket statements in the spirit of "media cannot be unbiased about tech" on this site kinda worthless. Media does screw up and can be bias. Criticizing that on an individual case by case basis is fine. Spinning a general they-vs-us narrative less so.
yaacov 8y ago
Maybe... but I’ve noticed this far more at NYT than other newspapers
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  Which doubly counters csallen's claims because the NYT is doing just fine (they're publicly traded). If anything, the majors (NYT, Guardian, The Economist, WSJ) have a lot to gain when local journalism dies because of technology.
  - csallen 8y ago
    The fact that Google was doing just fine didn't stop it from pouring everything it had into Google+ when Facebook looked unstoppable. Which is to say, the health of the current stock price doesn't preclude a business from being paranoid about the future.
mr_toad 8y ago
> The media has a lot to lose in a tech-dominated world. True, but the NYT was actually one of the first to try and move past their print origins and try a new business model. https://mashable.com/2014/05/16/full-new-york-times-innovation-report/ https://mashable.com/2014/05/16/full-new-york-times-innovati... They also employed Mike Bostocks (author of d3.js) for a while, and they had a highly regarded interactive section. https://bost.ocks.org/mike/ https://bost.ocks.org/mike/ Tech has been a public boogeyman for a long time. Tech causes everything from global warming to cancer.
- DrScump 8y ago
  "the NYT was actually one of the first to try and move past their print origins and try a new business model..." One of the first? Actually, the San Jose Mercury News had its Mercury Center up and running in 1992[0]. For a time, only the Mercury and WSJ were serious players. [0] https://archives.cjr.org/feature/the_newspaper_that_almost_seized_the_future.php https://archives.cjr.org/feature/the_newspaper_that_almost_s...

jacques_chester 8y ago

> New York Times has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years. Let's be real. Tech has had a consistently anti-tech slant the last few years.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

manfredo 8y ago

I've come to the conclusion that traditional media has a fundamental conflict of interest when it comes to reporting on tech. Established media players see tech as a fundamental competitor to people's attention. Tech is also eroding these media outlets' ability to steer public opinion. When readers can find primary sources easily, then there's a lot less room for editorializing. I regularly read NYT's technology section. It seems like most things have a negative slant towards them, especially when it pertains to Google, Facebook, YouTube, or other social media sites. Most of the positive pieces they run about tech serve to emphasize how different the subject is compared to the big bad tech giants.

BurningFrog 8y ago

Tech is - inadvertently, as a side effect, but still - murdering the traditional media world that NYT rules/ruled. When your whole world is being destroyed around you, it's not that strange if you develop a hostile attitude to the people doing the destroying, even if your job description is to be an "objective journalist".

Scoundreller 8y ago
But, corporately, NYT wants the journalism world around it destroyed. They're the best situated to benefit from it. Their stock price shows that there's no concern for their future.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  While the NYT might, their employees don’t.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jondubois 8y ago

It's anti-centralization and pro-meritocracy. If anything, it's pro-tech. There are a lot of people right now who have built great tech and real innovation which is being ignored completely because some financially successful firms with massive network effects are attracting all the talent and focusing it towards their lesser technical goals, slow processes and inferior tech. For example, AirBnB has thousands of employees and yet barely anything changed in their service in the past few years. The engineers who work there are not productive. Their main skill is in creating highly complex solutions whilst taking minimal risks; that's not what engineering is about. The same goes for almost all major software companies. Each engineer does very little work and contributes very little towards real innovation. These big network effects are holding tech back. They are draining cash away from pure tech and focusing it on social networks.