4 ms·

I (and people I directly worked with) have been interviewed a couple of times by what one would call "mainstream press". Once by a NY Times columnist and anothe

by m0zg 7y ago

I (and people I directly worked with) have been interviewed a couple of times by what one would call "mainstream press". Once by a NY Times columnist and another time by TechCrunch. The resulting articles bore very little semblance to what we said, omitted crucial facts, and contained the kinds of exaggerations that neither I nor any of the people interviewed would ever make. I'm talking "breaking the laws of physics" kind of exaggerations, and making it look like we said things that not only aren't true now, but will never be true in the future, which is something that would be immediately obvious to a technically competent person in our field of work. Nothing changes one's view of the press quite as readily as being a part of the news. I'd wager the majority of what you see and read is handpicked BS made to fit an agenda, and outright lies to drive traffic aren't as infrequent as you think. If you think the tech press is any different, you're naive. There's really no incentive structure currently in place for reporting to be factual and balanced. You always get the behavior you reward. I now always try to "read between the lines", like I would back in the Soviet Union when reading Pravda.

nova22033 7y ago
Were you quoted by name?
- m0zg 7y ago
  Don't think I was, but our CEO and CTO were.
reaperducer 7y ago
I was going to ask if you contacted The Times about this. It used to take such things very seriously. Then after I did a search for the Times' ombudsman, I came across an article stating that it eliminated its Public Editor position in 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/public-editor/liz-spayd-final-public-editor-column.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/public-editor/liz-spayd-f... While The Times is prolific in its corrections, all I can find now is this sentence: "Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-844-NYT-NEWS."
- m0zg 7y ago
  What would be the point? We got our "free PR", and nobody reads retractions anyway.
  - mattigames 7y ago
    Retractions are always a small corner while the original story got a full page. They fear saying "we were wrong" too many times could affect their credibility and therefore their (economic) bottom line.
ilaksh 7y ago
State propaganda is a key function of mainstream outlets like the New York Times. Same in all countries. People just grow up brainwashed into thinking that their country has made a break from history.
- komali2 7y ago
  What makes you believe the new York Times works with the US government to publish stories that benefit the interests of the US government? What mechanism do you believe the US government uses to reward the nytimes for publishing propaganda? Do they get a black money payment? Do they get not-jailed (as in China?)
  - m0zg 7y ago
    More importantly: in the situation where the majority of "free" press is controlled by 5-6 people, it's more profitable to exert this market power rather than to do government bidding for free. So US press is not quite Pravda, but it also has very little to do with reporting the facts, and that factual component has markedly diminished as the press entered a period of decline 10-15 years ago. Now it's just mostly driving clicks through opinion columns misrepresented as news, and fomenting outrage.
    - mattigames 7y ago
      There are a few columns that do not missrepresent the facts by some ethical journalists but due existing in the same websites and news outlets where columns that only exist to drive clicks is hard for the readers to tell them apart. As an aside is interesting you are being downvoted and flagged, it seems as censoring more than people just disagreeing
      - m0zg 7y ago
        It's pretty much down to Glenn Greenwald now. I struggle to name another journalist whose work I would be inclined to take at face value, without immediately trying to figure out what agenda the author is trying to push, or searching for sources to confirm I'm being lied to.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by m0zg 7y ago

nova22033 7y ago

Were you quoted by name?

m0zg 7y ago
Don't think I was, but our CEO and CTO were.

reaperducer 7y ago

I was going to ask if you contacted The Times about this. It used to take such things very seriously. Then after I did a search for the Times' ombudsman, I came across an article stating that it eliminated its Public Editor position in 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/public-editor/liz-spayd-final-public-editor-column.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/public-editor/liz-spayd-f... While The Times is prolific in its corrections, all I can find now is this sentence: "Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-844-NYT-NEWS."

m0zg 7y ago
What would be the point? We got our "free PR", and nobody reads retractions anyway.
- mattigames 7y ago
  Retractions are always a small corner while the original story got a full page. They fear saying "we were wrong" too many times could affect their credibility and therefore their (economic) bottom line.

ilaksh 7y ago

State propaganda is a key function of mainstream outlets like the New York Times. Same in all countries. People just grow up brainwashed into thinking that their country has made a break from history.

komali2 7y ago
What makes you believe the new York Times works with the US government to publish stories that benefit the interests of the US government? What mechanism do you believe the US government uses to reward the nytimes for publishing propaganda? Do they get a black money payment? Do they get not-jailed (as in China?)
- m0zg 7y ago
  More importantly: in the situation where the majority of "free" press is controlled by 5-6 people, it's more profitable to exert this market power rather than to do government bidding for free. So US press is not quite Pravda, but it also has very little to do with reporting the facts, and that factual component has markedly diminished as the press entered a period of decline 10-15 years ago. Now it's just mostly driving clicks through opinion columns misrepresented as news, and fomenting outrage.
  - mattigames 7y ago
    There are a few columns that do not missrepresent the facts by some ethical journalists but due existing in the same websites and news outlets where columns that only exist to drive clicks is hard for the readers to tell them apart. As an aside is interesting you are being downvoted and flagged, it seems as censoring more than people just disagreeing
    - m0zg 7y ago
      It's pretty much down to Glenn Greenwald now. I struggle to name another journalist whose work I would be inclined to take at face value, without immediately trying to figure out what agenda the author is trying to push, or searching for sources to confirm I'm being lied to.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]