3 ms·

Lessig vs. NYT: Very. Good. News

36 points by jashkenas 7y ago

_bxg1 7y ago
I used to think the NYT was a bastion of real journalism, and supported them as such for a while. Eventually I picked up on their blatant sensationalism, hardly better than Fox News. I've since switched to NPR and it's a world of difference. The most blessedly dispassionate headlines you could ask for.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  I normally hate "BSAB" arguments, but in this case they are hard to defend against. The modern New York Times is basically the result of staring too long into the Fox News abyss.
  - runamok 7y ago
    I had to Google bsab to come up with "both sides are bad". Can't agree the NYT even approaches Fox though. This seems like a simple case of libel. The headline invokes a mob who will likely not even read the article which has more nuance. Just a mercenary approach to get more eyeballs aka micropennies.
listenallyall 7y ago
What the hell is going on at the New York freaking Times? It took "200 days and the filing of a federal case" before Lawrence Lessig got a correction: "An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely in the lead paragraph to the views of Professor Lawrence Lessig." Sharyl Attkisson didn't have to wait that long, but it still took the NYT quite a long time -- far longer than Twitter mobs' reactions -- before acknowledging it "referred imprecisly" to her reporting: "An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to statements made by Sharyl Attkisson. Ms. Attkisson accurately reported the number and location of U.S. coronavirus deaths, as of the date of her March 13 podcast." https://www.aim.org/aim-column/ny-times-apologizes-for-inaccurate-article-about-coronavirus-doubters/ https://www.aim.org/aim-column/ny-times-apologizes-for-inacc... https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/04/new-york-times-nyt-corrects-false-jeremy-peters-article-that-defamed-sharyl-attkisson/ https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/04/new-york-times-nyt-corre...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tom_mellior 7y ago
I agree that the lede was false, and it's good that it was changed. Not that the "corrected" version of "defend[ing] a university official who anonymously accepted donations from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein" makes Lessig look much better. As for the headline: "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret" -- Lessig literally says (https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/lessig-epstein-ito-mit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytim...) the following: "if the institution says it’s going to take this money, then at the very least it should not be offering the gift of reputation laundering for those who give it" (emphasis in the original). I don't think it's a very big stretch to summarize that as "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret". There is some context: The quote above is preceded by "No. My preference is that none of this money should be in institutions, but". But still... he said it. He could have left it at "Do you think it’s O.K. if this is kept secret?" -- "No.", and he didn't. He could have argued that the money should be passed along to a charity or whatever, and he didn't. He chose to say what he said. I hate clickbait and I respect Lessig in general, but in this instance he did indeed say what the NYT alleges that he said. And it was a dumb thing to say.

36 points by jashkenas 7y ago

I used to think the NYT was a bastion of real journalism, and supported them as such for a while. Eventually I picked up on their blatant sensationalism, hardly better than Fox News. I've since switched to NPR and it's a world of difference. The most blessedly dispassionate headlines you could ask for.

CamperBob2 7y ago
I normally hate "BSAB" arguments, but in this case they are hard to defend against. The modern New York Times is basically the result of staring too long into the Fox News abyss.
- runamok 7y ago
  I had to Google bsab to come up with "both sides are bad". Can't agree the NYT even approaches Fox though. This seems like a simple case of libel. The headline invokes a mob who will likely not even read the article which has more nuance. Just a mercenary approach to get more eyeballs aka micropennies.

listenallyall 7y ago

What the hell is going on at the New York freaking Times? It took "200 days and the filing of a federal case" before Lawrence Lessig got a correction: "An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely in the lead paragraph to the views of Professor Lawrence Lessig." Sharyl Attkisson didn't have to wait that long, but it still took the NYT quite a long time -- far longer than Twitter mobs' reactions -- before acknowledging it "referred imprecisly" to her reporting: "An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to statements made by Sharyl Attkisson. Ms. Attkisson accurately reported the number and location of U.S. coronavirus deaths, as of the date of her March 13 podcast." https://www.aim.org/aim-column/ny-times-apologizes-for-inaccurate-article-about-coronavirus-doubters/ https://www.aim.org/aim-column/ny-times-apologizes-for-inacc... https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/04/new-york-times-nyt-corrects-false-jeremy-peters-article-that-defamed-sharyl-attkisson/ https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/04/new-york-times-nyt-corre...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tom_mellior 7y ago

I agree that the lede was false, and it's good that it was changed. Not that the "corrected" version of "defend[ing] a university official who anonymously accepted donations from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein" makes Lessig look much better. As for the headline: "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret" -- Lessig literally says (https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/lessig-epstein-ito-mit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20190914091011/https://www.nytim...) the following: "if the institution says it’s going to take this money, then at the very least it should not be offering the gift of reputation laundering for those who give it" (emphasis in the original). I don't think it's a very big stretch to summarize that as "If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret". There is some context: The quote above is preceded by "No. My preference is that none of this money should be in institutions, but". But still... he said it. He could have left it at "Do you think it’s O.K. if this is kept secret?" -- "No.", and he didn't. He could have argued that the money should be passed along to a charity or whatever, and he didn't. He chose to say what he said. I hate clickbait and I respect Lessig in general, but in this instance he did indeed say what the NYT alleges that he said. And it was a dumb thing to say.