8 ms·

Even though the article was going to be positive No. That's what the NYT said it was going to be. Despite Professor Aaronson's assurances of the writer's good

Even though the article was going to be positive No. That's what the NYT said it was going to be. Despite Professor Aaronson's assurances of the writer's good character and pure intentions in this case, Scott Alexander - apart from his duty of care to his clients - is wise to not take that for granted considering his open-minded approach to various subjects which is liable by certain elements of the Ctrl-Left to warrant a cancel-attack.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pvg 6y ago
That's what the NYT said it was going to be. That's what Scott Alexander said the NYT writer said. Everything we know about this story is entirely his portrayal and version of it. You can give it as much credence as you like but it is, so far, one party's representation.
- tgb 6y ago
  Well it's also what Scott Aaron's on says about the story, as he explains in this post, he knew the writer and knew the story he was working on.
  - pvg 6y ago
    He doesn't really say anything about the story. He says he knows the journalist and believes them to be well-intentioned. A well-intentioned journalist can find something worth reporting that the subject of the reporting doesn't like. We don't really know anything about the story other than what subjects and sources have inferred about it. Such inferences aren't always accurate and they certainly shouldn't be attributed to the writer before they've actually said or published anything themselves.
    - tgb 6y ago
      Aaronson was interviewed for this story and gave has (positive) opinion about the story specifically to Alexander.
      - pvg 6y ago
        It's not what the linked piece says. It says he vouched for the journalist's good intentions. No journalist is going to offer you a promise they're writing a positive story, it's not a sensible way for journalism to work.
        tgb 6y ago
        No, he indicates his familiarity with that specific story (unless the author was writing two stories on the same community within weeks of each other) and not just the author. He was interview for that story and judged it likely to be positive. Therefore we have two people's opinion of the story, that both have partial information is irrelevant.
- nkurz 6y ago
  > Everything we know about this story is entirely his portrayal and version of it. This isn't true. Multiple other people on the SSC blog talked with the reporter, and they publicly compared notes on their impressions. Just because you haven't read these other sources doesn't allow you to claim that these versions don't exist. Wait... Even the linked piece by Aaronson says: So in recent weeks, I’d spent a couple hours on the phone with Cade, answering his questions about the rationality community, the history of my interactions with it, and why I thought SlateStarCodex spoke to so many readers. So presumably you have read reports from at least two people who had contact with the reporter. Why then do you say that it is solely "one party's representation"?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pvg 6y ago
    The comment I'm replying to suggests the journalist maybe misrepresented the nature of the story. The evidence for this is, well, none. And as to the nature of the story itself, we have neither the story nor the journalist's description of the interactions in question.
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      The comment I'm replying to suggests the journalist maybe misrepresented the nature of the story. Please don't misrepresent my comment. I merely clarified that Professor Aaronson's account of the NYT's intent (and even assuming its good faith, the consequences of the piece for Scott Alexander) is opinion only.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - pvg 6y ago
        I'm ok with how I've represented your comment. You are not 'merely clarifying', you're implying the journalist is being dishonest. Then you slather on the conspiratorial 'certain elements of the Ctrl-Left to warrant a cancel-attack'. It's a comment that would only benefit from some misrepresentation since the more literally one reads it, the worse it sounds.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  This doesn't make sense - the writer is hardly going to say its gonna be a hatchet job, and if he said it was going to be anything other than positive then Scott Alexander would have mentioned that as it would have made his caution all the more understandable. There is no reason to disbelieve that the writer said it was going to be positive and that Professor Aaronson believed him from experience.
  - pvg 6y ago
    There is no reason to disbelieve the subjects of this potential story got the impression the story is going to be positive. This happens a lot and sometimes turns out to be inaccurate, it's at the center of lots of post-publication journalism kerfuffles. But we haven't seen the story. We haven't heard the journalist's description of any of these interactions. All we have are the impressions and recollections of one side.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      It would be truly strange for the NYT to dox a pseudonymous blogger against their directly expressed wishes in a puff piece about that pseudonymous blogger. I believe that Scott Alexander believes that’s what’s was going to happen, but the motives just don’t line up.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > This doesn't make sense - the writer is hardly going to say its gonna be a hatchet job The writer doesn't have to make any representation at all that it will have a spin. > and if he said it was going to be anything other than positive then Scott Alexander would have mentioned that as it would have made his caution all the more understandable. It would have made his projected sense of betrayal after cooperation in the piece less understandable if the journalist hadn't explicitly promised favorable coverage. To characterize intended tone before research is complete is to hold oneself out as doing propaganda (promotion, specifically, when what is promised is positive coverage of a subject) rather than journalism, and it's obviously a betrayal if someone offers you promotion and then turns around and reveals information you'd rather not have revealed, whereas a journalist doing neutral journalism revealing facts about an active participant in public debate that that participant doesn't want publicly disclosed is...not even remotely noteworthy as such (though the facts so revealed might be.)
- jefftk 6y ago
  I was interviewed for the article, and it did seem like it was likely to be positive. The questions Metz was asking were things like (paraphrased) "how did SSC and rationalists end up being so ahead of the curve on COVID?" and "Does this mean that we should take them more seriously on AI?"
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Here I'll out myself as on the "loathing" side of Scott Alexander receptivity so I can ask: what was the SSC take on COVID? In what ways were they ahead of the curve? (I'll have no trouble believing they were; COVID really seems to have scrombled everyone's brains).
    - scarmig 6y ago
      Two weeks or so ahead of the "mainstream" (whatever that is) in realizing it will likely be a huge deal for the world. That said, there were plenty of other larger outlets (like Vox) that were also ahead of the curve in the same sense.
      - kilotaras 6y ago
        Vox published both "not going to be a pandemic" and "flu is worse" in early February.
        jefftk 6y ago
        Vox was pretty mixed, I think reflecting some internal disagreement. Ex: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe... was dismissive: "The public concern from Silicon Valley leaders or companies has not been discriminatory, but the extreme caution some are taking does raise questions about the appropriate level of response. There’s always a chance that the coronavirus could get out of control in tech’s backyard, but to a large extent, people’s individual power to control that is limited, and some may see measures like no-handshake rules as a step too far." Similarly the now-deleted "is this going to be a deadly pandemic: no" tweet https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 On the other hand, Kelsey Piper's https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronavirus-wuhan-panic-pandemic-outbreak https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronav... was good and timely, and Dylan Mathews' https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-coronavirus-who-china-wuhan-pandemic-response https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-cor... was also pretty good.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pvg 6y ago

That's what the NYT said it was going to be. That's what Scott Alexander said the NYT writer said. Everything we know about this story is entirely his portrayal and version of it. You can give it as much credence as you like but it is, so far, one party's representation.

tgb 6y ago
Well it's also what Scott Aaron's on says about the story, as he explains in this post, he knew the writer and knew the story he was working on.
- pvg 6y ago
  He doesn't really say anything about the story. He says he knows the journalist and believes them to be well-intentioned. A well-intentioned journalist can find something worth reporting that the subject of the reporting doesn't like. We don't really know anything about the story other than what subjects and sources have inferred about it. Such inferences aren't always accurate and they certainly shouldn't be attributed to the writer before they've actually said or published anything themselves.
  - tgb 6y ago
    Aaronson was interviewed for this story and gave has (positive) opinion about the story specifically to Alexander.
    - pvg 6y ago
      It's not what the linked piece says. It says he vouched for the journalist's good intentions. No journalist is going to offer you a promise they're writing a positive story, it's not a sensible way for journalism to work.
      - tgb 6y ago
        No, he indicates his familiarity with that specific story (unless the author was writing two stories on the same community within weeks of each other) and not just the author. He was interview for that story and judged it likely to be positive. Therefore we have two people's opinion of the story, that both have partial information is irrelevant.
nkurz 6y ago
> Everything we know about this story is entirely his portrayal and version of it. This isn't true. Multiple other people on the SSC blog talked with the reporter, and they publicly compared notes on their impressions. Just because you haven't read these other sources doesn't allow you to claim that these versions don't exist. Wait... Even the linked piece by Aaronson says: So in recent weeks, I’d spent a couple hours on the phone with Cade, answering his questions about the rationality community, the history of my interactions with it, and why I thought SlateStarCodex spoke to so many readers. So presumably you have read reports from at least two people who had contact with the reporter. Why then do you say that it is solely "one party's representation"?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pvg 6y ago
  The comment I'm replying to suggests the journalist maybe misrepresented the nature of the story. The evidence for this is, well, none. And as to the nature of the story itself, we have neither the story nor the journalist's description of the interactions in question.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    The comment I'm replying to suggests the journalist maybe misrepresented the nature of the story. Please don't misrepresent my comment. I merely clarified that Professor Aaronson's account of the NYT's intent (and even assuming its good faith, the consequences of the piece for Scott Alexander) is opinion only.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pvg 6y ago
      I'm ok with how I've represented your comment. You are not 'merely clarifying', you're implying the journalist is being dishonest. Then you slather on the conspiratorial 'certain elements of the Ctrl-Left to warrant a cancel-attack'. It's a comment that would only benefit from some misrepresentation since the more literally one reads it, the worse it sounds.
mellosouls 6y ago
This doesn't make sense - the writer is hardly going to say its gonna be a hatchet job, and if he said it was going to be anything other than positive then Scott Alexander would have mentioned that as it would have made his caution all the more understandable. There is no reason to disbelieve that the writer said it was going to be positive and that Professor Aaronson believed him from experience.
- pvg 6y ago
  There is no reason to disbelieve the subjects of this potential story got the impression the story is going to be positive. This happens a lot and sometimes turns out to be inaccurate, it's at the center of lots of post-publication journalism kerfuffles. But we haven't seen the story. We haven't heard the journalist's description of any of these interactions. All we have are the impressions and recollections of one side.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    It would be truly strange for the NYT to dox a pseudonymous blogger against their directly expressed wishes in a puff piece about that pseudonymous blogger. I believe that Scott Alexander believes that’s what’s was going to happen, but the motives just don’t line up.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This doesn't make sense - the writer is hardly going to say its gonna be a hatchet job The writer doesn't have to make any representation at all that it will have a spin. > and if he said it was going to be anything other than positive then Scott Alexander would have mentioned that as it would have made his caution all the more understandable. It would have made his projected sense of betrayal after cooperation in the piece less understandable if the journalist hadn't explicitly promised favorable coverage. To characterize intended tone before research is complete is to hold oneself out as doing propaganda (promotion, specifically, when what is promised is positive coverage of a subject) rather than journalism, and it's obviously a betrayal if someone offers you promotion and then turns around and reveals information you'd rather not have revealed, whereas a journalist doing neutral journalism revealing facts about an active participant in public debate that that participant doesn't want publicly disclosed is...not even remotely noteworthy as such (though the facts so revealed might be.)
jefftk 6y ago
I was interviewed for the article, and it did seem like it was likely to be positive. The questions Metz was asking were things like (paraphrased) "how did SSC and rationalists end up being so ahead of the curve on COVID?" and "Does this mean that we should take them more seriously on AI?"
- tptacek 6y ago
  Here I'll out myself as on the "loathing" side of Scott Alexander receptivity so I can ask: what was the SSC take on COVID? In what ways were they ahead of the curve? (I'll have no trouble believing they were; COVID really seems to have scrombled everyone's brains).
  - scarmig 6y ago
    Two weeks or so ahead of the "mainstream" (whatever that is) in realizing it will likely be a huge deal for the world. That said, there were plenty of other larger outlets (like Vox) that were also ahead of the curve in the same sense.
    - kilotaras 6y ago
      Vox published both "not going to be a pandemic" and "flu is worse" in early February.
      - jefftk 6y ago
        Vox was pretty mixed, I think reflecting some internal disagreement. Ex: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe... was dismissive: "The public concern from Silicon Valley leaders or companies has not been discriminatory, but the extreme caution some are taking does raise questions about the appropriate level of response. There’s always a chance that the coronavirus could get out of control in tech’s backyard, but to a large extent, people’s individual power to control that is limited, and some may see measures like no-handshake rules as a step too far." Similarly the now-deleted "is this going to be a deadly pandemic: no" tweet https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912 On the other hand, Kelsey Piper's https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronavirus-wuhan-panic-pandemic-outbreak https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/6/21121303/coronav... was good and timely, and Dylan Mathews' https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-coronavirus-who-china-wuhan-pandemic-response https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/4/21117505/new-cor... was also pretty good.