4 ms·

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 Scot

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.)
DanBC 6y ago
> the writer is hardly going to say its gonna be a hatchet job, "We have some allegations to put to you and we want to hear your side" would be one way people know it's going to be a hatchet job.

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.)

DanBC 6y ago

> the writer is hardly going to say its gonna be a hatchet job, "We have some allegations to put to you and we want to hear your side" would be one way people know it's going to be a hatchet job.