5 ms·

>When pressed the elites say that the reporting isn't wrong but that they should still be portrayed in a positive light. God I would love to see what you'd com

>When pressed the elites say that the reporting isn't wrong but that they should still be portrayed in a positive light. God I would love to see what you'd come up with as an example of this. Media does terrible things on a constant basis. They're smart about rarely writing since sentences that are out-and-out lies, but their portrayal of people, companies, and grand social narrative is highly motivated at every level. The reason is because every major journalistic organization is completely dominated by activists, which means that all their reporting is motivated to specific ends. Their goals isn't to tell the truth, their goal is to remake the world according to their ideology. A perception of trustworthiness is just a resource to them - to be built up in service and spent in betrayal. It's not an end in itself. This story is a great example, since it's so incredibly motivated to do damage to these people. Every quote is pulled out and placed in the most damaging light possible. It's entirely a hit piece with a single purpose and that purpose is not to give readers a rounded understanding of all sides of the situation, but to gain power. It's not a story. There is no news here. Nothing happened. It's a private conversation between friends and the only content is thought. The story is an accusation of thoughtcrime. The fact that we're hearing about it at all is an indictment of the media.

throughaweigh 6y ago
> God I would love to see what you'd come up with as an example of this. @jason on Twitter said so explicitly in the last 24 hours, pg said so on Twitter some time ago. The rest of your comment just illustrates my initial point: abstract statements, ad-hominems and proof-by-assertions. That isn't to say that the media doesn't have biases or get stories wrong. The problem is that the elites try to use those facts to discredit all accurate reporting that is harmful to their interests. The honest and convincing way to discredit an inaccurate story is to point out concretely how it is wrong, doing anything else suggests that the story is accurate.
- ericd 6y ago
  >That isn't to say that the media doesn't have biases or get stories wrong. This understates the reality, dramatically. The biases are extreme, and the bar for accuracy is generally extraordinarily low, especially in new media, but increasingly in old media trying to adapt. Oftentimes there are a number of lies of ommission/misleading statements/snippets taken out of extremely important context in order to make the reality fit into the desired narrative. Frequently they're actively trying to drum up outrage against someone or something. It's becoming a more and more destructive force. Just go look for the full quotes any time there's a blog shitstorm about something someone famous says. Sometimes, the outrage is justified, but frequently, the context completely changes the meaning of the snippet, sometimes 180 degrees from the way it's being presented in the media. I'm not at all surprised that the people you mention who've been in the media a lot are annoyed by it, they're right to be. Also, why are you on a throwaway account? PS: This reminds me of the old GW Bush "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me... you can't get fooled again". I don't know if this is true, but I've heard it explained that he realized halfway through that he couldn't say "shame on me", or it would be excerpted and used relentlessly against him.
  - throughaweigh 6y ago
    What are specific examples?
    - ericd 6y ago
      Before I spend more effort on this, why are you on a newly registered throwaway?
      - throughaweigh 6y ago
        I'm trying to quit posting here. I don't have any link to journalism if that's what you are asking. But there shouldn't be any effort involved if all of this is already as obvious as claimed.
        ericd 6y ago
        Fair enough. An example, since PG was mentioned: http://www.paulgraham.com/wids.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wids.html In this case, a word was edited out of even the context-free snippet. Feel free to look up the articles surrounding it.
        throughaweigh 6y ago
        To demonstrate an obvious pattern you need to give a set of important examples. Of course you can find selective misquoting and distortions, but that doesn't establish a pattern, much less a pattern for important cases. (But even if that pattern was established each individual story would be true or false on its own merits). That said even the example you linked isn't that strong. The omission of the word "these" in "these women" doesn't change the meaning of the paragraph because it's qualified by "they haven't been hacking for 10 years". Obviously the modified paragraph doesn't apply to women who have been hacking for 10 years. The alteration only matters if many women have been hacking for 10 years relative to men. Therefore, the altered paragraph accurately conveys the author's meaning. The same for the ambiguity as to whether "we" refers to society or YC. Either interpretation has very similar meaning ("Women aren't starting Facebook because they don't have 10 years programming experience and neither YC nor society can undo that without a time machine). Then the author talks about how they misspoke. You can't blame that on a journalist when they quote you. Even if you don't agree the excerpts are clearly not obvious examples of journalistic malpractice. And most claims of misquoting and distortion are much weaker than even this, often completely baseless.
MiroF 6y ago
> The fact that we're hearing about it at all is an indictment of the media. We have vastly different views of the role of the media and I truly hope that your view never comes to pass.
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
Certainly there can be problems with media, as well as with venture capital and their paid defenders (like the one hired by the suitcase lady mentioned in the story). But can you provide concrete problems? You talk about nothing concrete in your complaints about journalists being unfair.

throughaweigh 6y ago

> God I would love to see what you'd come up with as an example of this. @jason on Twitter said so explicitly in the last 24 hours, pg said so on Twitter some time ago. The rest of your comment just illustrates my initial point: abstract statements, ad-hominems and proof-by-assertions. That isn't to say that the media doesn't have biases or get stories wrong. The problem is that the elites try to use those facts to discredit all accurate reporting that is harmful to their interests. The honest and convincing way to discredit an inaccurate story is to point out concretely how it is wrong, doing anything else suggests that the story is accurate.

ericd 6y ago
>That isn't to say that the media doesn't have biases or get stories wrong. This understates the reality, dramatically. The biases are extreme, and the bar for accuracy is generally extraordinarily low, especially in new media, but increasingly in old media trying to adapt. Oftentimes there are a number of lies of ommission/misleading statements/snippets taken out of extremely important context in order to make the reality fit into the desired narrative. Frequently they're actively trying to drum up outrage against someone or something. It's becoming a more and more destructive force. Just go look for the full quotes any time there's a blog shitstorm about something someone famous says. Sometimes, the outrage is justified, but frequently, the context completely changes the meaning of the snippet, sometimes 180 degrees from the way it's being presented in the media. I'm not at all surprised that the people you mention who've been in the media a lot are annoyed by it, they're right to be. Also, why are you on a throwaway account? PS: This reminds me of the old GW Bush "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me... you can't get fooled again". I don't know if this is true, but I've heard it explained that he realized halfway through that he couldn't say "shame on me", or it would be excerpted and used relentlessly against him.
- throughaweigh 6y ago
  What are specific examples?
  - ericd 6y ago
    Before I spend more effort on this, why are you on a newly registered throwaway?
    - throughaweigh 6y ago
      I'm trying to quit posting here. I don't have any link to journalism if that's what you are asking. But there shouldn't be any effort involved if all of this is already as obvious as claimed.
      - ericd 6y ago
        Fair enough. An example, since PG was mentioned: http://www.paulgraham.com/wids.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wids.html In this case, a word was edited out of even the context-free snippet. Feel free to look up the articles surrounding it.
        throughaweigh 6y ago
        To demonstrate an obvious pattern you need to give a set of important examples. Of course you can find selective misquoting and distortions, but that doesn't establish a pattern, much less a pattern for important cases. (But even if that pattern was established each individual story would be true or false on its own merits). That said even the example you linked isn't that strong. The omission of the word "these" in "these women" doesn't change the meaning of the paragraph because it's qualified by "they haven't been hacking for 10 years". Obviously the modified paragraph doesn't apply to women who have been hacking for 10 years. The alteration only matters if many women have been hacking for 10 years relative to men. Therefore, the altered paragraph accurately conveys the author's meaning. The same for the ambiguity as to whether "we" refers to society or YC. Either interpretation has very similar meaning ("Women aren't starting Facebook because they don't have 10 years programming experience and neither YC nor society can undo that without a time machine). Then the author talks about how they misspoke. You can't blame that on a journalist when they quote you. Even if you don't agree the excerpts are clearly not obvious examples of journalistic malpractice. And most claims of misquoting and distortion are much weaker than even this, often completely baseless.

MiroF 6y ago

> The fact that we're hearing about it at all is an indictment of the media. We have vastly different views of the role of the media and I truly hope that your view never comes to pass.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago

Certainly there can be problems with media, as well as with venture capital and their paid defenders (like the one hired by the suitcase lady mentioned in the story). But can you provide concrete problems? You talk about nothing concrete in your complaints about journalists being unfair.