5 ms·

This is fascinating. It's a New York take on the Bay Area take on New York. It's the Media take on the Tech take on Media. It's illuminating, and frustrating. I

by cwp 6y ago

This is fascinating. It's a New York take on the Bay Area take on New York. It's the Media take on the Tech take on Media. It's illuminating, and frustrating. I keep looking for some reflection, some attempt to learn something from another point of view. I'll have to read it again more closely.

dvtrn 6y ago
I had a very similar take (probably not precise), and like you I'm about to start a second reading, to say "this is a fascinating read to me, personally" must come with the caveat lector that I'm not making any value judgements.
fmajid 6y ago
Scott Alexander only recently moved to the Bay Area, and as a clinician, he is very unlikely to be associated with any tech companies, although many techies read his blog, of course. The NYT behavior here was despicable. Not quite Wen-Ho Lee yellow-baiting despicable, but despicable nonetheless. The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surprisingly as their livelihoods are evaporating. That said, the reason this is happening is not tech companies, but the take-over of news companies by entertainment conglomerates, the replacement of actual reporting by infotainment goop, and the turning of reporting from a slightly disreputable working-class scrabble to a respectable profession for fancy liberal-arts college graduates who would never dream of being rude to their fellow classmates working in PR, law or other professions dedicated to preserving the status quo, let alone afflicting the comfortable.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surprisingly as their livelihoods are evaporating. You really got to love how thin-skinned all the tech bros here are if they even receive the tiniest amount of scrutiny. You legitimately sound like Donald Trump ranting about the "failing New York Times", mocking people's livelihood evaporating? What kind of comment is that? And how is the New Yorker "infotainment"? How is the NYT? The quality of reporting at either institution is the same it's always been, in fact they're doing better than they've done in a long time. What's wrong with a liberal-arts education or being a lawyer? They're defending the status quo? Who brought Theranos to public attention, or Epstein, or Weinstein or much of the behaviour of the current administration over the last few years? Not Scott Alexander or the tech sector, they're too busy running their ads or writing arcane blog posts about the dangers of feminism with comment sections full of racists.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    There were lots of very clear warnings about the whole Theranos situation at places like HN, well before the story hit the most elite media. The red flags were quite visible, and people did point them out. For that matter, Scott Alexander and the rationalist community in general are more insightful than even the most famous policy wonks and pundits. They don't do paid-for investigative journalism? Maybe, but so what - public policy commentary is just as impactful on its own terms.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Not sure why parent comment is grayed out; seems like it’s more for its viewpoint than anything else. Not that different in tone or broad assertions from lots of other posts in this thread.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  Writers who write for The New Yorker are not worried about their livelihoods evaporating because local papers are going bust any more than tenured professors at Harvard are endangered by funding cuts at Directional Statename University. I keep seeing variations of your take, where techie types are convinced that journos have a chip on their shoulder. But the genuinely elite media types (in contrast to out-of-work former gawker writers) probably don't give two shits about us. We're just a bunch of nerds with nothing meaningful to add to the discourse.
DavidVoid 6y ago
As a European whose exposure to SV's culture and politics has mainly been through HN and similar sites, it definitely was a fascinating read. Apart from some unfair points (the definition of doxxing for example), I think it was a pretty reasonable old media take on SV tech libertarianish viewpoints. It's a political and cultural disagreement that I don't think has a clear-cut "good" and "bad" side, but it's certainly an interesting back-and-forth discussion to follow.
dash2 6y ago
Agreed. I think there's a lot of overreaction in these comments. Yes, the writer has his own point of view, but he tries pretty hard to be fair and balanced, and I learnt a lot from reading it.

by cwp 6y ago

dvtrn 6y ago

I had a very similar take (probably not precise), and like you I'm about to start a second reading, to say "this is a fascinating read to me, personally" must come with the caveat lector that I'm not making any value judgements.

fmajid 6y ago

Scott Alexander only recently moved to the Bay Area, and as a clinician, he is very unlikely to be associated with any tech companies, although many techies read his blog, of course. The NYT behavior here was despicable. Not quite Wen-Ho Lee yellow-baiting despicable, but despicable nonetheless. The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surprisingly as their livelihoods are evaporating. That said, the reason this is happening is not tech companies, but the take-over of news companies by entertainment conglomerates, the replacement of actual reporting by infotainment goop, and the turning of reporting from a slightly disreputable working-class scrabble to a respectable profession for fancy liberal-arts college graduates who would never dream of being rude to their fellow classmates working in PR, law or other professions dedicated to preserving the status quo, let alone afflicting the comfortable.

Barrin92 6y ago
>The New Yorker shares the same envious hatred of tech companies most of the New York media scene seems to evince, not surprisingly as their livelihoods are evaporating. You really got to love how thin-skinned all the tech bros here are if they even receive the tiniest amount of scrutiny. You legitimately sound like Donald Trump ranting about the "failing New York Times", mocking people's livelihood evaporating? What kind of comment is that? And how is the New Yorker "infotainment"? How is the NYT? The quality of reporting at either institution is the same it's always been, in fact they're doing better than they've done in a long time. What's wrong with a liberal-arts education or being a lawyer? They're defending the status quo? Who brought Theranos to public attention, or Epstein, or Weinstein or much of the behaviour of the current administration over the last few years? Not Scott Alexander or the tech sector, they're too busy running their ads or writing arcane blog posts about the dangers of feminism with comment sections full of racists.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  There were lots of very clear warnings about the whole Theranos situation at places like HN, well before the story hit the most elite media. The red flags were quite visible, and people did point them out. For that matter, Scott Alexander and the rationalist community in general are more insightful than even the most famous policy wonks and pundits. They don't do paid-for investigative journalism? Maybe, but so what - public policy commentary is just as impactful on its own terms.
- adamsea 6y ago
  Not sure why parent comment is grayed out; seems like it’s more for its viewpoint than anything else. Not that different in tone or broad assertions from lots of other posts in this thread.
ForHackernews 6y ago
Writers who write for The New Yorker are not worried about their livelihoods evaporating because local papers are going bust any more than tenured professors at Harvard are endangered by funding cuts at Directional Statename University. I keep seeing variations of your take, where techie types are convinced that journos have a chip on their shoulder. But the genuinely elite media types (in contrast to out-of-work former gawker writers) probably don't give two shits about us. We're just a bunch of nerds with nothing meaningful to add to the discourse.

DavidVoid 6y ago

As a European whose exposure to SV's culture and politics has mainly been through HN and similar sites, it definitely was a fascinating read. Apart from some unfair points (the definition of doxxing for example), I think it was a pretty reasonable old media take on SV tech libertarianish viewpoints. It's a political and cultural disagreement that I don't think has a clear-cut "good" and "bad" side, but it's certainly an interesting back-and-forth discussion to follow.

dash2 6y ago

Agreed. I think there's a lot of overreaction in these comments. Yes, the writer has his own point of view, but he tries pretty hard to be fair and balanced, and I learnt a lot from reading it.