5 ms·

Article fails to defend the NYT in any substantive way, and the writer makes obvious their biases with statements like: S.S.C. supporters on Twitter were quick

Article fails to defend the NYT in any substantive way, and the writer makes obvious their biases with statements like: S.S.C. supporters on Twitter were quick to identify some of the Times’ recent concessions to pseudonymous quotation—Virgil Texas, a co-host of the podcast “Chapo Trap House,” was mentioned, as were Banksy and a member of ISIS—as if these supposed inconsistencies were dispositive proof of the paper’s secret agenda, rather than an ad-hoc and perhaps clumsy application of a flexible policy Obviously this isn't and either/or. The lumping together of all SSC supporters is another cheap rhetorical trick. In any case, no matter which of these views you hold, the examples show the policy could accommodate Scott's request for pseudonymity. Note too the lack of any real investigation or original reporting here; the author hasn't bother to talk to Metz? Additionally, it seems difficult to fathom that a professional journalist of Metz’s experience and standing would assure a subject, especially at the beginning of a process, that he planned to write a “mostly positive” story; although there often seems to be some confusion about this matter in Silicon Valley, journalism and public relations are distinct enterprises. This is just silly. How about you ask Metz? The cheap shot at all of Silicon Valley tips the hand too. This article is just more propaganda in the evolving war of words between SV and journalism.

zozbot234 6y ago
> Note too the lack of any real investigation or original reporting here; the author hasn't bother to talk to Metz? The article specifically mentions that Metz did not want to be quoted directly; most likely, the author did talk to him. (Though, it's even less clear to me why Scott would want to lie about what Metz said, so I'm definitely inclined to trust Scott's account of the matter.)
- nerfhammer 6y ago
  yea "Metz declined to comment on the record" is the author strongly hinting that he did talk to him off the record, and perhaps the author does have some idea what Metz' article would have ultimately been about. The author could have chosen to say "Metz declined to comment" which would have suggested this less.
vslira 6y ago
> This article is just more propaganda in the evolving war of words between SV and journalism. There's no war between SV and journalism, theres a feud between technologically and business savvy content companies and decaying content companies. Op-eds, moral posturing and long forms are not journalism. Journalism is a truthful representation of facts with analysis added for context to inform the readers, which the NYT and many other big names haven't delivered in decades.
- jollofricepeas 6y ago
  Along with the rest of HN, you have no idea what journalism is. When has journalism ever stuck to “facts”? When has the “news” and “history” been more than short stories and opinion? Hint: Never Read: A History of News by Mitchell Stephens https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1854941W/A_history_of_news https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1854941W/A_history_of_news Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalism The role of press is not to be “right” or even factual. The role of the press is dissent and debate. The sooner you realize this, you’ll have a deeper appreciation for even those outlets you disagree with. Read: RT, Al-Jazeera, Fox News, Guardian, WaPo, NYT, NYPost, WaTimes, National Review, New Yorker, Vice
  - thu2111 6y ago
    The role of the press is dissent and debate. Even if we take your rather controversial definition for granted, the press suck at dissent and debate as well.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      No, you suck at dissent and debate ;). So, I’m saying that to tease you, but also illustrate a point. Was your comment itself a good example of debating? Is mine a good example of dissent or debate? Are either of our comments reasoned, or specific, or providing logic or evidence to support our conclusions? Does humor belong in debate? ;) Does being annoying serve a value or is it a self-justifying position? Am I being annoying? ;)
finnthehuman 6y ago
>the writer makes obvious their biases with statements like Your refutations of the writers points on the surface level is still too charitable. The New Yorker writer knows very damn well that Metz could have just been lying to Scott about the real name "policy" and lying about the purpose of the piece in an effort to make Alexander cooperative.

zozbot234 6y ago

> Note too the lack of any real investigation or original reporting here; the author hasn't bother to talk to Metz? The article specifically mentions that Metz did not want to be quoted directly; most likely, the author did talk to him. (Though, it's even less clear to me why Scott would want to lie about what Metz said, so I'm definitely inclined to trust Scott's account of the matter.)

nerfhammer 6y ago
yea "Metz declined to comment on the record" is the author strongly hinting that he did talk to him off the record, and perhaps the author does have some idea what Metz' article would have ultimately been about. The author could have chosen to say "Metz declined to comment" which would have suggested this less.

vslira 6y ago

> This article is just more propaganda in the evolving war of words between SV and journalism. There's no war between SV and journalism, theres a feud between technologically and business savvy content companies and decaying content companies. Op-eds, moral posturing and long forms are not journalism. Journalism is a truthful representation of facts with analysis added for context to inform the readers, which the NYT and many other big names haven't delivered in decades.

jollofricepeas 6y ago
Along with the rest of HN, you have no idea what journalism is. When has journalism ever stuck to “facts”? When has the “news” and “history” been more than short stories and opinion? Hint: Never Read: A History of News by Mitchell Stephens https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1854941W/A_history_of_news https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1854941W/A_history_of_news Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism Read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French_journalism The role of press is not to be “right” or even factual. The role of the press is dissent and debate. The sooner you realize this, you’ll have a deeper appreciation for even those outlets you disagree with. Read: RT, Al-Jazeera, Fox News, Guardian, WaPo, NYT, NYPost, WaTimes, National Review, New Yorker, Vice
- thu2111 6y ago
  The role of the press is dissent and debate. Even if we take your rather controversial definition for granted, the press suck at dissent and debate as well.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    No, you suck at dissent and debate ;). So, I’m saying that to tease you, but also illustrate a point. Was your comment itself a good example of debating? Is mine a good example of dissent or debate? Are either of our comments reasoned, or specific, or providing logic or evidence to support our conclusions? Does humor belong in debate? ;) Does being annoying serve a value or is it a self-justifying position? Am I being annoying? ;)

finnthehuman 6y ago

>the writer makes obvious their biases with statements like Your refutations of the writers points on the surface level is still too charitable. The New Yorker writer knows very damn well that Metz could have just been lying to Scott about the real name "policy" and lying about the purpose of the piece in an effort to make Alexander cooperative.