4 ms·

> As someone who works at the intersection of technology and journalism, it hurts to see how many misunderstandings there are in these comments and elsewhere. T

> As someone who works at the intersection of technology and journalism, it hurts to see how many misunderstandings there are in these comments and elsewhere. The tech world (and HN in particular) deeply needs a solid explainer on how journalism works. So many misunderstandings! Are there one or two insights you could share that would make this article seem less bad than many people here perceive it to be? > And that is not to say that some of the more nuanced critiques on journalism or its implementation are not on point — as many journalists would agree! e.g. Jessica Lessin... and Taylor Lorenz The criticism isn't limited purely to monetary considerations. There are prestige and partisan political issues at stake here as well. The author touches on the political lens by bringing up the red/blue/grey tribe distinction. As for the prestige, it's worth noting how many prominent figures signed that petition. Some of the public comments of these individuals give me the impression that they trust SSC more than the NYT. My perception (in my own bubble at least) is that even if NYT's subscription revenue is doing OK, the NYT's position as the "paper of record" is in jeopardy.

wutbrodo 6y ago
> these individuals give me the impression that they trust SSC more than the NYT Anyone who's read both and trust the NYT more has severe reading comprehension issues... Note that "trust" here doesn't mean "their conclusion is definitely correct". It means trusting what's on the surface of the article: that descriptions of linked-to references aren't completely fabricated or misrepresentative, that some baseline level of honest reading of sources has been attempted, etc. This isn't quite the apples-to-apples criticism that it appears: NYT has tons of people trying to cover a big chunk of all the events of note happening, and has no way of hiring at scale that narrowly selects for particularly intellectually honest or intelligent employees. Scott is a single person who happens to be really intelligent and quite intellectually honest, and he posts at the cadence he prefers about topics that he thinks he has something valuable to say about. If he had to scale his posting to the level of the NYT's, it's probably get more untrustworthy too.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > Note that "trust" here doesn't mean "their conclusion is definitely correct" Totally agree. > This isn't quite the apples-to-apples criticism that it appears Fair, but I have have two responses to that. The first is that the ability to discover and access high quality writers (not just Scott) directly means that the NYT brand has less value. The second is that people increasingly feel that NYT has an agenda (not merely a bias) that colors the quality of their reporting.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    Sure, I don't think either of those contradict what I'm saying. I have about as low an opinion of the NYT as possible, and have for years. I just wanted to temper my criticism by saying that it'd be more difficult for them to attain trustworthiness than Scott, even if they were run and staffed with intelligence and integrity.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      I don't think we are in contradiction either. I think what I'm simply clarifying is why I am making the comparison. One point I am trying to make is that there is a shift in how some people (particularly some influential people) consume information. I'm not simply criticizing the NYT, I'm saying that it is being replaced (as the authoritative voice on current affairs) by user curated lists of independent writers.

wutbrodo 6y ago

> these individuals give me the impression that they trust SSC more than the NYT Anyone who's read both and trust the NYT more has severe reading comprehension issues... Note that "trust" here doesn't mean "their conclusion is definitely correct". It means trusting what's on the surface of the article: that descriptions of linked-to references aren't completely fabricated or misrepresentative, that some baseline level of honest reading of sources has been attempted, etc. This isn't quite the apples-to-apples criticism that it appears: NYT has tons of people trying to cover a big chunk of all the events of note happening, and has no way of hiring at scale that narrowly selects for particularly intellectually honest or intelligent employees. Scott is a single person who happens to be really intelligent and quite intellectually honest, and he posts at the cadence he prefers about topics that he thinks he has something valuable to say about. If he had to scale his posting to the level of the NYT's, it's probably get more untrustworthy too.

lliamander 6y ago
> Note that "trust" here doesn't mean "their conclusion is definitely correct" Totally agree. > This isn't quite the apples-to-apples criticism that it appears Fair, but I have have two responses to that. The first is that the ability to discover and access high quality writers (not just Scott) directly means that the NYT brand has less value. The second is that people increasingly feel that NYT has an agenda (not merely a bias) that colors the quality of their reporting.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  Sure, I don't think either of those contradict what I'm saying. I have about as low an opinion of the NYT as possible, and have for years. I just wanted to temper my criticism by saying that it'd be more difficult for them to attain trustworthiness than Scott, even if they were run and staffed with intelligence and integrity.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    I don't think we are in contradiction either. I think what I'm simply clarifying is why I am making the comparison. One point I am trying to make is that there is a shift in how some people (particularly some influential people) consume information. I'm not simply criticizing the NYT, I'm saying that it is being replaced (as the authoritative voice on current affairs) by user curated lists of independent writers.