2 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.