4 ms·
> 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 appear
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoI 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.