14 ms·

"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an o

• fermienrico 6y ago
  > "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Isn't Truth == Reality by definition?
• hindsightbias 6y ago
  What’s the aggregate toll on life and human suffering from Operation Iraqi Freedom?
• uncoder0 6y ago
  Whats worse is this phenomenon isn't contained to the NYT all media it appears is infected.
  • banads 6y ago
    Not surprising considering the extreme consolidation of mass media corporations over the past 50 years.
  • shuntress 6y ago
    It is somewhat alarming to see this hostile and dehumanizing language (referring to "all media" as "infected") and makes me automatically skeptical of your point-of-view.
    • BTCOG 6y ago
      This Marxist/Leninist ideology is taking over, and started in the schools/colleges. Next, after thoroughly injecting into us what social agenda we shall believe, the ideology seeks to remove the nuclear family as well as all private property. Just listen, we know what's best for you! You've had a little bit too much to think.
      • dang 6y ago
        Please don't do this here. I realize the topic is inflammatory but this sort of generic ideological rant is particularly off topic on HN. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20ideolog&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
        • BTCOG 6y ago
          Sorry, dang. I'll leave it at that. I understand it's inflammatory. I do however believe it's very relevant to the ongoing cancel and cultural warfare.
    • bpyne 6y ago
      I suspect we have some "deep staters" in attendance. Everything you know, you don't. Everything you believe is false. A liberal conspiracy exists and it's hiding in plain sight. If you ignore these "throw the baby out with the bathwater" comments, some good discussion is being had.
      • Rick1 6y ago
        ...and it's the others who believe in conspiracy theories? The "deep staters" you call them?
        • bpyne 6y ago
          I didn't invent it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_State... I discovered it on July 4 when people I passingly know on FB took a pledge to QAnon. Looking up QAnon brought me to the Deep State conspiracy belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon One characteristic of it is a deep distrust of "the media".
    • Rick1 6y ago
      This is a well phrased variant of: "since they're critical, they must be wrong".
      • badrequest 6y ago
        You can be critical without being dehumanizing.
        • uncoder0 6y ago
          Is 'infected' really dehumanizing? Groups of humans can be infected with a disease, ideology, etc. I didn't mean to sound dehumanizing I'm just frustrated by the lack of reliable information about the world we live in.
  • newsclues 6y ago
    I think the point is that the media has been over run with a virus of the mind, and EVEN the NYT has become infected
    • uncoder0 6y ago
      That's exactly what I was trying to articulate. Thanks for saying it more eloquently.
  • hintymad 6y ago
    I'm not sure about "all media", but CNN is definite worse, and WaPo is on par with NYT in pushing their narratives.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• seppin 6y ago
  She is mad that her ideas aren't part of the so-called "orthodoxy", so he's either going somewhere where she becomes one of those "enlightened few" she claims to dislike (right wing media), or go independent and be the queen of her own kingdom and never had to explain herself (debate) to anyone. It's all very predictable, down to the resignation later written for us (the public) and not particularly to her employers.
  • mikece 6y ago
    I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe (and I'm pretty sure she's been on since and will almost certainly be making a visit again soon as she's "news hot" right now which is the best time for an interview). As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting where the conversation goes far beyond sound bites and delves deep into the explanations for why the interviewees believe what they believe (and what their sources for believing that are) could legitimately be the near-future of media. Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions... in short, an exchange of ideas in a public forum.
    • leephillips 6y ago
      Can you give me an exmaple of an intelligent discussion there? I’m genuinely curious. I’ve watched parts of a few of his chats with interesting people, such as Sam Harris, but I didn’t last long, as they veered immediately into vapidity and stayed there. (I agree he’s civil, though.)
      • mrandolph 6y ago
        I find that the more specialist the guest, the more interesting the conversation, especially when Rogan just shuts his mouth and listens to someone passionate about their field. Lex Fridman, Brian Cox, and Sean Carroll had--in my opinion--super interesting and engaging episodes. That being said, there are currently over 1500 episodes, so there are definitely a good number of fluff episodes in the mix as well. Edit: Just thought of a couple more who I found quite interesting. Paul Stamets and Michael Pollen both discussed in their respective episodes research they both participated in, which made them continuous episodes with a fascinating topic.
• prepend 6y ago
  I’ve watched this with interest over the years as readership drops to a smaller group that spends more. I believe NYT is still profitable despite lower circulation. I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth. I’m not sure how to measure this. It’s based on my own technique of when I encounter someone speaking false reality I try to understand and come to some common understanding. Sometimes I have it wrong. But if I don’t have a standing relationship with someone who frequently doesn’t operate in reality, I just ignore or unsubscribe. I assume they carry on. In NYT’s case they carry on and have even more subscribers who like this version of reality. So it’s a bit of a spiral. I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.
  • burnte 6y ago
    > I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth. The NYT's subscription rates are way up since Trump was elected. > I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted. You already stated why they're seeing such success. "the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth."
    • prepend 6y ago
      Digital subscribers have been consistently up since they started a digital subscription [0] but I meant actual readers since I think digital subscriptions earn less than historical subscribers and number of subscribers has a lot of variability of what price is paid. I was thinking of their profit and revenue [1] that keeps trending down (although this year is up). That’s probably a better sign of actual readers over time, I think. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/315041/new-york-times-company-digital-subscribers/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/315041/new-york-times-co... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-new-york-times-company-since-2006/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne...
• jrumbut 6y ago
  They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world? Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). Weird puff pieces, drama on the editorial pages (what else would there be?), declining standards, you could find the same complaints any year since the first newspaper. I can't take them too seriously until I see an alternative that does the work of collective discovery. [1] https://www.nytco.com/journalism/journalists-on-the-ground/ https://www.nytco.com/journalism/journalists-on-the-ground/
  • rur73u3yry 6y ago
    > Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). < Reuters, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, and Fox News all come to mind for the metrics you've brought up. The NYT is not a peerless entity. I'm sure people will bemoan Fox News being on that list but they're none the less one of the largest news orgs in the country and their actual news segments aren't wildly different from what other orgs pump out.
  • 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    > I can't take them too seriously until I see an alternative that does the work of collective discovery. There is an alternative. It is you and I. The citizen journalist will become the arbiter of truth tomorrow. And that arbitration will be decided on rationality. There will be no more credentialism and gatekeeping. That is why the traditional media companies are scared shitless.
    • api 6y ago
      > There is an alternative. It is you and I. How do I tell the difference between an honest citizen journalist, a propagandist, a liar, a lunatic, or a troll? Conventional journalism of course is not perfectly trustworthy, but at least there is some penalty for extreme untrustworthiness in the form of loss of reputation of the paper and its brand. The NYT is an illustrative case. My opinion of that paper dropped significantly after its role in providing only the most softball criticism of the (then impending) Iraq invasion. I'm not the only person I've heard say this. NYT paid a price for cheerleading for that disaster.
• Benjammer 6y ago
  That just sounds like bluster and emotion to me though. Why is truth not a process of collective discovery? Is this implying that truth used to be this and now is not? What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper? What evidence is there that this used to be the case and now is not? What is the new "orthodoxy"? Are you able to describe this orthodoxy in specific terms and not just labels? Who are these "enlightened few"? What do you mean by "whose job it is"? When have these "few" "informed everyone else", specifically? I do not mean to imply there are no answers to these questions, or that the answers will fall one way or the other. I just fail to see why I should take those statements seriously as "a very key point" without a lot more explanation and evidence. She starts to explain a few things before these statements that sound interesting, but then immediately starts ranting about Twitter instead.
  • jkingsbery 6y ago
    > What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper? National Review will often have a chain of columns between two of its writers going back and forth debating the merits of a particular position. That is what collective discovery should look like - a publication should encourage views that the editors might disagree with in order to understand the different perspectives on a topic. Now, it's all about people "canceling" each other. > What is the new "orthodoxy"? I thought this was made pretty clear - the new orthodoxy is the Progressive Left way of thinking. Given that a term is a label, I'm not sure what would clear it up, but she does give examples of things that went against the orthodoxy (Tom Cotton's op-ed), and what it consists of (in the paragraph starting "All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers..."). >
    • Benjammer 6y ago
      I mostly intended these questions rhetorically, or directed at Bari herself, as opposed to really wanting another HN commenter to go down the line and "respond" to each one. I don't know how productive that is going to be on this forum.
• threatofrain 6y ago
  If you contradict yourself, provide an image that you along with the experts are figuring out the truth, then you could possibly do more to damage your credibility than if you had instead just endlessly projected strength until your successor forcibly took you down in their own endless display of indomitable leadership. When uncertainty and fear strikes people want strong leadership, not one that is still doing research to figure out what's next (even if that's a strong move).
• duxup 6y ago
  How do we determine that though? I say it is way too easy to BELIEVE that the motives of people who do things we don't like ... are wrong / they're pushing a POV. I see these types of accusations thrown around a lot, even on HN, "oh this writer doesn't like Tesla" and I very rarely see anything but what appears to be an emotional appeal to others who don't like that news story. It's just so easy to think someone else must have some ulterior motive, otherwise they wouldn't logically have come to that conclusion...
• maxwin 6y ago
  “Especially at the New York Times” ??? Seriously? How about Fox News. NYT May have some issues but they are still 1000X more accurate and honest than conservative media like Fox News. Media like Fox News is destroying America. That’s the real danger.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • martincmartin 6y ago
    Two wrongs don't make a right.
  • maverick2007 6y ago
    Fox News is absolutely bad for the country but can't we condemn it when we see similar tactics on both sides of the aisle? Condemning NYT for its wrongs doesn't make Fox any less bad.
  • epicureanideal 6y ago
    Sounds like it's pretty bad at the NY Times. "My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in."
  • beaner 6y ago
    This is a political opinion.
  • Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    If your standard of truth is the narrative of the week at the NYT then Fox News would seem to be dishonest and untruthful.
• makomk 6y ago
  What makes this really ugly right now is that the New York Times thinks that the coronavirus pandemic is going to get Trump voted out of office, and their need to push hard on the idea that it's all his fault has really done a number on their reporting about the biggest crisis facing the world. Especially once it turned out all that the success story countries they pointed to as proof America could've done better if not for Trump weren't succeeding after all, and once America went from having a terrible testing program to one of the best to no avail despite the supposed vital importance of testing playing a huge part in their blame-Trump narrative.
  • strogonoff 6y ago
    > America went from having a terrible testing program to one of the best Any sources on nCoV-2 testing program in the US? Genuinely curious, social media (that I can see from inside my bubble) is mostly buzzing with how bad things are all around, but then people rarely take the time to voice positive changes.
    • makomk 6y ago
      You can get a very rough idea of how countries are doing by looking at the tests per capita figures here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (click to sort). Obviously this isn't the only aspect that matters, but it's going to be hard to get a more detailed view that doesn't just tell you whatever country you're in sucks compared to everyone else. The major countries with widespread coronavirus testing on there are - in order - the UK, Russia, the US, Spain and Australia, and I can tell you that our press here in the UK has been pushing almost as hard on the narrative that we're falling behind the rest of the world in testing for coronavirus as the US media. Naturally, publications like the New York Times have carefully worked to leave their readers with a much worse impression of where the US falls on this specific ranking than reality.
  • koiz 6y ago
    If you think nyt is the reason for trump blame I've got a bridge to sell you.
• achileas 6y ago
  Bari Weiss doesn't realize it, but she's painting an accurate picture of herself here.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]