12 ms·

It's a mistake to judge an organization on one, or even a handful of incidents. There should be a pattern of inaccuracy and bias before you "cancel" a news sour

It's a mistake to judge an organization on one, or even a handful of incidents. There should be a pattern of inaccuracy and bias before you "cancel" a news source. This is one of the unsung problems of the modern world, the growing impossibility of keeping an accurate "reputation" in your brain. Virtually everyone and everything has been accused of being evil, in general, or specifically. It's no longer good enough to just "have good feelings" about a name, because I guarantee you've read something about every name that is negative. Mere accusation is trivial to make, and society has somehow gotten away from swift and harsh punishment against baseless accusation. Without that (very useful) habit, the heuristic of equating reputation with number of accusations is meaningless, and yet we all still do it.

aeternum 6y ago
Good point, and no news source is immune. Inaccurate and outright fake news has been around since the invention of the printing press. Benjamin Franklin himself authored plenty of it for political purposes. In fact much of the mistreatment of the Native Americans may have stemmed from his “Supplement to the Boston Independent Chronicle” article.
andrewtbham 6y ago
at least on the topic of tesla, nyt has been wrong and unfair against tesla for about 10 years. i really don't know about other topics... but... pg repeatedly questions the integrity of nyt and has personally been the victim of their bias. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236975851255857152?lang=en https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236975851255857152?lang=en https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236979160100343812 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236979160100343812
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  In the first link you provided, PG put two photos: one of the NYT article and one of his HN post. The NYT article yes, condensed his lengthy post into one sentence, which will almost always be incomplete, but they also linked that quote to what I assume was the HN post. I guess it seems to me that PG is upset they didn't fully encapsulate his ideas, and I'd probably be frustrated as well. But is that the role of a journalist? And is it even possible to condense all of someone else's material and communicate it to another audience without losing information? Maybe it's just me, but I use journalists as a stepping stone for learning more about a topic. I see them writing summaries (sometimes inaccurate) of things that happen in the world and then if I'm curious, I try to dig deeper into the primary sources to learn more. I'd imagine almost every primary source believes journalists get the story wrong now and then, as the journalist doesn't say it the way they would say it. But I marvel in today's world, where I have such quick access to priamry sources to learn more.
  - ericd 6y ago
    I think the bigger issue is that the summary is a misrepresentation of what he said. At least, I don't see where he "warned that start-up investments would dry up".
    - jimkleiber 6y ago
      I don't think he stated that it would dry up, but I do think he said that it may decrease. > Jessica and I had dinner recently with a prominent investor. He seemed sure the bad performance of the Facebook IPO will hurt the funding market for earlier stage startups. But no one knows yet how much. Possibly only a little. Possibly a lot, if it becomes a vicious circle. Lots of qualification and uncertainty. > What I do worry about is (a) it may be harder to raise money at all, regardless of price and (b) that companies that previously raised money at high valuations will now face "down rounds," which can be damaging. More qualification and uncertainty. I think the biggest challenge is in the author taking something so qualified and making it seem much more confident and certain than it actually was. Would you agree that he was exploring whether start-up investments may decrease?
  - auggierose 6y ago
    Well the point of the NYT article totally evaporates if you read the HN post. PG is explicitly saying that no-one knows the effect that this will have, but better to prepare for the worst. And that's the thing: if you cannot trust that someone makes their point as neutrally as possible, they become worthless for me as a source of condensed information. Rather look up the original source then for myself.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      It's even worse than that, their sentence after the quote implies PG said something about FB stock. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236980342667575296?s=20 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236980342667575296?s=20 The NYT writer isn't mistakenly summarizing, they're actively misleading. They had to read through PG's post and selectively pick a line that they could stuff into the position they already had, to say the thing they already wanted to say. It's just motivated reasoning and the primary sources aren't being used as sources beyond something they can vaguely mention to pretend it supports what they wanted to say anyway. That isn't journalism - or at least it shouldn't be.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- voidhorse 6y ago
  It doesn’t absolve the times if they did indeed make an error, but I’d like to point out that pg isn’t exactly a bastion of accuracy and rational argument himself: see https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/07/how-to-pretend-that-you-are-smart https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/07/how-to-pretend-that-y... from the same publication as the OP. The criticisms leveled against pg in this article apply to pretty much all of his social commentary and writings, and its really a shame so many people in the is community buy into his crap and have a sort of blind allegiance to him just because of his wealth and status.
  - andrewtbham 6y ago
    lol... a shame? wealth and status? you do know he created this site... right?
  - fossuser 6y ago
    PG's essay that article is talking about: http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html (disclosure: I thought it was good). The current affairs article was extremely tedious, whatever good point they might have made was hurt by its self-assured hostile tone and personal attacks (basically an example of the kind of thing PG's essay was talking about). There are a few essays that get into the weeds and give more explicit examples of problems (something PG probably avoided because of the issues he talks about, but it seems he was also attacked for avoiding them anyway). Some that give more direct examples/arguments: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/ https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres... https://quillette.com/2020/07/30/think-cancel-culture-doesnt-exist-my-own-lived-experience-says-otherwise/ https://quillette.com/2020/07/30/think-cancel-culture-doesnt... Also: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-... Some others recently: https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/andrew-sullivan-see-you-next-friday.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/andrew-sullivan-see-...
  - sukilot 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
GenerocUsername 6y ago
The more you know about a subject, the more false reporting you will find related to that subject. Remember that next time you read news about something you are not already well versed in.
- PakG1 6y ago
  Yes, sure, but this all unfortunately feeds into the motivations of conspiracy theorists. Maybe it is what it is, but what can we do to stop the wave of noncritical thinking washing over the Internet, where people insist that they are the only wise ones? Are we just doomed? I realize that media has lost its credibility in the eyes of many, I just wish that there was a good amount of high-quality critical thinking to make up for the lack of reliable information, rather than the many low-quality conspiracy theories I'm seeing.
  - schemy 6y ago
    Your conspiracy theory is a conspiracy fact when you think about peoples motivations. Take the current virus. We realize that the republican version of 'it's a hoax and everything is fine' is a lie. But so is the democrat version of 'you need to never leave your house or you're a murderer'. The simple fact is that without having solid numbers for: 1). The true infection rate. 2). The true age-adjusted mortality rate. 3). The asymptomatic r0 rate. Any policy anyone suggests tells you more about the person suggesting it than about how effective it will be. It could be that reality is closer to the republican version, or the democrat one. But without a lot more science that no one is doing we will not know until decades down the line when people start digging up corpses and testing for the virus and finally doing some basic statistics. And that's before we even look at what the economic impact is of the virus.
    - kaicianflone 6y ago
      I don't think it's a democratic perspective to be on the safer than sorry "version of the virus".
      - 6y ago
tehjoker 6y ago
The NYT is wildly inaccurate on foreign affairs regularly. For an exceptionally famous example, recall their reporting on WMDs in Iraq for which they have never squarely apologized. https://nypost.com/2004/05/27/nyt-whispers-apology-for-wmd-stories/ https://nypost.com/2004/05/27/nyt-whispers-apology-for-wmd-s...
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  Comparatively, are they more inaccurate than other news outlets? If so, which are some that you would say are more accurate in their reporting of foreign affairs?
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Every news outlet is owned by a small circle of concentrated power these days from wealthy families to corporate conglomerates that bizarrely fail to be harshly critical of things that would impact their wealth and businesses. You can try reading e.g. The Intercept, local papers, Democracy Now for a different spin on things, but there's only one thing that actually works is reading several sources, including the papers from "the other side" and trying to figure out which story line makes logical sense. Usually lies are poorly constructed and contain a combination of paradoxes, deference to authority, and appeal to various fears without a firm logical basis. Pay close attention to verifiable information and evidence. Those are the only pieces of information that can be trusted from either the state or journalists.
    - jimkleiber 6y ago
      > Every news outlet is owned by a small circle of concentrated power these days from wealthy families to corporate conglomerates that bizarrely fail to be harshly critical of things that would impact their wealth and businesses. I smile a bit as I think about visiting the Hearst Castle in California—I wonder how news ownership has changed over the years. Regarding the rest, I appreciate how you framed it and love that approach of various sources, plus really dig the process suggestions you put. Thank you.
moreorless 6y ago
It seems like they have a history of it. https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-sti...
justicezyx 6y ago
What?! Are you suggesting as long as a news outlet is telling the truth in more occasions than lies, the organization can still be treated as trustworthy? Even if the organization intentionally ignore the need to verify and correct lies?... Logically and emotionally, this is outrageously offensive to liberal value! You are playing the cards advocated by CCTV backed by CCP. Their integrity certainly "passed your standard"...
m0zg 6y ago
Bill Clinton was allegedly a guest on Epstein's island according to recently unsealed court documents. Try to find any mention of this in recent NYT reporting: https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+epstein+maxwell&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+epstein+maxwell&tbm=... Is this "The Truth"?
- ashayh 6y ago
  There are plenty of mentions for Bill Clinton: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk01S6XwWBraAR3tvWT5EaUy-MNyGPw%3A1596487364050&ei=xHYoX4HNAqXP0PEPscyzyAs&q=%22clinton%22+epstein+maxwell+site%3Anytimes.com&oq=%22clinton%22+epstein+maxwell+site%3Anytimes.com&g https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk01S6XwWBraA...
  - m0zg 6y ago
    But, crucially, no mentions of him _staying on the island_. If this was Trump, there'd be wall-to-wall 24x7 saturation coverage.
    - pugwash 6y ago
      Bill Clinton is largely an irrelevance now; Donald Trump is the sitting President of the United States of America. It should be obvious why Trump doing whatever is news-worthy.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Bill Clinton isn’t president.
andrewtbham 6y ago
I don't judge them by one incident.. I suspected they were biased or just wrong about stuff for years. But this was the instance where I realized that even with overwhelming evidence they were wrong they wouldn't admit it. If they had any self awareness, it would be different but they are hopeless. They aren't consciously lying, they are rationalizing and deluding even themselves.
ALittleLight 6y ago
Why is it a mistake to judge on one incident? If I worked with someone who seemed like a professional, and then one day he spat on me and never apologized and denied he did so, I'd probably judge that guy even though it was just one incident. There is a difference between making a mistake or being wrong while trying to be right, and intentionally doing something bad or refusing to acknowledge error. Everyone is in the first category sometimes, but you don't really have to be in the latter category. If the NYT is intentionally doing bad things, even once or a handful of times, then I don't think it makes sense to forgive and forget until they show me they understand and have corrected the issue. The problem is that for most things I can't tell if they're right or wrong or arguing in good faith or not. If something comes up where I can definitively tell, and they are definitely acting wrong - it destroys lots of credibility because that's really one of my rare chances to evaluate their performance. I can't trust them in domains I don't know about if they aren't very good in domains I do know about.
- vosper 6y ago
  The NYT has 4,320 employees. If one of them spat on you, never apologized, and denied he did so, would you then judge every employee of NYT the same as you judge that one person? Edit for clarity, since I'm getting downvoted: My point is that the analogy is not great. You can judge one person for their actions directly towards you. It isn't necessarily reasonable to judge a large number of people by the actions of a single person or small subset of the group, especially when the actions of the NYT are not directed at you specifically, which is pretty different to someone spitting on you.
  - andrewtbham 6y ago
    it's really more than one person... there is the journalist but it's the editor that wrote the response and the editor manages several journalists. it's really the nyt's culture and their incentives... it's a system that would promote someone that is incentivized to defend their integrity when they're clearly wrong.
    - vosper 6y ago

aeternum 6y ago

Good point, and no news source is immune. Inaccurate and outright fake news has been around since the invention of the printing press. Benjamin Franklin himself authored plenty of it for political purposes. In fact much of the mistreatment of the Native Americans may have stemmed from his “Supplement to the Boston Independent Chronicle” article.

andrewtbham 6y ago

at least on the topic of tesla, nyt has been wrong and unfair against tesla for about 10 years. i really don't know about other topics... but... pg repeatedly questions the integrity of nyt and has personally been the victim of their bias. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236975851255857152?lang=en https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236975851255857152?lang=en https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236979160100343812 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236979160100343812

jimkleiber 6y ago
In the first link you provided, PG put two photos: one of the NYT article and one of his HN post. The NYT article yes, condensed his lengthy post into one sentence, which will almost always be incomplete, but they also linked that quote to what I assume was the HN post. I guess it seems to me that PG is upset they didn't fully encapsulate his ideas, and I'd probably be frustrated as well. But is that the role of a journalist? And is it even possible to condense all of someone else's material and communicate it to another audience without losing information? Maybe it's just me, but I use journalists as a stepping stone for learning more about a topic. I see them writing summaries (sometimes inaccurate) of things that happen in the world and then if I'm curious, I try to dig deeper into the primary sources to learn more. I'd imagine almost every primary source believes journalists get the story wrong now and then, as the journalist doesn't say it the way they would say it. But I marvel in today's world, where I have such quick access to priamry sources to learn more.
- ericd 6y ago
  I think the bigger issue is that the summary is a misrepresentation of what he said. At least, I don't see where he "warned that start-up investments would dry up".
  - jimkleiber 6y ago
    I don't think he stated that it would dry up, but I do think he said that it may decrease. > Jessica and I had dinner recently with a prominent investor. He seemed sure the bad performance of the Facebook IPO will hurt the funding market for earlier stage startups. But no one knows yet how much. Possibly only a little. Possibly a lot, if it becomes a vicious circle. Lots of qualification and uncertainty. > What I do worry about is (a) it may be harder to raise money at all, regardless of price and (b) that companies that previously raised money at high valuations will now face "down rounds," which can be damaging. More qualification and uncertainty. I think the biggest challenge is in the author taking something so qualified and making it seem much more confident and certain than it actually was. Would you agree that he was exploring whether start-up investments may decrease?
- auggierose 6y ago
  Well the point of the NYT article totally evaporates if you read the HN post. PG is explicitly saying that no-one knows the effect that this will have, but better to prepare for the worst. And that's the thing: if you cannot trust that someone makes their point as neutrally as possible, they become worthless for me as a source of condensed information. Rather look up the original source then for myself.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    It's even worse than that, their sentence after the quote implies PG said something about FB stock. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236980342667575296?s=20 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1236980342667575296?s=20 The NYT writer isn't mistakenly summarizing, they're actively misleading. They had to read through PG's post and selectively pick a line that they could stuff into the position they already had, to say the thing they already wanted to say. It's just motivated reasoning and the primary sources aren't being used as sources beyond something they can vaguely mention to pretend it supports what they wanted to say anyway. That isn't journalism - or at least it shouldn't be.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
voidhorse 6y ago
It doesn’t absolve the times if they did indeed make an error, but I’d like to point out that pg isn’t exactly a bastion of accuracy and rational argument himself: see https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/07/how-to-pretend-that-you-are-smart https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/07/how-to-pretend-that-y... from the same publication as the OP. The criticisms leveled against pg in this article apply to pretty much all of his social commentary and writings, and its really a shame so many people in the is community buy into his crap and have a sort of blind allegiance to him just because of his wealth and status.
- andrewtbham 6y ago
  lol... a shame? wealth and status? you do know he created this site... right?
- fossuser 6y ago
  PG's essay that article is talking about: http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html http://paulgraham.com/conformism.html (disclosure: I thought it was good). The current affairs article was extremely tedious, whatever good point they might have made was hurt by its self-assured hostile tone and personal attacks (basically an example of the kind of thing PG's essay was talking about). There are a few essays that get into the weeds and give more explicit examples of problems (something PG probably avoided because of the issues he talks about, but it seems he was also attacked for avoiding them anyway). Some that give more direct examples/arguments: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres-why/ https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/woke-wont-debate-you-heres... https://quillette.com/2020/07/30/think-cancel-culture-doesnt-exist-my-own-lived-experience-says-otherwise/ https://quillette.com/2020/07/30/think-cancel-culture-doesnt... Also: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-... Some others recently: https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/andrew-sullivan-see-you-next-friday.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/andrew-sullivan-see-...
- sukilot 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

GenerocUsername 6y ago

The more you know about a subject, the more false reporting you will find related to that subject. Remember that next time you read news about something you are not already well versed in.

PakG1 6y ago
Yes, sure, but this all unfortunately feeds into the motivations of conspiracy theorists. Maybe it is what it is, but what can we do to stop the wave of noncritical thinking washing over the Internet, where people insist that they are the only wise ones? Are we just doomed? I realize that media has lost its credibility in the eyes of many, I just wish that there was a good amount of high-quality critical thinking to make up for the lack of reliable information, rather than the many low-quality conspiracy theories I'm seeing.
- schemy 6y ago
  Your conspiracy theory is a conspiracy fact when you think about peoples motivations. Take the current virus. We realize that the republican version of 'it's a hoax and everything is fine' is a lie. But so is the democrat version of 'you need to never leave your house or you're a murderer'. The simple fact is that without having solid numbers for: 1). The true infection rate. 2). The true age-adjusted mortality rate. 3). The asymptomatic r0 rate. Any policy anyone suggests tells you more about the person suggesting it than about how effective it will be. It could be that reality is closer to the republican version, or the democrat one. But without a lot more science that no one is doing we will not know until decades down the line when people start digging up corpses and testing for the virus and finally doing some basic statistics. And that's before we even look at what the economic impact is of the virus.
  - kaicianflone 6y ago
    I don't think it's a democratic perspective to be on the safer than sorry "version of the virus".
    - 6y ago

tehjoker 6y ago

The NYT is wildly inaccurate on foreign affairs regularly. For an exceptionally famous example, recall their reporting on WMDs in Iraq for which they have never squarely apologized. https://nypost.com/2004/05/27/nyt-whispers-apology-for-wmd-stories/ https://nypost.com/2004/05/27/nyt-whispers-apology-for-wmd-s...

jimkleiber 6y ago
Comparatively, are they more inaccurate than other news outlets? If so, which are some that you would say are more accurate in their reporting of foreign affairs?
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Every news outlet is owned by a small circle of concentrated power these days from wealthy families to corporate conglomerates that bizarrely fail to be harshly critical of things that would impact their wealth and businesses. You can try reading e.g. The Intercept, local papers, Democracy Now for a different spin on things, but there's only one thing that actually works is reading several sources, including the papers from "the other side" and trying to figure out which story line makes logical sense. Usually lies are poorly constructed and contain a combination of paradoxes, deference to authority, and appeal to various fears without a firm logical basis. Pay close attention to verifiable information and evidence. Those are the only pieces of information that can be trusted from either the state or journalists.
  - jimkleiber 6y ago
    > Every news outlet is owned by a small circle of concentrated power these days from wealthy families to corporate conglomerates that bizarrely fail to be harshly critical of things that would impact their wealth and businesses. I smile a bit as I think about visiting the Hearst Castle in California—I wonder how news ownership has changed over the years. Regarding the rest, I appreciate how you framed it and love that approach of various sources, plus really dig the process suggestions you put. Thank you.

moreorless 6y ago

It seems like they have a history of it. https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/how-iraq-war-sti...

justicezyx 6y ago

What?! Are you suggesting as long as a news outlet is telling the truth in more occasions than lies, the organization can still be treated as trustworthy? Even if the organization intentionally ignore the need to verify and correct lies?... Logically and emotionally, this is outrageously offensive to liberal value! You are playing the cards advocated by CCTV backed by CCP. Their integrity certainly "passed your standard"...

m0zg 6y ago

Bill Clinton was allegedly a guest on Epstein's island according to recently unsealed court documents. Try to find any mention of this in recent NYT reporting: https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+epstein+maxwell&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+epstein+maxwell&tbm=... Is this "The Truth"?

ashayh 6y ago
There are plenty of mentions for Bill Clinton: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk01S6XwWBraAR3tvWT5EaUy-MNyGPw%3A1596487364050&ei=xHYoX4HNAqXP0PEPscyzyAs&q=%22clinton%22+epstein+maxwell+site%3Anytimes.com&oq=%22clinton%22+epstein+maxwell+site%3Anytimes.com&g https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk01S6XwWBraA...
- m0zg 6y ago
  But, crucially, no mentions of him _staying on the island_. If this was Trump, there'd be wall-to-wall 24x7 saturation coverage.
  - pugwash 6y ago
    Bill Clinton is largely an irrelevance now; Donald Trump is the sitting President of the United States of America. It should be obvious why Trump doing whatever is news-worthy.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Bill Clinton isn’t president.

andrewtbham 6y ago

I don't judge them by one incident.. I suspected they were biased or just wrong about stuff for years. But this was the instance where I realized that even with overwhelming evidence they were wrong they wouldn't admit it. If they had any self awareness, it would be different but they are hopeless. They aren't consciously lying, they are rationalizing and deluding even themselves.

ALittleLight 6y ago

Why is it a mistake to judge on one incident? If I worked with someone who seemed like a professional, and then one day he spat on me and never apologized and denied he did so, I'd probably judge that guy even though it was just one incident. There is a difference between making a mistake or being wrong while trying to be right, and intentionally doing something bad or refusing to acknowledge error. Everyone is in the first category sometimes, but you don't really have to be in the latter category. If the NYT is intentionally doing bad things, even once or a handful of times, then I don't think it makes sense to forgive and forget until they show me they understand and have corrected the issue. The problem is that for most things I can't tell if they're right or wrong or arguing in good faith or not. If something comes up where I can definitively tell, and they are definitely acting wrong - it destroys lots of credibility because that's really one of my rare chances to evaluate their performance. I can't trust them in domains I don't know about if they aren't very good in domains I do know about.

vosper 6y ago
The NYT has 4,320 employees. If one of them spat on you, never apologized, and denied he did so, would you then judge every employee of NYT the same as you judge that one person? Edit for clarity, since I'm getting downvoted: My point is that the analogy is not great. You can judge one person for their actions directly towards you. It isn't necessarily reasonable to judge a large number of people by the actions of a single person or small subset of the group, especially when the actions of the NYT are not directed at you specifically, which is pretty different to someone spitting on you.
- andrewtbham 6y ago
  it's really more than one person... there is the journalist but it's the editor that wrote the response and the editor manages several journalists. it's really the nyt's culture and their incentives... it's a system that would promote someone that is incentivized to defend their integrity when they're clearly wrong.
  - vosper 6y ago