3 ms·

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

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]
    - jimkleiber 6y ago
      When I first read it, I didn't get the impression that the author was implying PG said FB stock wouldn't go up. In reading the PG post, it seems that a conversation with prominent investor, who was confident that FB's bad stock performance would hurt the IPO, led PG to write a post exploring how that may happen. In re-reading the NYT blurb, I still don't see it as the author saying PG said the FB stock would not go up but rather as the author believed that PG said that "start-up investments would dry up." And I think it's in that last sentence, in particular, the third to last word, "would," where the majority of the problem lies. PG in his post included a tremendous amount of ifs, mays, and qualifying statements talking about how he wasn't sure in which direction it would go. The NYT author, I think, just changed his uncertainty into certainty, both with putting "would" in that last sentence, and removing the "If you haven't raised money yet," part of the quoted link. So, I see it as the author attributing more certainty to PG than he had in his post, and yet, at the end of the author's post, saying that there is less certainty about this, "The party can’t go on forever, but the infamous question must be asked: Is this time different?" By you saying, "they're actively misleading," I'm assuming you're attributing malice to the NYT author. I guess I just see journalists and politicians (and many people in general) speaking with an utmost certainty on behalf of people who speak with qualifications and attribute it more to the desire to condense words and present a confident argument than the former. Qualifying statements often use a lot of words. I like to qualify most things that I say and I think journalists and editors often remove them out of seeing them as extraneous—e.g., removing the "I'm assuming", "I guess", "often", "most", and "I think" out of the previous paragraph.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  PG: "It must have felt like walking through a minefield of truth to get hold of a quote she could misrepresent." Well, yeah. Sounds like some serious Gell-mann amnesia. I'm surprised Paul Graham would act surprised by this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
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

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]
  - jimkleiber 6y ago
    When I first read it, I didn't get the impression that the author was implying PG said FB stock wouldn't go up. In reading the PG post, it seems that a conversation with prominent investor, who was confident that FB's bad stock performance would hurt the IPO, led PG to write a post exploring how that may happen. In re-reading the NYT blurb, I still don't see it as the author saying PG said the FB stock would not go up but rather as the author believed that PG said that "start-up investments would dry up." And I think it's in that last sentence, in particular, the third to last word, "would," where the majority of the problem lies. PG in his post included a tremendous amount of ifs, mays, and qualifying statements talking about how he wasn't sure in which direction it would go. The NYT author, I think, just changed his uncertainty into certainty, both with putting "would" in that last sentence, and removing the "If you haven't raised money yet," part of the quoted link. So, I see it as the author attributing more certainty to PG than he had in his post, and yet, at the end of the author's post, saying that there is less certainty about this, "The party can’t go on forever, but the infamous question must be asked: Is this time different?" By you saying, "they're actively misleading," I'm assuming you're attributing malice to the NYT author. I guess I just see journalists and politicians (and many people in general) speaking with an utmost certainty on behalf of people who speak with qualifications and attribute it more to the desire to condense words and present a confident argument than the former. Qualifying statements often use a lot of words. I like to qualify most things that I say and I think journalists and editors often remove them out of seeing them as extraneous—e.g., removing the "I'm assuming", "I guess", "often", "most", and "I think" out of the previous paragraph.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
PG: "It must have felt like walking through a minefield of truth to get hold of a quote she could misrepresent." Well, yeah. Sounds like some serious Gell-mann amnesia. I'm surprised Paul Graham would act surprised by this.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

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