4 ms·

Agreed. The entire post is filled with vague language, such as talking about what the story will "imply". Also, I think it goes without saying that there are p

by whakim 6y ago

Agreed. The entire post is filled with vague language, such as talking about what the story will "imply". Also, I think it goes without saying that there are plenty of very understandable reasons why people don't file complaints even though they have very legitimate grievances (which allows companies to stand on such technicalities). So we'll see.

ericpauley 6y ago
To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.
- whakim 6y ago
  Not sure I agree that the NYT is particularly notable in the sense that they're a news organization with a perspective, and that perspective often comes through in the articles they publish. Every news org indirectly implies things in terms of which pieces of evidence they present, what order facts are presented in, what other content they cite etc. I don't think the NYTimes is secretly trying to influence their readers in a crafty or underhanded manner.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- drewbug01 6y ago
  Can you expand on that? Reading through the comment threads on this piece, I’ve noticed this idea of the NYT being intentionally misleading in various forms (“they lie,” “they mislead,” “they make implications,” etc). That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?
  - rrdharan 6y ago
    These aren’t exactly what you are asking about but some recent examples of what I consider to be disingenuous and manipulative: 1. The New York Times published a scathing critique of Google’s 4000 word privacy policy, neglecting anywhere to mention that their own privacy policy was 25% longer and sketchier. 2. The entire handling of the Caliphate podcast and subsequent backpedaling and retroactive reframing. 3. Similar to 2., the doubling down but silent adjustments to the 1619 project historical inaccuracies. 4. The maddening insistence on handling of Slate Star Codex author’s identity and hypocrisy as compared to Chapo Trap House. 5. The submarine propaganda piece about CP on the dark web, which was clearly an attempt to build societal consensus for mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging. You can go back farther into obvious hits like the second Iraq War and WMD madness of course.. I generally don’t trust the New York Times.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      #1 NYT's own privacy policy is irrelevant in context. Google's privacy policy affects most of the internet, aka, most of the world. The NYT's privacy policy affects the significantly smaller (and comparatively insignificant) number of people who read the NYT on its website. #3 The adjustments (aka corrections) were not silent. They announced them, and the big corrections even got their own NYT articles, see e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the.... #4 NYT published the identities of Slate Star Codex because it was newsworthy. The identities of the Chapo House Guys was not, because they were, and this part is crucial: open about their identities. Both of these blogs spread ideological filth, but the CHG didn't cower behind anonymity to do it like the SSC guy did. #5 This is not submarine propaganda. CP exists on the dark web, and in fact the use of the dark web to spread CP is why so many Tor nodes chose to shut down. (This is also unrelated to putting mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging, which the NYT...opposes...) #6 The federal government lied about the weapons...not the NYT...And WMDs did exist. Iraq still had a very large stockpile of chemical weapons when we invaded (during Bush II). They simply were intended for use against the local population, not the U.S. (See a non-NYT source: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-m...)

by whakim 6y ago

ericpauley 6y ago

To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.

whakim 6y ago
Not sure I agree that the NYT is particularly notable in the sense that they're a news organization with a perspective, and that perspective often comes through in the articles they publish. Every news org indirectly implies things in terms of which pieces of evidence they present, what order facts are presented in, what other content they cite etc. I don't think the NYTimes is secretly trying to influence their readers in a crafty or underhanded manner.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
drewbug01 6y ago
Can you expand on that? Reading through the comment threads on this piece, I’ve noticed this idea of the NYT being intentionally misleading in various forms (“they lie,” “they mislead,” “they make implications,” etc). That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?
- rrdharan 6y ago
  These aren’t exactly what you are asking about but some recent examples of what I consider to be disingenuous and manipulative: 1. The New York Times published a scathing critique of Google’s 4000 word privacy policy, neglecting anywhere to mention that their own privacy policy was 25% longer and sketchier. 2. The entire handling of the Caliphate podcast and subsequent backpedaling and retroactive reframing. 3. Similar to 2., the doubling down but silent adjustments to the 1619 project historical inaccuracies. 4. The maddening insistence on handling of Slate Star Codex author’s identity and hypocrisy as compared to Chapo Trap House. 5. The submarine propaganda piece about CP on the dark web, which was clearly an attempt to build societal consensus for mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging. You can go back farther into obvious hits like the second Iraq War and WMD madness of course.. I generally don’t trust the New York Times.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    #1 NYT's own privacy policy is irrelevant in context. Google's privacy policy affects most of the internet, aka, most of the world. The NYT's privacy policy affects the significantly smaller (and comparatively insignificant) number of people who read the NYT on its website. #3 The adjustments (aka corrections) were not silent. They announced them, and the big corrections even got their own NYT articles, see e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the.... #4 NYT published the identities of Slate Star Codex because it was newsworthy. The identities of the Chapo House Guys was not, because they were, and this part is crucial: open about their identities. Both of these blogs spread ideological filth, but the CHG didn't cower behind anonymity to do it like the SSC guy did. #5 This is not submarine propaganda. CP exists on the dark web, and in fact the use of the dark web to spread CP is why so many Tor nodes chose to shut down. (This is also unrelated to putting mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging, which the NYT...opposes...) #6 The federal government lied about the weapons...not the NYT...And WMDs did exist. Iraq still had a very large stockpile of chemical weapons when we invaded (during Bush II). They simply were intended for use against the local population, not the U.S. (See a non-NYT source: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-m...)