3 ms·

The solution is History, as in the data/evidence-driven profession. It's perfectly well applicable to contemporary events too. Wikipedia/wikinews with all its

by pas 6y ago

The solution is History, as in the data/evidence-driven profession. It's perfectly well applicable to contemporary events too. Wikipedia/wikinews with all its faults gets a lot closer than the NYT. Because it's not static, it's not maddening fluff and drivel (when every fucking "article" is a story, "Abigale stood in the doorway in a chilly afternoon, disoriented by the bad news that her application by the Local State Office of Nobody Ever Heard of Ever was denied ..." and seven paragraphs later we will finally find out some new nugget of information, maybe even at the end of every such amazing certified five-times-Pulitzer piece there will be some hard data "statistic"). There's simply not enough demand for such an outlet with rigor, standards, etc. (Or maybe there is and it's a market niche, or it's an outright market failure that this need is not satisfied.)

robin21 6y ago
NYT is addictive as hell though. You can't look away, whether you are liberal or moderate. Log on as a moderate and you will rage that the "paper of record" can spin such lies and obvious bias. Log on as a progressive and you will rage because of the lies confirming our biases. Outrage sells. The root cause lies in the reason why people need to seek entertainment and outrage from news, rather than from other areas in their lives. I think it sustains itself because they are incentivized to go after left-wing outrage clicks to make money, but then there is always the fall-back of left-wing conviction: "I wrote this piece that wasn't accurate and may damage the paper's reputation because I need to make a stand for left-wing values and get pats on the back from my peers". I don't think there is a single person left there who is thinking about the integrity of the paper.
- pas 6y ago
  Maybe I spent too much time lurking on economics/policy related online places, but nowadays fewer and fewer articles can lull me into the usual Gell-Mann amnesia. (Arrogance lvl 99.) > Outrage sells Yes, exactly. It's just the usual "things are bad" porn. Winter? Things are bad. Summer? Things are bad. Sure, it's their "job", but at this rate why even check it? The problems are clear, even the solutions are pretty well characterized. (From small scale local zoning, policy and voting reforms through more of the same stricter EPA/cap-n-trade/carbon-tax stuff to big structural energy/healthcare/education/copyright/tax reforms to a few constitutional amendments and new free trade agreements [that incentivize free movement of people, goods, services and information]. Arrogance lvl 100.) For everything else you'll hear about it eventually. > I don't think there is a single person left there who is thinking about the integrity of the paper. Wow, that's ... damning. But doesn't seem particularly false either :|

by pas 6y ago

robin21 6y ago

NYT is addictive as hell though. You can't look away, whether you are liberal or moderate. Log on as a moderate and you will rage that the "paper of record" can spin such lies and obvious bias. Log on as a progressive and you will rage because of the lies confirming our biases. Outrage sells. The root cause lies in the reason why people need to seek entertainment and outrage from news, rather than from other areas in their lives. I think it sustains itself because they are incentivized to go after left-wing outrage clicks to make money, but then there is always the fall-back of left-wing conviction: "I wrote this piece that wasn't accurate and may damage the paper's reputation because I need to make a stand for left-wing values and get pats on the back from my peers". I don't think there is a single person left there who is thinking about the integrity of the paper.

pas 6y ago
Maybe I spent too much time lurking on economics/policy related online places, but nowadays fewer and fewer articles can lull me into the usual Gell-Mann amnesia. (Arrogance lvl 99.) > Outrage sells Yes, exactly. It's just the usual "things are bad" porn. Winter? Things are bad. Summer? Things are bad. Sure, it's their "job", but at this rate why even check it? The problems are clear, even the solutions are pretty well characterized. (From small scale local zoning, policy and voting reforms through more of the same stricter EPA/cap-n-trade/carbon-tax stuff to big structural energy/healthcare/education/copyright/tax reforms to a few constitutional amendments and new free trade agreements [that incentivize free movement of people, goods, services and information]. Arrogance lvl 100.) For everything else you'll hear about it eventually. > I don't think there is a single person left there who is thinking about the integrity of the paper. Wow, that's ... damning. But doesn't seem particularly false either :|