8 ms·

Cancel The New York Times

129 points by apsec112 6y ago

Finnucane 6y ago
Writing may cost you nothing, but editing should be paid for.
PaulHoule 6y ago
See https://www.amazon.com/Powers-That-Be-David-Halberstam/dp/0252069412 https://www.amazon.com/Powers-That-Be-David-Halberstam/dp/02... for something more "fair and balanced".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ratsmack 6y ago
>I see it now. I see that information and truth and freedom have been oppressed. I had been silenced. We had all been bound and gagged and silenced, not directly, but indirectly, by a strange, complex, invisible, sinister force. But I see it now. I see it so clearly. There was a "guild of truth" telling us that there was a central narrative of mankind. Truth was branded. We are all being controlled and oppressed and enslaved by the evil octopus of the New York Times. That is true, but it reaches far beyond the NYT. It is pervasive and it has a name. It's called "Cancel Culture". It is a social disease of unapologetic censorship that affects any and all civil discourse and is a form of social cancer.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  It's just an extension of that other social disease called "culture". Bullying and excluding people for saying uncool things has always happened at a small local scale, and people mostly adapted by keeping their mouths shut.
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  > Yes there was tons of content.... But they were all the same. Nobody was really saying anything. They were not allowed to. I played along with Rhinehart's 'Sound of Silence' (Simon/Garfunkle) routine / experiment / message until suddenly: BLAM We are all being controlled by: the New York Times! OF COURSE. It's so simple. How could we have missed it until now? All cultures have a dark side, as all we humans do. (See for reference:2020) Nature is beautiful, Nature is cruel. 'Best of times, worst of times.' But looking for a single source of darkness in some individual other is ... well, flippo. 'Find a scapegoat and beat up on it' doesn't lead to truth. After a century of war, we're still working on this. And suffering for it.
- eudajmonia 6y ago
  Why do people take themselves - so seriously. There was a lot of subtlety in this work and I interpreted it as part fiction. Thanks for sharing it, some of his other work was equally good.
xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago
So his "original thought", so important that he is braving all the evil backlash of people on Twitter, is that the New York Times isn't perfect. His mind is so liberated that he is borrowing the "cancel culture" and "the New York Times is literally Pravda" memes right off of Tucker Carlson. Dreck.
cocacola1 6y ago
I'm hoping someone can succinctly explain the hate for the NYT. Didn't get it before, don't get it now. It seems perfectly adequate. Same goes for WSJ, FT, the Economist, WaPo, etc. >I see it now. I see that information and truth and freedom have been oppressed. I had been silenced. We had all been bound and gagged and silenced, not directly, but indirectly, by a strange, complex, invisible, sinister force. But I see it now. I see it so clearly. There was a "guild of truth" telling us that there was a central narrative of mankind. Truth was branded. We are all being controlled and oppressed and enslaved by the evil octopus of the New York Times. This I especially don't get. No one has declared themselves the "guild of truth", and there's no paper or institution I can think of that the people have declared to be the "guild of truth". And if someone has, saying so doesn't make it true. But people not liking you, or your writing, isn't a crime.
- saalweachter 6y ago
  Googling [why does rob rhinehart hate the new york times] yielded https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhinged-politics-rant-shows-tech-execs-dont-understand-the-world https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhi...
  - bingojess 6y ago
    Unhinged sounds about right, the blog post started out normal but it became increasingly disconnected and unsubstantiated. It read like something someone on adderall would churn out
  - Udik 6y ago
    Frankly, if the Vice article is true (and it seems plausible given the rambling style of this one) he sounds pretty unhinged. Is this the effect of feeding only on Soylent?
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      It's possible, is there lead content in soylent? Like lots of lead? The guy sounds dis-associated from reality. A lot of the "everything is fake news" crowd is disjointed...I'm not sure of Soylent is the cause or not, or if they have investors/advisors if so, I'd be having a conversation about moving him out of the company and maybe into a psych ward for observation.
rntksi 6y ago
As a Non-American, I don't understand the hatred that is found in the article. I understand the author making the point/assumption that the New York Times, due to its large influence in the United States, has a pervasive sway in public opinion that goes further than just New York City. However I don't understand why that would be a bad thing, if it's not a monopoly? To take a more extreme example, there are bureaus in countries like North Korea (country wide news monopoly) or China (less brutal but monopoly nevertheless by the State) dedicated to controlling the narrative that goes on within the country. Anything that goes out of line is suppressed. Is the author comparing NYT to that kind of control over the narrative? If that is not the case, then personally I see how a combination of "free market economy" and "freedom of speech" would mean the ones with resources (power and money) will undubitably have a larger sway in public opinion. That's inherent in the system.
- mc32 6y ago
  If the New York Times were taken as seriously as The National Enquirer (which never the less occasionally does journalism), few would care. However, the NYT are taken seriously, take themselves seriously and they have heft and sway it to set the tone of public opinion. Why else would so many do things for shitty pay so one day they climb the ladder and have their own bylines? If the NYT says something they get quoted seriously rather than sarcastically, etc. That’s why it matters.
simnim 6y ago
This feels related to a recent Glenn Greenwald post: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale...
m463 6y ago
I have been noticing the new york times. Someone on one of the articles here mounted an e-ink display on his wall, and loaded the new york times frontpage on it each day. It has a very regular url: https://static01.nyt.com/images/<year>/<month>/<day>/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf I liked the nyt articles linked from here. So I wrote a script to download it each day and drop it in my inbox. It goes back about 10 years. What I found was that the front page is different, it makes judgements and is opinionated. I wonder - am I reading articles that I have self-select and agree with?
etc-hosts 6y ago
Did the NYT do a Soylent story recently? https://pando.com/2013/11/12/vice-investigates-soylent-finds-rats-and-mold/ https://pando.com/2013/11/12/vice-investigates-soylent-finds... I wonder if Rhinehart is behind #blockthenyt on Twitter
garrickvanburen 6y ago
Yes, private enterprises can employ editors and still be the first draft of history. If the OP’s point is that editors aren’t needed to publish at scale....yes....that’s been true since at least 2006.
lasagnaphil 6y ago
I don’t think you really need to start a brigade against NYT here, they’re already a dying bunch because the American dream of the “middle class city liberal” they were catering towards is rapidly eroding away. Their main source of articles (Trump) has now been depleted, and soon they’ll have to resort to much desperate measures to keep eyeballs in, such as this one. (The writer doesn’t even seem to be passionate about writing this, it seems rather forced.)
duxup 6y ago
Maybe I'm taking this rant too literally but: >There is a ton of money in newspapers. Have you ever heard of Hearst castle? There is a literal castle in California built by a man that owned newspapers. I'm not sure that makes sense.... now. Also the NYT destroyed local newspapers? I'm not sure that is accurate. >They are the ones that choose the president. What? >Write what you want to write. Write what you really think. The truth will come out. And it will come out better if you stop fearing and feeding the octopus. Is that just an argument to just believe whatever you want and to write a blog about it? That whole rant seems off.
- headmelted 6y ago
  No comment on the rant other than to say that when I read this I thought to myself that given the author is referring to WRH then that’s definitely got to be Xanadu. And Wikipedia has just confirmed that it is! My point being that should anyone ever want to see this argument made much more cogently (while also getting to appreciate one of the greatest films ever made) maybe give Citizen Kane a watch. Rosebud!
  - Jiocus 6y ago
    +1 on this one. Just happened to rewatch Citizen Kane last week
betwixthewires 6y ago
I love this article. That is all.
- eudajmonia 6y ago
  Glad I am not the only one.
warmfuzzykitten 6y ago
Wow. The written equivalent of a YouTube conspiracy video. The factual claims aren't facts, e.g., the NYT had nothing to do with the demise of local papers, if you could point to a single cause it would be the loss of classified advertising. And the accusations are outrageous. Far from "all", nobody at all is "being controlled...and enslaved by the evil octopus of the New York Times." The link below may overgeneralize, but it dissects the piece in some detail. https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhinged-politics-rant-shows-tech-execs-dont-understand-the-world https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhi...
Traster 6y ago
Interesting to see the intersection of the right wing anti-media agenda with a new appreciation for cancel culture. If you don’t like something don’t buy it, but starting a campaign against it makes me think your not interested in a free and open discourse. For the same reason I’m not going to condemn a blogger for a couple of poorly considered comments or a podcaster for an exaggerated story about his daughter, I’m not going to endorse campaigning against the NYT because of some cockamamie idea they dictate public discourse. Cancel your subscription, stop trying to stoke up a mob.
- treeman79 6y ago
  There is a very active culture of attacking anyone with a conservative viewpoint. Attacking advertisers has been common for decades. Refuse to given into lgbt community and you will be torn apart.
oliwarner 6y ago
tldr, Rob is growing away from the mainstream. He feels he has no voice, no power politically and seems to want to lash out at an entity that appears to have both. I don't understand it, but it's not an uncommon story, especially recently.
KozmoNau7 6y ago
Rob has completely lost his already tenuous grasp on reality. The entire concept and execution of Soylent, his mission to "correct" his gut biome in order to be 100% efficient and produce no waste, his ridiculous idea of being "sustainable" by never doing laundry and instead mass ordering clothes produced overseas, are just a few of his "ideas". Add to this that nutritionally complete meal replacement shakes have been available at every corner store and drug store since the 1970s. His grand "invention" is a bad reimplementation of a wheel that already existed in a better form. Typical SV myopia. Why anyone listens to a word he says, is a mystery. He's clearly completely off his rocker.
robin21 6y ago
I dream about buying the nytimes and shutting it down. I’ve thought of this so many times. As a nice daydream. In the same whimsical tone of the article. I honestly feel like I share the emotion of the author. I could write for hours about it. There are many other news networks and papers but still, I feel something draws me back to the nytimes as the true spawn point for all that is wrong in the world. It’s this “grey lady” notion. The “paper of record”. It’s not like the others that are unabashedly biased and know that they are. The times is like an emperor blessed with the divine right to rule over truth and culture. The tone of the writing. The tone of their podcasts. Even in attacking it you must pay your respects to it as Trump did. You must leave the room without turning your back on it. It doesn’t just evoke the need to reform itself. It evokes such a strong sense of...it needs to be killed and die.
- convolvatron 6y ago
  why so negative? the times is getting worse. all written discourse is getting worse. why not wish for someone to do better instead of taking a flamethrower to the dregs?
jmull 6y ago
> The internet was no longer a safe place for self expression, which was the whole point of the internet. He means for himself, certainly not anyone else, apparently. The entire approach in this article is awful. It just builds up a boogeyman, demonizes it, sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, a lot of strong words, yet with virtually no substance. It seems like copypasta written by AI that’s been digesting Facebook. Not sure why someone would spend effort on dropping a turd like this into the world. I guess his aim is to elevate himself by tearing down something else? Become a source of truth by attacking a source of truth?
filoeleven 6y ago
> Do you think this is a bad article? A bad blog post? That it is poorly written or not true or too crazy or paranoid or insane or profane? That is too long or too rambling This about sums it up, yes. NYT may have gone downhill, or it may not have ever deserved its status as “the paper of record.” But it’s definitely not an oppressive octopus strangling America’s speech. The NYT isn’t the reason you’re afraid to write a controversial blog post; that’s absurd. He’s being totally disingenuous by telling journalists to write what they want and damn the consequences, and if they ask him nicely HE will fund them—but only if they “really make [him] believe in” their writing. That’s really no different from saying “go freelance,” and I’d be very surprised if he ever backs this up with action.
Meph504 6y ago
God this guy, loves to drone on, Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. This seems to demonstrate that, and honestly, this sort of droning on would give me pause to invest in company he has any leadership role in. Why is this drivel even here?
- 93po 6y ago
  >Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. Yet HN completely ignores this and upvotes content when it's someone who reflects their own values
- sethc2 6y ago
  > Why is this drivel even here? My guess is exactly because of statements like yours. He makes a good point, and when you can see past the conspiracy theory tone, I think this article is kind of awesome. Your kind of response making people feel like this article is bad is almost the entire point why he writes in a crazy way. Does he actually think the NYT is some singular conspirator, plotting the worlds doom? I highly doubt it. Is the NYT a good embodiment of the spirit that he is talking about? I’d say so. This was my favorite part from his article - “ Invite friends to write on your blog. Start 20 blogs all with fake names of fake people. There are no rules! Start a blog for your cat and your rat and your flower garden. How does your rose feel about all this? Change your style with every post. Contradict yourself. Lie to me. Commit plagiarism. Be really egregious about it. Misquote authors and butcher philosophy. There are no rules! Ok now write some good stuff. Like some really deep look out the window and ponder the truth of the ages stuff. Get drunk and write. Get high and write. Write a message in the snow with your piss. I hope it offends somebody. Does this post offend you? Good! Now offend me! Let’s offend each other. Doesn’t it feel good to feel something?”
  - skannamalai 6y ago
    Edgy Holden Caulfield vibes will never be a substitute for clarity of thought and evidence for convictions held. Whatever point he is trying to make is lost in the miasma of paranoia and detachment from logic. The existence of Hearst Castle != newspaper economics are healthy and viable, for example.
seertaak 6y ago
If you're trying to sell the idea that a newspaper - known not only for its content, but as a reference for style and prose - is somehow obsolete, then maybe you should avoid writing like an 11 year-old on meth.
fmakunbound 6y ago
I don’t think it’s any less mediocre than our other outlets.
sanp 6y ago
Vague accusations and insinuations without any substantiation whatsover...
smsm42 6y ago
It almost got me to cancel my NYT subscription, but at the last moment I remembered I never had one, or wanted one. I wonder why the author assume everyone has it?

129 points by apsec112 6y ago

Writing may cost you nothing, but editing should be paid for.

See https://www.amazon.com/Powers-That-Be-David-Halberstam/dp/0252069412 https://www.amazon.com/Powers-That-Be-David-Halberstam/dp/02... for something more "fair and balanced".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ratsmack 6y ago

>I see it now. I see that information and truth and freedom have been oppressed. I had been silenced. We had all been bound and gagged and silenced, not directly, but indirectly, by a strange, complex, invisible, sinister force. But I see it now. I see it so clearly. There was a "guild of truth" telling us that there was a central narrative of mankind. Truth was branded. We are all being controlled and oppressed and enslaved by the evil octopus of the New York Times. That is true, but it reaches far beyond the NYT. It is pervasive and it has a name. It's called "Cancel Culture". It is a social disease of unapologetic censorship that affects any and all civil discourse and is a form of social cancer.

exporectomy 6y ago
It's just an extension of that other social disease called "culture". Bullying and excluding people for saying uncool things has always happened at a small local scale, and people mostly adapted by keeping their mouths shut.
8bitsrule 6y ago
> Yes there was tons of content.... But they were all the same. Nobody was really saying anything. They were not allowed to. I played along with Rhinehart's 'Sound of Silence' (Simon/Garfunkle) routine / experiment / message until suddenly: BLAM We are all being controlled by: the New York Times! OF COURSE. It's so simple. How could we have missed it until now? All cultures have a dark side, as all we humans do. (See for reference:2020) Nature is beautiful, Nature is cruel. 'Best of times, worst of times.' But looking for a single source of darkness in some individual other is ... well, flippo. 'Find a scapegoat and beat up on it' doesn't lead to truth. After a century of war, we're still working on this. And suffering for it.
eudajmonia 6y ago
Why do people take themselves - so seriously. There was a lot of subtlety in this work and I interpreted it as part fiction. Thanks for sharing it, some of his other work was equally good.

xirbeosbwo1234 6y ago

So his "original thought", so important that he is braving all the evil backlash of people on Twitter, is that the New York Times isn't perfect. His mind is so liberated that he is borrowing the "cancel culture" and "the New York Times is literally Pravda" memes right off of Tucker Carlson. Dreck.

cocacola1 6y ago

I'm hoping someone can succinctly explain the hate for the NYT. Didn't get it before, don't get it now. It seems perfectly adequate. Same goes for WSJ, FT, the Economist, WaPo, etc. >I see it now. I see that information and truth and freedom have been oppressed. I had been silenced. We had all been bound and gagged and silenced, not directly, but indirectly, by a strange, complex, invisible, sinister force. But I see it now. I see it so clearly. There was a "guild of truth" telling us that there was a central narrative of mankind. Truth was branded. We are all being controlled and oppressed and enslaved by the evil octopus of the New York Times. This I especially don't get. No one has declared themselves the "guild of truth", and there's no paper or institution I can think of that the people have declared to be the "guild of truth". And if someone has, saying so doesn't make it true. But people not liking you, or your writing, isn't a crime.

saalweachter 6y ago
Googling [why does rob rhinehart hate the new york times] yielded https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhinged-politics-rant-shows-tech-execs-dont-understand-the-world https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhi...
- bingojess 6y ago
  Unhinged sounds about right, the blog post started out normal but it became increasingly disconnected and unsubstantiated. It read like something someone on adderall would churn out
- Udik 6y ago
  Frankly, if the Vice article is true (and it seems plausible given the rambling style of this one) he sounds pretty unhinged. Is this the effect of feeding only on Soylent?
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    It's possible, is there lead content in soylent? Like lots of lead? The guy sounds dis-associated from reality. A lot of the "everything is fake news" crowd is disjointed...I'm not sure of Soylent is the cause or not, or if they have investors/advisors if so, I'd be having a conversation about moving him out of the company and maybe into a psych ward for observation.

rntksi 6y ago

As a Non-American, I don't understand the hatred that is found in the article. I understand the author making the point/assumption that the New York Times, due to its large influence in the United States, has a pervasive sway in public opinion that goes further than just New York City. However I don't understand why that would be a bad thing, if it's not a monopoly? To take a more extreme example, there are bureaus in countries like North Korea (country wide news monopoly) or China (less brutal but monopoly nevertheless by the State) dedicated to controlling the narrative that goes on within the country. Anything that goes out of line is suppressed. Is the author comparing NYT to that kind of control over the narrative? If that is not the case, then personally I see how a combination of "free market economy" and "freedom of speech" would mean the ones with resources (power and money) will undubitably have a larger sway in public opinion. That's inherent in the system.

mc32 6y ago
If the New York Times were taken as seriously as The National Enquirer (which never the less occasionally does journalism), few would care. However, the NYT are taken seriously, take themselves seriously and they have heft and sway it to set the tone of public opinion. Why else would so many do things for shitty pay so one day they climb the ladder and have their own bylines? If the NYT says something they get quoted seriously rather than sarcastically, etc. That’s why it matters.

simnim 6y ago

This feels related to a recent Glenn Greenwald post: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale...

m463 6y ago

I have been noticing the new york times. Someone on one of the articles here mounted an e-ink display on his wall, and loaded the new york times frontpage on it each day. It has a very regular url: https://static01.nyt.com/images/<year>/<month>/<day>/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf I liked the nyt articles linked from here. So I wrote a script to download it each day and drop it in my inbox. It goes back about 10 years. What I found was that the front page is different, it makes judgements and is opinionated. I wonder - am I reading articles that I have self-select and agree with?

etc-hosts 6y ago

Did the NYT do a Soylent story recently? https://pando.com/2013/11/12/vice-investigates-soylent-finds-rats-and-mold/ https://pando.com/2013/11/12/vice-investigates-soylent-finds... I wonder if Rhinehart is behind #blockthenyt on Twitter

garrickvanburen 6y ago

Yes, private enterprises can employ editors and still be the first draft of history. If the OP’s point is that editors aren’t needed to publish at scale....yes....that’s been true since at least 2006.

lasagnaphil 6y ago

I don’t think you really need to start a brigade against NYT here, they’re already a dying bunch because the American dream of the “middle class city liberal” they were catering towards is rapidly eroding away. Their main source of articles (Trump) has now been depleted, and soon they’ll have to resort to much desperate measures to keep eyeballs in, such as this one. (The writer doesn’t even seem to be passionate about writing this, it seems rather forced.)

duxup 6y ago

Maybe I'm taking this rant too literally but: >There is a ton of money in newspapers. Have you ever heard of Hearst castle? There is a literal castle in California built by a man that owned newspapers. I'm not sure that makes sense.... now. Also the NYT destroyed local newspapers? I'm not sure that is accurate. >They are the ones that choose the president. What? >Write what you want to write. Write what you really think. The truth will come out. And it will come out better if you stop fearing and feeding the octopus. Is that just an argument to just believe whatever you want and to write a blog about it? That whole rant seems off.

headmelted 6y ago
No comment on the rant other than to say that when I read this I thought to myself that given the author is referring to WRH then that’s definitely got to be Xanadu. And Wikipedia has just confirmed that it is! My point being that should anyone ever want to see this argument made much more cogently (while also getting to appreciate one of the greatest films ever made) maybe give Citizen Kane a watch. Rosebud!
- Jiocus 6y ago
  +1 on this one. Just happened to rewatch Citizen Kane last week

betwixthewires 6y ago

I love this article. That is all.

eudajmonia 6y ago
Glad I am not the only one.

warmfuzzykitten 6y ago

Wow. The written equivalent of a YouTube conspiracy video. The factual claims aren't facts, e.g., the NYT had nothing to do with the demise of local papers, if you could point to a single cause it would be the loss of classified advertising. And the accusations are outrageous. Far from "all", nobody at all is "being controlled...and enslaved by the evil octopus of the New York Times." The link below may overgeneralize, but it dissects the piece in some detail. https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhinged-politics-rant-shows-tech-execs-dont-understand-the-world https://www.vice.com/en/article/epd4je/soylent-founders-unhi...

Traster 6y ago

Interesting to see the intersection of the right wing anti-media agenda with a new appreciation for cancel culture. If you don’t like something don’t buy it, but starting a campaign against it makes me think your not interested in a free and open discourse. For the same reason I’m not going to condemn a blogger for a couple of poorly considered comments or a podcaster for an exaggerated story about his daughter, I’m not going to endorse campaigning against the NYT because of some cockamamie idea they dictate public discourse. Cancel your subscription, stop trying to stoke up a mob.

treeman79 6y ago
There is a very active culture of attacking anyone with a conservative viewpoint. Attacking advertisers has been common for decades. Refuse to given into lgbt community and you will be torn apart.

oliwarner 6y ago

tldr, Rob is growing away from the mainstream. He feels he has no voice, no power politically and seems to want to lash out at an entity that appears to have both. I don't understand it, but it's not an uncommon story, especially recently.

KozmoNau7 6y ago

Rob has completely lost his already tenuous grasp on reality. The entire concept and execution of Soylent, his mission to "correct" his gut biome in order to be 100% efficient and produce no waste, his ridiculous idea of being "sustainable" by never doing laundry and instead mass ordering clothes produced overseas, are just a few of his "ideas". Add to this that nutritionally complete meal replacement shakes have been available at every corner store and drug store since the 1970s. His grand "invention" is a bad reimplementation of a wheel that already existed in a better form. Typical SV myopia. Why anyone listens to a word he says, is a mystery. He's clearly completely off his rocker.

robin21 6y ago

I dream about buying the nytimes and shutting it down. I’ve thought of this so many times. As a nice daydream. In the same whimsical tone of the article. I honestly feel like I share the emotion of the author. I could write for hours about it. There are many other news networks and papers but still, I feel something draws me back to the nytimes as the true spawn point for all that is wrong in the world. It’s this “grey lady” notion. The “paper of record”. It’s not like the others that are unabashedly biased and know that they are. The times is like an emperor blessed with the divine right to rule over truth and culture. The tone of the writing. The tone of their podcasts. Even in attacking it you must pay your respects to it as Trump did. You must leave the room without turning your back on it. It doesn’t just evoke the need to reform itself. It evokes such a strong sense of...it needs to be killed and die.

convolvatron 6y ago
why so negative? the times is getting worse. all written discourse is getting worse. why not wish for someone to do better instead of taking a flamethrower to the dregs?

jmull 6y ago

> The internet was no longer a safe place for self expression, which was the whole point of the internet. He means for himself, certainly not anyone else, apparently. The entire approach in this article is awful. It just builds up a boogeyman, demonizes it, sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph, a lot of strong words, yet with virtually no substance. It seems like copypasta written by AI that’s been digesting Facebook. Not sure why someone would spend effort on dropping a turd like this into the world. I guess his aim is to elevate himself by tearing down something else? Become a source of truth by attacking a source of truth?

filoeleven 6y ago

> Do you think this is a bad article? A bad blog post? That it is poorly written or not true or too crazy or paranoid or insane or profane? That is too long or too rambling This about sums it up, yes. NYT may have gone downhill, or it may not have ever deserved its status as “the paper of record.” But it’s definitely not an oppressive octopus strangling America’s speech. The NYT isn’t the reason you’re afraid to write a controversial blog post; that’s absurd. He’s being totally disingenuous by telling journalists to write what they want and damn the consequences, and if they ask him nicely HE will fund them—but only if they “really make [him] believe in” their writing. That’s really no different from saying “go freelance,” and I’d be very surprised if he ever backs this up with action.

Meph504 6y ago

God this guy, loves to drone on, Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. This seems to demonstrate that, and honestly, this sort of droning on would give me pause to invest in company he has any leadership role in. Why is this drivel even here?

93po 6y ago
>Just because someone can make a successful product/company doesn't mean they are worldly or wise. Yet HN completely ignores this and upvotes content when it's someone who reflects their own values
sethc2 6y ago
> Why is this drivel even here? My guess is exactly because of statements like yours. He makes a good point, and when you can see past the conspiracy theory tone, I think this article is kind of awesome. Your kind of response making people feel like this article is bad is almost the entire point why he writes in a crazy way. Does he actually think the NYT is some singular conspirator, plotting the worlds doom? I highly doubt it. Is the NYT a good embodiment of the spirit that he is talking about? I’d say so. This was my favorite part from his article - “ Invite friends to write on your blog. Start 20 blogs all with fake names of fake people. There are no rules! Start a blog for your cat and your rat and your flower garden. How does your rose feel about all this? Change your style with every post. Contradict yourself. Lie to me. Commit plagiarism. Be really egregious about it. Misquote authors and butcher philosophy. There are no rules! Ok now write some good stuff. Like some really deep look out the window and ponder the truth of the ages stuff. Get drunk and write. Get high and write. Write a message in the snow with your piss. I hope it offends somebody. Does this post offend you? Good! Now offend me! Let’s offend each other. Doesn’t it feel good to feel something?”
- skannamalai 6y ago
  Edgy Holden Caulfield vibes will never be a substitute for clarity of thought and evidence for convictions held. Whatever point he is trying to make is lost in the miasma of paranoia and detachment from logic. The existence of Hearst Castle != newspaper economics are healthy and viable, for example.

seertaak 6y ago

If you're trying to sell the idea that a newspaper - known not only for its content, but as a reference for style and prose - is somehow obsolete, then maybe you should avoid writing like an 11 year-old on meth.

fmakunbound 6y ago

I don’t think it’s any less mediocre than our other outlets.

sanp 6y ago

Vague accusations and insinuations without any substantiation whatsover...

smsm42 6y ago

It almost got me to cancel my NYT subscription, but at the last moment I remembered I never had one, or wanted one. I wonder why the author assume everyone has it?