3 ms·

Reading the NYT piece was mortifying.[1] They were my primary source of all things news and then published this strange hit that's just... off base. They were t

Reading the NYT piece was mortifying.[1] They were my primary source of all things news and then published this strange hit that's just... off base. They were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. How can a reliable news source write an article like that? Why throw your reputation down the toilet for what seems like a grudge? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-cod...

zarkov99 6y ago
I suggest that perhaps you just have not had as much knowledge about previous hit pieces as you had about this one. The NYT did this to Jordan Peterson and no doubt others. They are completely morally bankrupt and do not deserve anyone's trust.
graeme 6y ago
The Times has a long history. There was the WMD scandal where Judith Miller credulously wrote about the Bush administration’s lies on Iraq. Then in the 2016 election the NYT had a front page spread implying major scandal regarding Clinton’s emails. This probably cost Clinton the election. https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-elec... I could come up with more examples but the times have a very clear slant, much more marked than say the washington post. The NYT produces good reporting too but they can produce some real garbage. I could have sworn the times wrote a really bad article about islam in London but can’t find it.
- jumelles 6y ago
  > Then in the 2016 election the NYT had a front page spread implying major scandal regarding Clinton’s emails. This probably cost Clinton the election. I didn't realize James Comey worked at the Times.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  > The Times has a long history. Some of it is featured in Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992) "The film presents and illustrates Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas and interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. A centerpiece of the film is a long examination of the history of The New York Times' coverage of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky says exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally of the elite." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent_(film)
xyzelement 6y ago
// hey were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. You probably have heard of "Gell-Mann Amnesia" but in case not, it really explains a lot: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. ... Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect... you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page ... and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read" That's just happened to you - you read a story you happened to already know the ground truth on and it struck you as obviously wrong. If you had an equivalent background in other stories, you'd be seeing this kind of falseness everywhere. I have examples too numerous to cite of matters I knew well (eg: companies/industries I worked in, wealthy people I happened to know, countries/cultures/conflicts I studied or experienced first hand) that were covered completely backwards in the Times and other media. Like: good employers characterized as horrible. Military conflict response characterized as provocation. Meaning of speeches and essays characterized as reverse of what anyone who's hear/read them would actually conclude. A century ago, Times had whitewashed Stalin in a way that anyone who knew Russia would have instantly recognized as false. So I doubt the times was ever not "Fake News" it's just that it was so much harder to see it back then when your newspaper was how you knew anything.
- vinay_ys 6y ago
  Social-media is to main-stream-media as printing-press was to crown-church preachings a few 100 years ago.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Hence my frustration with the relentlessy inept articles across the MSM about the 737MAX crisis. Aviation Week's coverage was the only one that was even remotely credible. BTW, if you're interested in the facts, this report should help: 2018 - 035 - PK-LQP Final Report http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20... If you want to argue with me, I'll just cite that report :-)
- xyzelement 6y ago
smsm42 6y ago
If the clock strikes thirteen times, you don't just question the last strike, you must doubt the previous twelve too, even if they sounded reasonable before.

zarkov99 6y ago

I suggest that perhaps you just have not had as much knowledge about previous hit pieces as you had about this one. The NYT did this to Jordan Peterson and no doubt others. They are completely morally bankrupt and do not deserve anyone's trust.

graeme 6y ago

The Times has a long history. There was the WMD scandal where Judith Miller credulously wrote about the Bush administration’s lies on Iraq. Then in the 2016 election the NYT had a front page spread implying major scandal regarding Clinton’s emails. This probably cost Clinton the election. https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-elec... I could come up with more examples but the times have a very clear slant, much more marked than say the washington post. The NYT produces good reporting too but they can produce some real garbage. I could have sworn the times wrote a really bad article about islam in London but can’t find it.

jumelles 6y ago
> Then in the 2016 election the NYT had a front page spread implying major scandal regarding Clinton’s emails. This probably cost Clinton the election. I didn't realize James Comey worked at the Times.
yesenadam 6y ago
> The Times has a long history. Some of it is featured in Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992) "The film presents and illustrates Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas and interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. A centerpiece of the film is a long examination of the history of The New York Times' coverage of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky says exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally of the elite." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent_(film)

xyzelement 6y ago

// hey were the real news that was called fake news in a ridiculous/laughable sort of way. But it just doesn't jive. You probably have heard of "Gell-Mann Amnesia" but in case not, it really explains a lot: "You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. ... Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect... you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page ... and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read" That's just happened to you - you read a story you happened to already know the ground truth on and it struck you as obviously wrong. If you had an equivalent background in other stories, you'd be seeing this kind of falseness everywhere. I have examples too numerous to cite of matters I knew well (eg: companies/industries I worked in, wealthy people I happened to know, countries/cultures/conflicts I studied or experienced first hand) that were covered completely backwards in the Times and other media. Like: good employers characterized as horrible. Military conflict response characterized as provocation. Meaning of speeches and essays characterized as reverse of what anyone who's hear/read them would actually conclude. A century ago, Times had whitewashed Stalin in a way that anyone who knew Russia would have instantly recognized as false. So I doubt the times was ever not "Fake News" it's just that it was so much harder to see it back then when your newspaper was how you knew anything.

vinay_ys 6y ago
Social-media is to main-stream-media as printing-press was to crown-church preachings a few 100 years ago.
WalterBright 6y ago
Hence my frustration with the relentlessy inept articles across the MSM about the 737MAX crisis. Aviation Week's coverage was the only one that was even remotely credible. BTW, if you're interested in the facts, this report should help: 2018 - 035 - PK-LQP Final Report http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20035%20-%20PK-LQP%20Final%20Report.pdf http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/2018%20-%20... If you want to argue with me, I'll just cite that report :-)
xyzelement 6y ago

smsm42 6y ago

If the clock strikes thirteen times, you don't just question the last strike, you must doubt the previous twelve too, even if they sounded reasonable before.