7 ms·

"The trouble with the NYT piece is not that it makes any false statements, but just that it constantly insinuates nefarious beliefs and motives, via strategic w

by jariel 6y ago

"The trouble with the NYT piece is not that it makes any false statements, but just that it constantly insinuates nefarious beliefs and motives, via strategic word choices and omission of relevant facts that change the emotional coloration of the facts that it does present." My very limited personal interaction with the press boiled down to this and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, kind of a deep rooted cynicism. Growing up in this world, we tend to accept what's in print as 'truthy' at least, it's an incredible form of power. Their job is to keep an eye on more institutional power, so it's kind of a paradox we are stuck in.

refulgentis 6y ago
On the flip side, it taught me to be more humble - oftentimes I took things personally or as if any negativity erased put the author in some sort of camp. I see the same sort of response here, which worries me - the NYT article isn't nearly as negative as I see the in-group worrying about: the only negative part I read is some minor slap of the wrist for staging a cancellation drama because journalists can't ethically agree not to share his name when it's already very public information
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > journalists can't ethically agree not to share his name when it's already very public information Can you elaborate? What is unethical about not sharing someone's name? Even in the published piece, they do not mention that Scott Alexander is ethnically Jewish. Is it unethical not to share the subject's ethnicity?
  - handmodel 6y ago
    tbh I generally like SSC but I'm not sure I agree with him on the name part. He writes a blog and agreed to an interview. His name was elsewhere. I don't see why he gets to set the rules - it isn't like he's an anonymous person in the midst of a sexual assault case or something. He said over and over again that he thought it would hurt his psychiatric (I think) practice. I don't really see how that's the NYTimes issue. If I wrote a blog about computer science but also had a day job as a stand-up (or visa-versa) it isn't every single news outlet's job to only write positively about me or to never mention that I have the other job. If the interview was gotten under false pretense as he said then that is shitty - but I think it is standard practice (and a good standard practice) that a newspaper publishes the identity of impactful people they are writing about.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      In my view, leaving people who want privacy to have privacy is what separates journalists from paparazzi. If NYT starts to act like paparazzi, I would no longer give their words any more weight than I do TMZ. In my opinion, NYT broke an ethical rule by damaging someone's privacy. You may say Scott's name was not fully secret before the NYT entered the picture either, so it's OK. But that's like saying it's OK to throw a stone and break someone's window because there already was a small crack on the glass. Privacy is not binary. NYT was taking his privacy from perhaps 85% to 2% and that's gotta count for something. I, for one, have been a reader of his blog for at least 5 years and I had no idea what his real name was until this fiasco happened. I am not going to write a lengthy comment about this. Scott himself has written on the subject with more depth and eloquence that I could. I just want to add my own anecdote that I am done with NYT. After my Gell-Mann amnesia broke about NYT, I do not see myself ever becoming Gell-Mann amnesiac towards them again.
      - handmodel 6y ago
        The only news articles I've seen that profiled a subject where they didn't reveal the identity were cases of victims of crimes or whistleblowers. If I ran an influential comedy YouTube channel under a pseudonym, but I was a pre-school teacher on the side, the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. Perhaps I could claim that I would unjustly lose clients if this got published...but if you are at the point of having hundreds-of-thousands of followers and accepting any press then I don't see how this is anyone's doing but your own.
        smnrchrds 6y ago
        I believe it is unethical to upend people's lives, except if they have committed a serious crime or done something truly heinous; and being a journalist and doing it in the course of writing an article is not a valid exception. You do not believe this. We have a disagreement in values, so I don't believe we can come to an agreement.
        drdeca 6y ago
hctaw 6y ago
I don't know how best to articulate this, but it would be something like "Walter Cronkite never gave you a narrative." I don't think the fallacy lies in the power of institutions or print but the human desire to attribute deeper meaning, principle, design, intent, or structure where it doesn't exist.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I believe it was Cardinal Richelieu who said "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find a poorly argued, tenuous set of reasons that will appear laughable to reasonable people why that man should be hanged" Note: obviously Richelieu being of his time and religion only referred to men as being worthy of smearing. on edit: changed regions to reasons, tired.
erichocean 6y ago
> Their job is to keep an eye on more institutional power Buddy, the NYT is institutional power. The government listens to them, not the other way around. (Occasionally, NYT does USG a solid, like convincing the public to invade Iraq.) Oh, and the NYT listens to Harvard, Yale, and other high-status academic sources (and especially, NGOs). You might even call them their mouthpiece. It's been this way since at least WW2 when FDR disempowered the executive branch in favor of the permanent administrative state. We've been living in that reality ever since…
- jariel 6y ago
  Yes of course, I was referring to the press in general. Rupert Murdoch & Co. have a kind of similar influence as well. They are not held to the same standards of accountability and I don't think people realize how bad it is, that most of our news is narrative. As the population starts to become aware - the other problem is that truth is hard to come by, it takes work, and also rational readership - the population is really, really easily led astray by basically anything. Combined with Twitter, Social media, it's a hugely serious problem. So we have the Truth being twisted by institutional sources, 1000's of other outlets with no commitment to the truth, and then millions of individual voices spouting raw inanity. I wish I knew the answer.

by jariel 6y ago

refulgentis 6y ago

On the flip side, it taught me to be more humble - oftentimes I took things personally or as if any negativity erased put the author in some sort of camp. I see the same sort of response here, which worries me - the NYT article isn't nearly as negative as I see the in-group worrying about: the only negative part I read is some minor slap of the wrist for staging a cancellation drama because journalists can't ethically agree not to share his name when it's already very public information

smnrchrds 6y ago
> journalists can't ethically agree not to share his name when it's already very public information Can you elaborate? What is unethical about not sharing someone's name? Even in the published piece, they do not mention that Scott Alexander is ethnically Jewish. Is it unethical not to share the subject's ethnicity?
- handmodel 6y ago
  tbh I generally like SSC but I'm not sure I agree with him on the name part. He writes a blog and agreed to an interview. His name was elsewhere. I don't see why he gets to set the rules - it isn't like he's an anonymous person in the midst of a sexual assault case or something. He said over and over again that he thought it would hurt his psychiatric (I think) practice. I don't really see how that's the NYTimes issue. If I wrote a blog about computer science but also had a day job as a stand-up (or visa-versa) it isn't every single news outlet's job to only write positively about me or to never mention that I have the other job. If the interview was gotten under false pretense as he said then that is shitty - but I think it is standard practice (and a good standard practice) that a newspaper publishes the identity of impactful people they are writing about.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    In my view, leaving people who want privacy to have privacy is what separates journalists from paparazzi. If NYT starts to act like paparazzi, I would no longer give their words any more weight than I do TMZ. In my opinion, NYT broke an ethical rule by damaging someone's privacy. You may say Scott's name was not fully secret before the NYT entered the picture either, so it's OK. But that's like saying it's OK to throw a stone and break someone's window because there already was a small crack on the glass. Privacy is not binary. NYT was taking his privacy from perhaps 85% to 2% and that's gotta count for something. I, for one, have been a reader of his blog for at least 5 years and I had no idea what his real name was until this fiasco happened. I am not going to write a lengthy comment about this. Scott himself has written on the subject with more depth and eloquence that I could. I just want to add my own anecdote that I am done with NYT. After my Gell-Mann amnesia broke about NYT, I do not see myself ever becoming Gell-Mann amnesiac towards them again.
    - handmodel 6y ago
      The only news articles I've seen that profiled a subject where they didn't reveal the identity were cases of victims of crimes or whistleblowers. If I ran an influential comedy YouTube channel under a pseudonym, but I was a pre-school teacher on the side, the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. Perhaps I could claim that I would unjustly lose clients if this got published...but if you are at the point of having hundreds-of-thousands of followers and accepting any press then I don't see how this is anyone's doing but your own.
      - smnrchrds 6y ago
        I believe it is unethical to upend people's lives, except if they have committed a serious crime or done something truly heinous; and being a journalist and doing it in the course of writing an article is not a valid exception. You do not believe this. We have a disagreement in values, so I don't believe we can come to an agreement.
      - drdeca 6y ago

hctaw 6y ago

I don't know how best to articulate this, but it would be something like "Walter Cronkite never gave you a narrative." I don't think the fallacy lies in the power of institutions or print but the human desire to attribute deeper meaning, principle, design, intent, or structure where it doesn't exist.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I believe it was Cardinal Richelieu who said "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find a poorly argued, tenuous set of reasons that will appear laughable to reasonable people why that man should be hanged" Note: obviously Richelieu being of his time and religion only referred to men as being worthy of smearing. on edit: changed regions to reasons, tired.

erichocean 6y ago

> Their job is to keep an eye on more institutional power Buddy, the NYT is institutional power. The government listens to them, not the other way around. (Occasionally, NYT does USG a solid, like convincing the public to invade Iraq.) Oh, and the NYT listens to Harvard, Yale, and other high-status academic sources (and especially, NGOs). You might even call them their mouthpiece. It's been this way since at least WW2 when FDR disempowered the executive branch in favor of the permanent administrative state. We've been living in that reality ever since…

jariel 6y ago
Yes of course, I was referring to the press in general. Rupert Murdoch & Co. have a kind of similar influence as well. They are not held to the same standards of accountability and I don't think people realize how bad it is, that most of our news is narrative. As the population starts to become aware - the other problem is that truth is hard to come by, it takes work, and also rational readership - the population is really, really easily led astray by basically anything. Combined with Twitter, Social media, it's a hugely serious problem. So we have the Truth being twisted by institutional sources, 1000's of other outlets with no commitment to the truth, and then millions of individual voices spouting raw inanity. I wish I knew the answer.