4 ms·

"All I know is that there is only one way the press maintains its power in society: by metaphorically putting the heads of powerful people on pikes." this is w

"All I know is that there is only one way the press maintains its power in society: by metaphorically putting the heads of powerful people on pikes." this is what just happened with Scott Alexander. they tried to put his head on a pike, because he's a high value node in the tech community that's eroding the power of the legacy press.

ardy42 6y ago
> this is what just happened with Scott Alexander. they tried to put his head on a pike, because he's a high value node in the tech community that's eroding the power of the legacy press. Put his head on a pike? They? Come on now. It will be interesting to see what will happens with this. Ever since the Scott Alexander NYT story, there's been a parade of old media criticism articles getting dredged up and making it to the front page, as well as a lot of broad-brush "I'm done with journalism, those fuckers" sentiment. It frankly sounds a lot like conservatives who are mad that the media wrote so many negative stories about Trump, and think it should have focused instead on positively covering stuff like the Trump administration's self-authored list of great accomplishments. Some people don't want journalism, they just want myside PR. I mean, the media's not perfect; but it's pretty unreasonable to get mad when your favorite band new album gets a bad review or a newspaper writes articles that fail to abide by the commenting norms of your favorite online message board.
- haberman 6y ago
  Is there any more toxic label you can attach to a person in contemporary America than "racist?" Is there any accusation -- outside of actual crimes -- more likely to cause a person to lose opportunities, social connections, or standing in their community? I can't speak to this reporter's motivations, but if a reporter wanted to metaphorically put someone's head on a pike, I can't think of any more effective way to do it than to insinuate that they are a racist, and somehow get it to stick.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Is there any more toxic label you can attach to a person in contemporary America than "racist?" The actual article did not in fact label him as racist, and I don't think you could read it that way without being sloppy.
    - pochamago 6y ago
      It certainly tried to imply it with things like mentioning that he's cited Charles Murray, and then mentioning Murray's completely unrelated writing on race.
    - haberman 6y ago
      If you read my comment carefully, I didn't actually say that the article labeled him, I merely asked some questions and posed a hypothetical. And yet you drew an inference about my meaning beyond what my literal words were. You could call this sloppy reading, but I think the truth is that a writer can clearly communicate their intended conclusion without stating it directly. Which is just what Metz did.
watwut 6y ago
I read the article. There was like a little bit of criticism in article that contains both positive and negative claims. And everyone frankly overreacts to it. It is absolutely fair to disagree or argue against what was written, but it was not hit piece by any reasonable definition. And the first article about him also did not done anything that would be objectionable. And frankly, I have seen way more aggressive writing from journalists who are praised here as truth tellers.

ardy42 6y ago

> this is what just happened with Scott Alexander. they tried to put his head on a pike, because he's a high value node in the tech community that's eroding the power of the legacy press. Put his head on a pike? They? Come on now. It will be interesting to see what will happens with this. Ever since the Scott Alexander NYT story, there's been a parade of old media criticism articles getting dredged up and making it to the front page, as well as a lot of broad-brush "I'm done with journalism, those fuckers" sentiment. It frankly sounds a lot like conservatives who are mad that the media wrote so many negative stories about Trump, and think it should have focused instead on positively covering stuff like the Trump administration's self-authored list of great accomplishments. Some people don't want journalism, they just want myside PR. I mean, the media's not perfect; but it's pretty unreasonable to get mad when your favorite band new album gets a bad review or a newspaper writes articles that fail to abide by the commenting norms of your favorite online message board.

haberman 6y ago
Is there any more toxic label you can attach to a person in contemporary America than "racist?" Is there any accusation -- outside of actual crimes -- more likely to cause a person to lose opportunities, social connections, or standing in their community? I can't speak to this reporter's motivations, but if a reporter wanted to metaphorically put someone's head on a pike, I can't think of any more effective way to do it than to insinuate that they are a racist, and somehow get it to stick.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Is there any more toxic label you can attach to a person in contemporary America than "racist?" The actual article did not in fact label him as racist, and I don't think you could read it that way without being sloppy.
  - pochamago 6y ago
    It certainly tried to imply it with things like mentioning that he's cited Charles Murray, and then mentioning Murray's completely unrelated writing on race.
  - haberman 6y ago
    If you read my comment carefully, I didn't actually say that the article labeled him, I merely asked some questions and posed a hypothetical. And yet you drew an inference about my meaning beyond what my literal words were. You could call this sloppy reading, but I think the truth is that a writer can clearly communicate their intended conclusion without stating it directly. Which is just what Metz did.

watwut 6y ago

I read the article. There was like a little bit of criticism in article that contains both positive and negative claims. And everyone frankly overreacts to it. It is absolutely fair to disagree or argue against what was written, but it was not hit piece by any reasonable definition. And the first article about him also did not done anything that would be objectionable. And frankly, I have seen way more aggressive writing from journalists who are praised here as truth tellers.