2 ms·

Is it? > Only in a bubble as insular and tiny as the SSC community would this theory be even remotely plausible. To put this in context: SSC is influential in

Is it? > Only in a bubble as insular and tiny as the SSC community would this theory be even remotely plausible. To put this in context: SSC is influential in a small but powerful corner of the tech industry. It is not, however, a site that most people, even at the New York Times, are aware exists--and certainly, the Times and its journalists are not threatened by its existence. They are not out to destroy the site, or “get” Scott, or punish him. At the risk of puncturing egos: they are not thinking about Scott or the site at all. Even the reporter working on the story has no especial investment in its subject. That reporter is also probably working on six other stories at the same time, thinking about their friends, family, what their kid needs to do in Zoom school tomorrow, the book they want to read, whether Donald Trump will get arrested, whether rats dream of boredom. They do not sit around thinking about how they’re going to “get” people they write about, and when subjects think they do, it’s more a reflection of the subject’s self-perception (or self-importance) and, sometimes, a sprinkling of unadulterated narcissism. I find it pretty plausible that no one gives a shit. It's just another article.

gok 6y ago
> The only time I’ve seen anyone assign a piece with the intent that it be explicitly negative was at a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, and it was a tiny celebrity gossip item. I can't imagine how this could be true. Gawker was extremely open about their intention to publish negative journalism.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Author talks more about the difference between negative vs malicious coverage in a way I’ve never seen spelled out before: > When I was the editor-in-chief of the New York Observer, my boss Jared Kushner tried a couple of times to talk me into doing “hit pieces” in the paper, and I refused. He even suggested I do one on someone who had bashed me publicly and I had to explain to him that real journalists do not do “hit pieces”; they follow the reporting wherever it goes. Jared thought they did because he conflated negative portrayals with malicious portrayals, much like some people are doing here, albeit in a less obviously stupid way. > Jared’s father, a convicted felon who once tried to blackmail his own brother, was covered negatively by the New Jersey newspapers. In Jared’s view, they were “out to get” his father. In Jared’s mind, because this is the narrative that makes sense to him and is also the most self-serving, his father did nothing wrong. He was railroaded by Chris Christie and the media, the latter of whom wanted to take him down.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
runsWphotons 6y ago
I find it plausible they don't give much of a shit about what they write, as long as they keep getting work. I find it absolutely wild to claim they don't aim to "get" people. Here is an article by a New York Times writer of hit pieces describing the thrill of writing hit pieces, how it advanced her career, and why maybe she shouldn't do it anymore even though it would be better for her career if she did: https://chosenbychoice.substack.com/p/learning-how-to-and-how-not-to-kill https://chosenbychoice.substack.com/p/learning-how-to-and-ho.... Journalists who write things like that SSC article know what they are doing, and the editors who publish them know too and this is exactly what malice is---purposeful harm/ill-will (even if it is somewhat minor malice on a scale topping off at topped off heads). The fact that they usually don't care about that is why they can have a career being casually malicious instead of succumbing to guilt. Furthermore, I find it striking how much clearer Scott's rebuttal was than either the original article or this article. Maybe the author and other journalists can't see the malice because they have become accustomed to poor writing and thus fuzzy perception.

gok 6y ago

> The only time I’ve seen anyone assign a piece with the intent that it be explicitly negative was at a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid, and it was a tiny celebrity gossip item. I can't imagine how this could be true. Gawker was extremely open about their intention to publish negative journalism.

tehwebguy 6y ago
Author talks more about the difference between negative vs malicious coverage in a way I’ve never seen spelled out before: > When I was the editor-in-chief of the New York Observer, my boss Jared Kushner tried a couple of times to talk me into doing “hit pieces” in the paper, and I refused. He even suggested I do one on someone who had bashed me publicly and I had to explain to him that real journalists do not do “hit pieces”; they follow the reporting wherever it goes. Jared thought they did because he conflated negative portrayals with malicious portrayals, much like some people are doing here, albeit in a less obviously stupid way. > Jared’s father, a convicted felon who once tried to blackmail his own brother, was covered negatively by the New Jersey newspapers. In Jared’s view, they were “out to get” his father. In Jared’s mind, because this is the narrative that makes sense to him and is also the most self-serving, his father did nothing wrong. He was railroaded by Chris Christie and the media, the latter of whom wanted to take him down.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

runsWphotons 6y ago

I find it plausible they don't give much of a shit about what they write, as long as they keep getting work. I find it absolutely wild to claim they don't aim to "get" people. Here is an article by a New York Times writer of hit pieces describing the thrill of writing hit pieces, how it advanced her career, and why maybe she shouldn't do it anymore even though it would be better for her career if she did: https://chosenbychoice.substack.com/p/learning-how-to-and-how-not-to-kill https://chosenbychoice.substack.com/p/learning-how-to-and-ho.... Journalists who write things like that SSC article know what they are doing, and the editors who publish them know too and this is exactly what malice is---purposeful harm/ill-will (even if it is somewhat minor malice on a scale topping off at topped off heads). The fact that they usually don't care about that is why they can have a career being casually malicious instead of succumbing to guilt. Furthermore, I find it striking how much clearer Scott's rebuttal was than either the original article or this article. Maybe the author and other journalists can't see the malice because they have become accustomed to poor writing and thus fuzzy perception.