3 ms·

The most troubling part of the NYT article is a glimpse into how hostile some tech folks are towards the idea of journalism: “If things get hot, it may be inte

The most troubling part of the NYT article is a glimpse into how hostile some tech folks are towards the idea of journalism: “If things get hot, it may be interesting to sic the Dark Enlightenment audience on a single vulnerable hostile reporter to dox them and turn them inside out with hostile reporting sent to their advertisers/friends/contacts,” Mr. Srinivasan said in an email viewed by The New York Times, using a term, “Dark Enlightenment,” that was synonymous with the neoreactionary movement.

quercusa 6y ago
> how hostile some tech folks are towards the idea of journalism I don't think they are hostile to the idea of journalism per se. It's the current practice they object to.
fallingknife 6y ago
I have never heard of a tech person who is hostile to the idea of journalism, just the terrible implementations that exist in companies like the NYT and Fox News. That quote is just suggesting they do to journalists what journalists do to other people.
- yeetawayhn 6y ago
  > That quote is just suggesting they do to journalists what journalists do to other people. The infamous Richard Nixon quote comes to mind.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    They didn't tell lies about Nixon.
    - yeetawayhn 6y ago
      I was referring to the "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal", claiming that it's okay for them to do what they do to regular people but not okay for regular people to do the same to them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dcolkitt 6y ago
This is Gell-Mann amnesia taking place before even getting to the end of the article. You just read an entire piece, where Cade Metz continuously quotes Scott Alexander out of context with a healthy does of guilt by association to create faux scandal. This was so brazen that it was done to writing on a publicly accessible blog. Then supposedly he "viewed an email" containing a quote that looks suspiciously similar to the above. Do we have any idea what the context of the broader email is? Is it possible that Srinivasan added "but we wouldn't stoop to their level" in the next sentence? Do we know whether the quote is paraphrased or not? Do we know whether they confirmed authenticity? (Viewed implies that someone sent a screenshot from their phone.) Frankly, the credibility that Cade Metz has at this point is about the same as The National Enquirer.
screye 6y ago
Entirely fair. I am actively hostile towards the nature of Journalism as it exists today. I dunno if it is troubling though. Rather, It is revealing. New-Journalism fundamentally opposes the ethos of old Journalism. The journalist is now an activist first, and a reporter second. The conclusion is decided before a story is selected, and lying by omission is the new norm. I don't mind biased reporting, if the organization openly declares its bias. The Economist is 'pro free trade & free markets'. They do not claim to bring you the truth and the complete truth. I subscribe to 'Theprint.in' which also deeply cares about old journalistic values and is explicit about telling when a person is giving opinions vs news. They too openly declare their bias:'Liberal on economy, liberal on society'. It is the main-stream media channels that claim to be neutral and fair. But, then use their power to push an agenda 24 hours of the day. I like journalists. I dislike activists, who refuse to face scrutiny for their stances.
ardy42 6y ago
> The most troubling part of the NYT article is a glimpse into how hostile some tech folks are towards the idea of journalism: I thought this article was pretty insightful on that topic: https://mynewbandis.substack.com/p/slate-star-clusterfuck https://mynewbandis.substack.com/p/slate-star-clusterfuck > There’s a specific kind of misunderstanding [about journalism] that’s pervasive in tech, and it falls in this taxonomy of fallacies somewhere between the commentary/reporting confusion, and Uncle Chico [who is the most prolific Facebook shitposter I’ve ever met, who thinks journalists who do not work at Fox have all coordinated to ruin Donald Trump’s life]. It is like the former in that it fails to understand processes and classifications that are integral to how journalism is done, and necessary, and it’s like the latter in the sense that it attributes personal qualities to journalists that both comically overstate the level of personal investment journalists have in the people they cover, and assumes that journalists are motivated by (maybe even primarily by) assorted flavors of malice.... > There’s also a related fallacy that’s not universal, but inasmuch as it exists, it seems uniquely endemic to tech: the idea that tech journalism should support the tech industry. This interprets journalism as public relations, which it is not. Journalists are not supposed to cheerlead the industry; they’re supposed to cover it, and that means writing the good things and the bad with no overriding preference for one over the other.

quercusa 6y ago

> how hostile some tech folks are towards the idea of journalism I don't think they are hostile to the idea of journalism per se. It's the current practice they object to.

fallingknife 6y ago

I have never heard of a tech person who is hostile to the idea of journalism, just the terrible implementations that exist in companies like the NYT and Fox News. That quote is just suggesting they do to journalists what journalists do to other people.

yeetawayhn 6y ago
> That quote is just suggesting they do to journalists what journalists do to other people. The infamous Richard Nixon quote comes to mind.
- fallingknife 6y ago
  They didn't tell lies about Nixon.
  - yeetawayhn 6y ago
    I was referring to the "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal", claiming that it's okay for them to do what they do to regular people but not okay for regular people to do the same to them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dcolkitt 6y ago

This is Gell-Mann amnesia taking place before even getting to the end of the article. You just read an entire piece, where Cade Metz continuously quotes Scott Alexander out of context with a healthy does of guilt by association to create faux scandal. This was so brazen that it was done to writing on a publicly accessible blog. Then supposedly he "viewed an email" containing a quote that looks suspiciously similar to the above. Do we have any idea what the context of the broader email is? Is it possible that Srinivasan added "but we wouldn't stoop to their level" in the next sentence? Do we know whether the quote is paraphrased or not? Do we know whether they confirmed authenticity? (Viewed implies that someone sent a screenshot from their phone.) Frankly, the credibility that Cade Metz has at this point is about the same as The National Enquirer.

screye 6y ago

Entirely fair. I am actively hostile towards the nature of Journalism as it exists today. I dunno if it is troubling though. Rather, It is revealing. New-Journalism fundamentally opposes the ethos of old Journalism. The journalist is now an activist first, and a reporter second. The conclusion is decided before a story is selected, and lying by omission is the new norm. I don't mind biased reporting, if the organization openly declares its bias. The Economist is 'pro free trade & free markets'. They do not claim to bring you the truth and the complete truth. I subscribe to 'Theprint.in' which also deeply cares about old journalistic values and is explicit about telling when a person is giving opinions vs news. They too openly declare their bias:'Liberal on economy, liberal on society'. It is the main-stream media channels that claim to be neutral and fair. But, then use their power to push an agenda 24 hours of the day. I like journalists. I dislike activists, who refuse to face scrutiny for their stances.

ardy42 6y ago

> The most troubling part of the NYT article is a glimpse into how hostile some tech folks are towards the idea of journalism: I thought this article was pretty insightful on that topic: https://mynewbandis.substack.com/p/slate-star-clusterfuck https://mynewbandis.substack.com/p/slate-star-clusterfuck > There’s a specific kind of misunderstanding [about journalism] that’s pervasive in tech, and it falls in this taxonomy of fallacies somewhere between the commentary/reporting confusion, and Uncle Chico [who is the most prolific Facebook shitposter I’ve ever met, who thinks journalists who do not work at Fox have all coordinated to ruin Donald Trump’s life]. It is like the former in that it fails to understand processes and classifications that are integral to how journalism is done, and necessary, and it’s like the latter in the sense that it attributes personal qualities to journalists that both comically overstate the level of personal investment journalists have in the people they cover, and assumes that journalists are motivated by (maybe even primarily by) assorted flavors of malice.... > There’s also a related fallacy that’s not universal, but inasmuch as it exists, it seems uniquely endemic to tech: the idea that tech journalism should support the tech industry. This interprets journalism as public relations, which it is not. Journalists are not supposed to cheerlead the industry; they’re supposed to cover it, and that means writing the good things and the bad with no overriding preference for one over the other.