4 ms·

> Was it a premeditated “hit job” or revenge piece? Or is there a better explanation for what happened? The OP offers as the better explanation that the NYT ha

> Was it a premeditated “hit job” or revenge piece? Or is there a better explanation for what happened? The OP offers as the better explanation that the NYT had a narrative for the piece to fit; and that narrative should not be seen as retaliation, because the trouble SSC gave them was beneath their notice. This might be right, I don't know, but how do you square it with all the sources saying Metz told them he was researching a basically positive piece on the rationalists being right early about the pandemic? Was he just lying? (E.g. this post by Scott Aaronson, C-f for "Cade": https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310) Also, it's not clear that the paper or the writer would only retaliate against a party viewed as powerful -- you don't necessarily see swatting a mosquito as not worth the effort; it's not as if a negative story is more work than a neutral one. Does anyone know more about when papers write hit pieces and when they don't?

zozbot234 6y ago
The whole thing is just so weird to me, that it's just hard to even know what a convincing explanation might look like. My current best guess is that the NYTimes journalist felt that they had to write something after the whole kerfuffle we're all too familiar with, and somehow all they managed to come up with was that really sad piece of SneerClub-grade innuendo. You could call it a "revenge" piece from that POV but that's really pushing it, even calling it a hit piece goes way too far. The New Yorker actually published a way more respectable critical piece on Scott, many months before the NYTimes did.
abecedarius 6y ago
similar objection from Eliezer Yudkowsky: https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1366120488972427264 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1366120488972427264
philwelch 6y ago
> This might be right, I don't know, but how do you square it with all the sources saying Metz told them he was researching a basically positive piece on the rationalists being right early about the pandemic? Was he just lying? Why wouldn't he be lying? Talking to journalists is like talking to the police. They will play nice with you to get you talking, and then use whatever you say however they want.

zozbot234 6y ago

The whole thing is just so weird to me, that it's just hard to even know what a convincing explanation might look like. My current best guess is that the NYTimes journalist felt that they had to write something after the whole kerfuffle we're all too familiar with, and somehow all they managed to come up with was that really sad piece of SneerClub-grade innuendo. You could call it a "revenge" piece from that POV but that's really pushing it, even calling it a hit piece goes way too far. The New Yorker actually published a way more respectable critical piece on Scott, many months before the NYTimes did.

abecedarius 6y ago

similar objection from Eliezer Yudkowsky: https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1366120488972427264 https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1366120488972427264

philwelch 6y ago

> This might be right, I don't know, but how do you square it with all the sources saying Metz told them he was researching a basically positive piece on the rationalists being right early about the pandemic? Was he just lying? Why wouldn't he be lying? Talking to journalists is like talking to the police. They will play nice with you to get you talking, and then use whatever you say however they want.