10 ms·

This story is about shady companies funded by government propaganda agencies around the world, and which cease operating as soon as you start investigating them

by Lendal 5y ago

This story is about shady companies funded by government propaganda agencies around the world, and which cease operating as soon as you start investigating them. The New York Times has been doing business continuously since 1851, is one of the cornerstones of democracy, a recognized leader in journalism schools across the globe, and to this day regularly fires journalists who are caught lying in a story. Anyone is free to literally walk into its offices at any time without being followed or shot. It's safe to say there is no comparison here.

LocalChapter 5y ago
Sorry I don't care how long they have been in business. Generally, "You are as good as your last performance." The New York Times (along with many other news outlets) has been known in recent years to be biased and untrustworthy to anyone that has been paying attention. So while it is nice they have been around since the mid-19th century they should not be bestowed trust just because in the past they have may have had good reporting.
refurb 5y ago
No. The story is about disinformation. Whether someone does it for money or ideology doesn’t matter, lies are lies and the NYTimes is not an innocent party here. They were a major driver of the Iraq WMD theory and thus the Iraq War if you want one solid example.
- 84thryu 5y ago
  That is a "one solid example", it is so. It was a bad practice of them. Does there have ANY others? This one example gets pulled out every time the NYT is mention and never have I seen other, not any.
zepto 5y ago
> fires journalists who are caught lying in a story No good misinformation or politically biased piece includes lies.
dharmaturtle 5y ago
They still employ Cade Metz, who doxxed Scott Alexander. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times-article https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > They still employ Cade Metz, who doxxed Scott Alexander. Internet norms are only internet norms, they aren't everywhere norms. Cade Metz did not "doxx" Scott Alexander, because doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces. And Alexander even wasn't doxxed by properly-understood internet norms because he doxxed himself long before. The situation was Scott Alexander was confused to think the norms of his community were controlling in every community, or that he could set arbitrary rules that everyone else would then be obligated to follow, and he has a lot of fans who share those confusions.
  - dharmaturtle 5y ago
    > because doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott. He wasn't a source, he was a subject. Think of it this way: if the NYT was writing a story about Trump, is he a source they should protect? No, he's the subject: they might give him a chance to comment, but they're not going to let him dictate their coverage. A source would be (for instance) some White House staffer that gives an account of some non-public discussion Trump was part of, and who could expect reprisal for the act of giving that account. IIRC, Metz learned Alexander's name independently of Alexander (not surprising because he linked it to his pseudonym himself), so Alexander was not the source and the NYT had no reasonable obligation to him to hide it.
andreilys 5y ago
NYT still employs Sarah Jeong who tweeted "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

by Lendal 5y ago

LocalChapter 5y ago

Sorry I don't care how long they have been in business. Generally, "You are as good as your last performance." The New York Times (along with many other news outlets) has been known in recent years to be biased and untrustworthy to anyone that has been paying attention. So while it is nice they have been around since the mid-19th century they should not be bestowed trust just because in the past they have may have had good reporting.

refurb 5y ago

No. The story is about disinformation. Whether someone does it for money or ideology doesn’t matter, lies are lies and the NYTimes is not an innocent party here. They were a major driver of the Iraq WMD theory and thus the Iraq War if you want one solid example.

84thryu 5y ago
That is a "one solid example", it is so. It was a bad practice of them. Does there have ANY others? This one example gets pulled out every time the NYT is mention and never have I seen other, not any.

zepto 5y ago

> fires journalists who are caught lying in a story No good misinformation or politically biased piece includes lies.

dharmaturtle 5y ago

They still employ Cade Metz, who doxxed Scott Alexander. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times-article https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-...

tablespoon 5y ago
> They still employ Cade Metz, who doxxed Scott Alexander. Internet norms are only internet norms, they aren't everywhere norms. Cade Metz did not "doxx" Scott Alexander, because doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces. And Alexander even wasn't doxxed by properly-understood internet norms because he doxxed himself long before. The situation was Scott Alexander was confused to think the norms of his community were controlling in every community, or that he could set arbitrary rules that everyone else would then be obligated to follow, and he has a lot of fans who share those confusions.
- dharmaturtle 5y ago
  > because doxxing does not exist outside of some particular very online spaces Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Journalism very much has the idea of protecting their sources. The NYT, for whatever reason, didn't feel like protecting Scott. He wasn't a source, he was a subject. Think of it this way: if the NYT was writing a story about Trump, is he a source they should protect? No, he's the subject: they might give him a chance to comment, but they're not going to let him dictate their coverage. A source would be (for instance) some White House staffer that gives an account of some non-public discussion Trump was part of, and who could expect reprisal for the act of giving that account. IIRC, Metz learned Alexander's name independently of Alexander (not surprising because he linked it to his pseudonym himself), so Alexander was not the source and the NYT had no reasonable obligation to him to hide it.

andreilys 5y ago

NYT still employs Sarah Jeong who tweeted "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534