4 ms·

...an infomercial for the author's new book? Weak sauce, NYT.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
I completely cut nytimes out of my life. I don't think I'm better informed, probably worse, just happier. Definitely happier.
- pegasus 4y ago
  Ignorance is bliss, then?
  - HidyBush 4y ago
    Since when do newspapers equal knowledge?
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    I quit viewing the NYT as a reliable news source after they sold all those lies about Iraqi WMDs to the American public on behalf of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld neocon crowd. It's not hard to say informed without relying on such corporate media outlets with obvious ulterior motives. For example, if I want to read about Apple's M1 Ipad (I do like ipads, though mostly use Linux now), just go to DuckDuckGo and enter Apple M1 Ipad "engineering" design Flip through the first 50 results, you'll get a better view on what's up than the NYT provides, with its drivel about 'the soul of Apple' and similar fluff nonsense. You can try it on Google as well, but then half the page is just ads. [edit: one thing I discovered by doing that is that the M1 Ipad is going to be very difficult to repair, which is a huge negative for me]
    - Bud 4y ago
      So who did you choose as a reliable news source going forward, then, instead? I think you need to be mindful that NYT got duped just like Powell did. It doesn't magically mean they are all bad journalists. It doesn't. You can fantasize that it does if you like, but it doesn't. NYT is not an in-depth tech reporting organ, so I agree with you on that. But if you want detailed global-scale investigations of complex new issues? Good luck, in the US at least, finding a substantially better source than NYT. You won't. It's not there.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    "To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer ‘by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.’ yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. it is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it’s benefits, than is done by it’s abandoned prostitution to falsehood. nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. the real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time: whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. general facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. he who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 [1] That's one of my favorite quotes that's becoming more relevant by the day. The reason, among many, is that that was written more than 200 years ago. It emphasizes that the brief window of media that many of us grew up within was some weird brief bubble of competence, integrity, and accountability that was for seemingly most all of the rest of humanity's existence, not the case. And we're now simply returning to the 'good ole days.' [1] - https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5737 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5...
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      Couldn't follow the link.
      - jaclaz 4y ago
        It is truncated for some reasons, the document is: From Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 11 June 1807 This one, even if it is truncated in the view on HN, seems to be working: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5737 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5...
ghaff 4y ago
I see a disclosure right at the very top. And an article adapted from a book, that most of us won't get around to reading, seems like a perfectly reasonable topic. ADDED: I'm actually more inclined to read an article written by someone who did the research/put the effort into writing an entire book on a subject.
- jessriedel 4y ago
  Agreed. Both book authors and journalists face comparable financial motivations to distort facts for the sake of story telling (and in this case the author is also a NYT journalist).
- trowawee 4y ago
  I understand the thought, but a weird reality about book writing is that, since the author bears the cost for fact-checking books, they're often less extensively fact-checked than longer reported pieces for newspapers or magazines.

I completely cut nytimes out of my life. I don't think I'm better informed, probably worse, just happier. Definitely happier.

pegasus 4y ago
Ignorance is bliss, then?
- HidyBush 4y ago
  Since when do newspapers equal knowledge?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  I quit viewing the NYT as a reliable news source after they sold all those lies about Iraqi WMDs to the American public on behalf of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld neocon crowd. It's not hard to say informed without relying on such corporate media outlets with obvious ulterior motives. For example, if I want to read about Apple's M1 Ipad (I do like ipads, though mostly use Linux now), just go to DuckDuckGo and enter Apple M1 Ipad "engineering" design Flip through the first 50 results, you'll get a better view on what's up than the NYT provides, with its drivel about 'the soul of Apple' and similar fluff nonsense. You can try it on Google as well, but then half the page is just ads. [edit: one thing I discovered by doing that is that the M1 Ipad is going to be very difficult to repair, which is a huge negative for me]
  - Bud 4y ago
    So who did you choose as a reliable news source going forward, then, instead? I think you need to be mindful that NYT got duped just like Powell did. It doesn't magically mean they are all bad journalists. It doesn't. You can fantasize that it does if you like, but it doesn't. NYT is not an in-depth tech reporting organ, so I agree with you on that. But if you want detailed global-scale investigations of complex new issues? Good luck, in the US at least, finding a substantially better source than NYT. You won't. It's not there.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- somenameforme 4y ago
  "To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer ‘by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.’ yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. it is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it’s benefits, than is done by it’s abandoned prostitution to falsehood. nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. the real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time: whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. general facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. he who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." - Thomas Jefferson, 1807 [1] That's one of my favorite quotes that's becoming more relevant by the day. The reason, among many, is that that was written more than 200 years ago. It emphasizes that the brief window of media that many of us grew up within was some weird brief bubble of competence, integrity, and accountability that was for seemingly most all of the rest of humanity's existence, not the case. And we're now simply returning to the 'good ole days.' [1] - https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5737 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5...
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Couldn't follow the link.
    - jaclaz 4y ago
      It is truncated for some reasons, the document is: From Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 11 June 1807 This one, even if it is truncated in the view on HN, seems to be working: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5737 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5...

ghaff 4y ago

I see a disclosure right at the very top. And an article adapted from a book, that most of us won't get around to reading, seems like a perfectly reasonable topic. ADDED: I'm actually more inclined to read an article written by someone who did the research/put the effort into writing an entire book on a subject.

jessriedel 4y ago
Agreed. Both book authors and journalists face comparable financial motivations to distort facts for the sake of story telling (and in this case the author is also a NYT journalist).
trowawee 4y ago
I understand the thought, but a weird reality about book writing is that, since the author bears the cost for fact-checking books, they're often less extensively fact-checked than longer reported pieces for newspapers or magazines.