5 ms·

Or, you know, because the "legacy media" had an order to shit on tech and not report neutrally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 https://news.ycomb

Or, you know, because the "legacy media" had an order to shit on tech and not report neutrally: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33473275 (except SBF, of course, they were allowed to praise him) But no, of course, it was because they had "questions" and everything in tech is Adam Neumann and Theranos.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Four of the top five largest companies are tech companies. Tech is arguably the most powerful industry in the world. It has a huge impact on almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The goal of journalism is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted", so why should publishers not take a critical stance toward some of the most comfortable people in the history of humankind?
- luckylion 4y ago
  Journalists should always be skeptical of everything, but not default to opposition without cause. They shouldn't work under orders to paint a certain industry in a negative light without regard for what's actually happening, especially when there's a conflict of interest as players from that industry compete with their companies. If there's something happening in tech that worthy of criticism, criticize it. If there's something worthy of praise, praise it. And for the rest: report it. Only presenting negative things is about as useful as only presenting positive things. But it feels more journalistic, "speaking truth to power" and all that. It's not, negativity just sells better.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ak217 4y ago
Deliver me from thin-skinned billionaires trying to bankroll their own sycophant "news media". Just because the NYT (which does not represent "legacy media" any more than a16z represents the tech industry) had a few editors and reporters with illusions of grandeur, doesn't lend any more credibility to the money bags people. I have had a target painted on my back before by someone with lots of money because they couldn't take a piece of criticism that I had for their company. Do you know how that feels? Normalizing retaliatory behavior by rich people (and yes, this outfit was part and parcel of a media strategy that included that) is destructive to civil society - while what the NYT did (though unprofessional) is still a normal aspect of a marketplace of ideas. Compare this behavior with Jeff Bezos. For all his faults, he did something infinitely classier. He actually bankrolled a news organization that has a global presence and practices journalistic excellence - and did not try to meddle in its editorial policy beyond that (or if he did, it was so subtle as to be imperceptible).

jakelazaroff 4y ago

Four of the top five largest companies are tech companies. Tech is arguably the most powerful industry in the world. It has a huge impact on almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The goal of journalism is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted", so why should publishers not take a critical stance toward some of the most comfortable people in the history of humankind?

luckylion 4y ago
Journalists should always be skeptical of everything, but not default to opposition without cause. They shouldn't work under orders to paint a certain industry in a negative light without regard for what's actually happening, especially when there's a conflict of interest as players from that industry compete with their companies. If there's something happening in tech that worthy of criticism, criticize it. If there's something worthy of praise, praise it. And for the rest: report it. Only presenting negative things is about as useful as only presenting positive things. But it feels more journalistic, "speaking truth to power" and all that. It's not, negativity just sells better.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ak217 4y ago

Deliver me from thin-skinned billionaires trying to bankroll their own sycophant "news media". Just because the NYT (which does not represent "legacy media" any more than a16z represents the tech industry) had a few editors and reporters with illusions of grandeur, doesn't lend any more credibility to the money bags people. I have had a target painted on my back before by someone with lots of money because they couldn't take a piece of criticism that I had for their company. Do you know how that feels? Normalizing retaliatory behavior by rich people (and yes, this outfit was part and parcel of a media strategy that included that) is destructive to civil society - while what the NYT did (though unprofessional) is still a normal aspect of a marketplace of ideas. Compare this behavior with Jeff Bezos. For all his faults, he did something infinitely classier. He actually bankrolled a news organization that has a global presence and practices journalistic excellence - and did not try to meddle in its editorial policy beyond that (or if he did, it was so subtle as to be imperceptible).