3 ms·

Honestly this is a really boneheaded take. Ignorant people maybe don't realize that, historically, journalists were widely considered to be low status scribbler

by pnf 4y ago

Honestly this is a really boneheaded take. Ignorant people maybe don't realize that, historically, journalists were widely considered to be low status scribblers and political hacks. The hagiographic efforts of the profession notwithstanding, many people still see them that way (for good reasons). Got news for you, mate, the real world IS journalists barking at each other on the internet, defining discourse, eroding civic society. Folks like you will eventually see it, too, when the journalists say it's safe and acceptable to see it.

reaperducer 4y ago
Considering that I spent 20 years of my life working as a journalist at news organizations large and small, I hope you'll allow that I might just know a little more about how journalism works than you do, mate.
- pnf 4y ago
  That might explain why you are so touchy but it doesn't explain why you failed to disclose that salient fact in your silly argument. Maybe you have a false conscience and knew it would immediately discredit you? But those instincts combined with general ignorance is what makes good journalists, I'm sorry to say.
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    it doesn't explain why you failed to disclose that salient fact in your silly argument. Am I obligated to disclose that I held a particular job years ago? I didn't know that was a requirement on HN. I see that you also haven't disclosed your resume and that your profile is blank. Is there a reason for that? Maybe you have a false conscience and knew it would immediately discredit you? So far, all you've contributed to the discussion is hyperbole and name calling: "Touchy... silly... general ignorance... boneheaded... ignorant... discourse police... propagandists... some of the lowest forms of human life... the only reasonable feelings are contempt and pity" How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you present no facts, no cogent argument, just attacks and vitriol? I don't think there's any point in continuing this conversation any further. You are convinced of your position beyond the ability to reason and listen. I hope that some day you find peace within yourself and the ability to imagine that other human beings are not your enemy. You should probably also switch to decaf.
    - pnf 4y ago
      Certainly not a requirement for HN, but the fact is interesting and the fact you cleverly chose not to divulge it indicates motivated reasoning suggesting you wished your critique of my comment would appear more disinterested than it really was. 20 years at a job is the bulk of most people's professional lives, so it's really not irrelevant at all. It's true, I'm not a journalist. I probably should have put that in my bio. If I write anything attacking someone critical of programmers on HN, I'll be sure to disclose my bias. I will say, however, that being a journalist for only 20 years long ago very distinctly shaped your style of reasoning. You're really showing your stripes as a professional journalist by ignoring the meat of my argument to focus on the parts that offend you in particular. If you're being fair, you started it with the personal attack. My attack was on journalists, in general. You are mashing up comments I made about you with comments critical of a class of people doing a certain thing I think is pretty disgraceful. That's somewhat dishonest and the kind of thing I'm critical of journalists for doing habitually, as part of the job description. Anyway, if something you did for 20 years was years ago, then you're not the target audience of my comment. I don't want to disturb your retirement. I also admit that journalism way back in the day when you practiced it had a certain editorial sobriety that masked much of the ideological bias. Some of that is a function of the post-WWII consensus being effectively dead now. That wasn't the case back when you trod the boards. It was also much more common then for newsrooms to include working class voices. There were also many more news organizations back then, before consolidation. Those days are gone. The mask is off. People see it. You may not like my tone, but people waste a lot of time arguing over stuff that really doesn't make a bit of difference. Sometimes ridicule, satire, and sarcasm are more effective tools of conversion than more of the same tired whinging about well-meaning people. I don't think ALL "human beings" are my enemy, just some. Do you have no enemies? I doubt that very much.

by pnf 4y ago

reaperducer 4y ago

Considering that I spent 20 years of my life working as a journalist at news organizations large and small, I hope you'll allow that I might just know a little more about how journalism works than you do, mate.

pnf 4y ago
That might explain why you are so touchy but it doesn't explain why you failed to disclose that salient fact in your silly argument. Maybe you have a false conscience and knew it would immediately discredit you? But those instincts combined with general ignorance is what makes good journalists, I'm sorry to say.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  it doesn't explain why you failed to disclose that salient fact in your silly argument. Am I obligated to disclose that I held a particular job years ago? I didn't know that was a requirement on HN. I see that you also haven't disclosed your resume and that your profile is blank. Is there a reason for that? Maybe you have a false conscience and knew it would immediately discredit you? So far, all you've contributed to the discussion is hyperbole and name calling: "Touchy... silly... general ignorance... boneheaded... ignorant... discourse police... propagandists... some of the lowest forms of human life... the only reasonable feelings are contempt and pity" How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you present no facts, no cogent argument, just attacks and vitriol? I don't think there's any point in continuing this conversation any further. You are convinced of your position beyond the ability to reason and listen. I hope that some day you find peace within yourself and the ability to imagine that other human beings are not your enemy. You should probably also switch to decaf.
  - pnf 4y ago
    Certainly not a requirement for HN, but the fact is interesting and the fact you cleverly chose not to divulge it indicates motivated reasoning suggesting you wished your critique of my comment would appear more disinterested than it really was. 20 years at a job is the bulk of most people's professional lives, so it's really not irrelevant at all. It's true, I'm not a journalist. I probably should have put that in my bio. If I write anything attacking someone critical of programmers on HN, I'll be sure to disclose my bias. I will say, however, that being a journalist for only 20 years long ago very distinctly shaped your style of reasoning. You're really showing your stripes as a professional journalist by ignoring the meat of my argument to focus on the parts that offend you in particular. If you're being fair, you started it with the personal attack. My attack was on journalists, in general. You are mashing up comments I made about you with comments critical of a class of people doing a certain thing I think is pretty disgraceful. That's somewhat dishonest and the kind of thing I'm critical of journalists for doing habitually, as part of the job description. Anyway, if something you did for 20 years was years ago, then you're not the target audience of my comment. I don't want to disturb your retirement. I also admit that journalism way back in the day when you practiced it had a certain editorial sobriety that masked much of the ideological bias. Some of that is a function of the post-WWII consensus being effectively dead now. That wasn't the case back when you trod the boards. It was also much more common then for newsrooms to include working class voices. There were also many more news organizations back then, before consolidation. Those days are gone. The mask is off. People see it. You may not like my tone, but people waste a lot of time arguing over stuff that really doesn't make a bit of difference. Sometimes ridicule, satire, and sarcasm are more effective tools of conversion than more of the same tired whinging about well-meaning people. I don't think ALL "human beings" are my enemy, just some. Do you have no enemies? I doubt that very much.