3 ms·

You mean this one? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/health/opioids-drug-consumption-sites.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/health/opioids-drug-consu..

by neilk 3y ago

You mean this one? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/health/opioids-drug-consumption-sites.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/20/health/opioids-drug-consu... The focus seems entirely different. It’s not about shock value. In any case, turning aside from the NYTimes specifically, of course aesthetics and context matters! That’s what photojournalism is! The camera only ever captures fragments of reality, and then the publisher will place that content in a completely different context (you scrolling through your phone). Headlines, editing, narration, captions, preview images, and simply where and how you find it - that all puts the raw data into a story, a media experience. The same raw video file can be edited to to inflame disgust or inspire empathy.

mgraczyk 3y ago
No, more like this one, where the main focus is on how fucked up a small number of specific people are https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/health/fentanyl-xylazine-drug.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/health/fentanyl-xylazine-...
- neilk 3y ago
  I honestly don’t know what to tell you if you think these pieces are similar to random TikToks that are constructed to inspire horror and disgust. Andrew Callaghan does some interesting work that focuses on lurid topics but with unexpected sensitivity. In his recent piece on San Francisco street crime and drug addiction, there’s a subplot about a TikToker who is popular with conservative media for condemning and confronting street people. He is loathed by the social services and healthcare workers. https://youtu.be/URfCwT3UQy4 https://youtu.be/URfCwT3UQy4
  - mgraczyk 3y ago
    The first text in the NYT article on my phone is "Brooke Peder’s leg was amputated after an infection from a tranq wound bore into the bone. She hopes to save her arm, although she reluctantly injects tranq in it." They are both relying on shock and disgust to make money. I agree that NYT is far more fact based and substantive, but the core problem people seem to have with the TikTokers is almost just as bad in traditional journalism. Also yes I love Andrew Callahan, and the first scene of that video was shot 3 blocks from my office.
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      > I agree that NYT is far more fact based and substantive, but the core problem people seem to have with the TikTokers is almost just as bad in traditional journalism. The core problem people have with TikTok spectacle is it is less factual and not substantive.
      - mgraczyk 3y ago
        That may be so, but the article doesn't say anything about "facts" or "substance" of the content. It says "People need to stop coming into our community and exploiting us and profiting off what we are going through", "quit exploiting these poor people", "It’s become very exploitative there", "It’s detrimental because it isn’t helping". The article and many comments here express the sentiment that the problem is making money off these people without directly helping them. The very high level of what NYT does is the same, albeit with better norms and processes that are less likely to cause harm and more likely to lead to accurate reporting.
        pseudalopex 3y ago
        > That may be so, but the article doesn't say anything about "facts" or "substance" of the content. It says "People need to stop coming into our community and exploiting us and profiting off what we are going through", "quit exploiting these poor people", "It’s become very exploitative there", "It’s detrimental because it isn’t helping". We were discussing the NYT and an article you chose. Not the Guardian article. The Guardian article was less informative. It described the content of the TikTok videos in between the portions you quoted however. > The article and many comments here express the sentiment that the problem is making money off these people without directly helping them. This was 1 of several complaints in the Guardian article. And I saw 0 comments say this. 1 comment said all advertising supported journalism is horrific. 1 comment said earning money off others without consent is vile.
        mgraczyk 3y ago
        What? I was replying to your claim "The core problem people have with TikTok", which is about TT, not NYT. My point is that it's not the core problem people have with tiktok in this case. Currently every top level comment here that is critical of TikToker behavior is complaining about exploitation, not lack of factuality. The original article also does not complain about lack of factuality, primarily focusing on exploitation. Since every top level comment here and all the articles shared about tiktok refer to exploitation and not factuality, it's not the case that "The core problem people have with TikTok spectacle is it is less factual and not substantive.", if by "people " you are referring to HN commenters or people interviewed by the guardian, or the authors of the guardian piece. NYT is silent on the issue since their piece was written months ago.
- viraptor 3y ago
  I would disagree that's the main focus. It's good information supported by specific stories. The specific people there are: a person who got out and was happy to talk about it, a local tattoo artist who was talking about warning people and wasn't photographed/interviewed while drugged, and finally Kim who actually doesn't seem to provide much value. But that's still a small part next to the extra history, context, description of scope, information about helpers/volunteers, and a group photo which wouldn't be enough to identify the people in it. > the main focus is on how fucked up a small number of specific people are So no, I feel like we're looking at a completely different article. I don't see that as the focus at all.

by neilk 3y ago

mgraczyk 3y ago

No, more like this one, where the main focus is on how fucked up a small number of specific people are https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/health/fentanyl-xylazine-drug.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/07/health/fentanyl-xylazine-...

neilk 3y ago
I honestly don’t know what to tell you if you think these pieces are similar to random TikToks that are constructed to inspire horror and disgust. Andrew Callaghan does some interesting work that focuses on lurid topics but with unexpected sensitivity. In his recent piece on San Francisco street crime and drug addiction, there’s a subplot about a TikToker who is popular with conservative media for condemning and confronting street people. He is loathed by the social services and healthcare workers. https://youtu.be/URfCwT3UQy4 https://youtu.be/URfCwT3UQy4
- mgraczyk 3y ago
  The first text in the NYT article on my phone is "Brooke Peder’s leg was amputated after an infection from a tranq wound bore into the bone. She hopes to save her arm, although she reluctantly injects tranq in it." They are both relying on shock and disgust to make money. I agree that NYT is far more fact based and substantive, but the core problem people seem to have with the TikTokers is almost just as bad in traditional journalism. Also yes I love Andrew Callahan, and the first scene of that video was shot 3 blocks from my office.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    > I agree that NYT is far more fact based and substantive, but the core problem people seem to have with the TikTokers is almost just as bad in traditional journalism. The core problem people have with TikTok spectacle is it is less factual and not substantive.
    - mgraczyk 3y ago
      That may be so, but the article doesn't say anything about "facts" or "substance" of the content. It says "People need to stop coming into our community and exploiting us and profiting off what we are going through", "quit exploiting these poor people", "It’s become very exploitative there", "It’s detrimental because it isn’t helping". The article and many comments here express the sentiment that the problem is making money off these people without directly helping them. The very high level of what NYT does is the same, albeit with better norms and processes that are less likely to cause harm and more likely to lead to accurate reporting.
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        > That may be so, but the article doesn't say anything about "facts" or "substance" of the content. It says "People need to stop coming into our community and exploiting us and profiting off what we are going through", "quit exploiting these poor people", "It’s become very exploitative there", "It’s detrimental because it isn’t helping". We were discussing the NYT and an article you chose. Not the Guardian article. The Guardian article was less informative. It described the content of the TikTok videos in between the portions you quoted however. > The article and many comments here express the sentiment that the problem is making money off these people without directly helping them. This was 1 of several complaints in the Guardian article. And I saw 0 comments say this. 1 comment said all advertising supported journalism is horrific. 1 comment said earning money off others without consent is vile.
        mgraczyk 3y ago
        What? I was replying to your claim "The core problem people have with TikTok", which is about TT, not NYT. My point is that it's not the core problem people have with tiktok in this case. Currently every top level comment here that is critical of TikToker behavior is complaining about exploitation, not lack of factuality. The original article also does not complain about lack of factuality, primarily focusing on exploitation. Since every top level comment here and all the articles shared about tiktok refer to exploitation and not factuality, it's not the case that "The core problem people have with TikTok spectacle is it is less factual and not substantive.", if by "people " you are referring to HN commenters or people interviewed by the guardian, or the authors of the guardian piece. NYT is silent on the issue since their piece was written months ago.
viraptor 3y ago
I would disagree that's the main focus. It's good information supported by specific stories. The specific people there are: a person who got out and was happy to talk about it, a local tattoo artist who was talking about warning people and wasn't photographed/interviewed while drugged, and finally Kim who actually doesn't seem to provide much value. But that's still a small part next to the extra history, context, description of scope, information about helpers/volunteers, and a group photo which wouldn't be enough to identify the people in it. > the main focus is on how fucked up a small number of specific people are So no, I feel like we're looking at a completely different article. I don't see that as the focus at all.