4 ms·

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 Calla

by 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.
        pseudalopex 3y ago
        > What? I was replying to your claim "The core problem people have with TikTok", which is about TT, not NYT. The context you chose was equating NYT and TikTok. People have more than 1 core problem with TikTok of course. > 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 top level comments critical of TikTok spectacle were about consent mostly. And I reject considering top level comments only.

by neilk 3y ago

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.
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        > What? I was replying to your claim "The core problem people have with TikTok", which is about TT, not NYT. The context you chose was equating NYT and TikTok. People have more than 1 core problem with TikTok of course. > 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 top level comments critical of TikTok spectacle were about consent mostly. And I reject considering top level comments only.