4 ms·

Why would anybody trust a NYT article about internal drama at the NYT? Does HN not understand bias? Compare the NYT article to other reporting, and you can see

Why would anybody trust a NYT article about internal drama at the NYT? Does HN not understand bias? Compare the NYT article to other reporting, and you can see the difference. There's a few things the NYT forgot to mention, like the fact that these negotiations have been drawn out for 2 years now. Or this: "Throughout the bargaining process, Times management has engaged in numerous labor law violations, including implementing return-to-office mandates without bargaining and attempting to intimidate members through interrogations about their strike intentions. The NewsGuild of NY has filed unfair labor practice charges against The Times on these tactics as well as numerous other violations of labor law." https://nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-walks-off-the-job https://nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-walks-off... The NYT does include a quote blaming everything on the Tech Guild though: “We are disappointed that the Tech Guild leadership is attempting to jeopardize our journalistic mission at this critical time,”

gruez 2y ago
>"Why would anybody trust a NYT article about internal drama at the NYT? Does HN not understand bias?" >links to a blog post from the union
- lallysingh 2y ago
  Descriptions from both sides are now included, what did you want here?
  - themacguffinman 2y ago
    A neutral source from a third party news outlet. Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined?
    - gklitz 2y ago
      Being unbiased yourself does mean listening to both sides. What an off request that you would want to hear only from one party and then only additionally neutral parties but not hear from the other side at all because of “bias”.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      Too many people believe that we can balance excessive bias with excessive bias in another direction. In reality: - bias cannot be eliminated, merely mitigated; - the truth is not the average of all opinions; - some sources are important even if their point of view is subjective. Unfortunately, the whole internet seems to be engulfed in a nihilistic tribal war where everything is black or white. This kind of argument is a hammer you can use at any point when you don’t like an argument, because there is no objective source. Then, the conversation shifts to a discussion of the various point of views and all contact with reality is lost.
      - IshKebab 2y ago
        True but I'm not sure of the relevance here. NYT is clearly going to be biased here. This isn't Carl Sagan being "balanced" by flat earthers.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        The point is that you’re not going to learn about the world by averaging religious texts with flat Eartherism. Only once you have a foundation can you start measuring how each side is describing events.
        IshKebab 2y ago
        Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it? This isn't a case of one side being sane and the other crazy, or even both being crazy. It's two sides of a business dispute. Are you really going to draw your conclusion based on what just one side says?
        kergonath 2y ago
        > Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it? I was broadly agreeing with this in the parent post: > Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined? I am not saying that we should not seek other sources, just that quoting the union on one side of the dispute is not better than a reporter paid by the journal on the other side. Even worse, because a journal has some incentives to keep a reputation for being truthful, while communications from a union are purely partisan. (That’s not some criticism and unions play an important role; journalism is just not it) The point is, two wrong points of view do not magically average out to something right. Ideally someone reporting with some distance would be better.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - slg 2y ago
      > Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined? Ironically, the NYT's apparent belief in this exact thing is the main reason I'm no longer a subscriber.
    - lallysingh 2y ago
      So.. journalism? We're in a meta space for that.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      Would you prefer neutral coverage from a third party news outlet with a unionized workforce or one without a unionized workforce?
      - bhelkey 2y ago
        Just a third party news outlet is probably fine.
      - dowager_dan99 2y ago
        How is this relevant? We expect newspapers to be balanced regardless. The issue here is reporting from someone, <anyone>, at arm's length.
    - GeekyBear 2y ago
      Personally, I would rather have a single story that includes the viewpoints of management and the union along with a neutral account of the events.
      - dowager_dan99 2y ago
        This describes newspaper 101... from 20+ years ago. Now it's all "the reaction to the reaction to the most salacious and inflammatory interpretation"
        GeekyBear 2y ago
        I also prefer the old fashioned notion that opinions from the writer of the piece are appropriate in stories labeled as opinion pieces and editorials, but not in news reporting.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    A third party not directly invested in the outcome?
    - kaibee 2y ago
      There's no such thing.
      - pc86 2y ago
        Are you implying every person capable of writing about this has a personal investment in the outcome? That seems so obviously false that I have to be misunderstanding you.
      - MBCook 2y ago
        Not completely, but you certainly do far better than one side reporting on itself.
  - joenot443 2y ago
    I found this article to be a pretty balanced perspective - https://www.axios.com/2024/11/04/nyt-tech-workers-strike-ahead-of-election-day https://www.axios.com/2024/11/04/nyt-tech-workers-strike-ahe...
  - casey2 2y ago
    People are claiming they want 3rd party reporting would you be happy with NPR? Why do you think any for profit newspaper wouldn't be biased against unions? Do you think the WSJ has ever published a pro- or even neutral union story? Or will you get fluff like someone, in quotes, implying the NYT will have to shut it's doors if they are forced to pay some of their record profits to their employees. And before you start. The problem affecting article quality in reporting ISN'T a direct conflict of interest, it's bias. A direct conflict of interest just implies bias.
  - pc86 2y ago
    You don't account for bias by having two equally biased things from opposite sides of the conversation.
    - indoordin0saur 2y ago
      Well it is better than having only one side.
      - dowager_dan99 2y ago
        is this really true? With one side we can at least get something done and move on with are lives. Two extreme perspectives does not lead to finding a friendly middle ground, it just leaves us locked in a painful & unpleasant stasis.
      - pc86 2y ago
        Rather than having two slightly different piles of bullshit we should encourage not having any bullshit at all.
- throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]
gosub100 2y ago
Don't assume we all trust what we read. Some of us like pointing out subterfuge or bias.
sealeck 2y ago
@dang would it be better to change the link to an article from another (reputable) newspaper?
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Oddly, the NYT itself would agree with this gem of a source: https://nypost.com/2024/09/17/media/ny-times-tech-unions-bizarre-demands-to-avert-strike-include-higher-pay-for-non-white-workers-ban-on-scents-in-break-rooms/ https://nypost.com/2024/09/17/media/ny-times-tech-unions-biz...
donohoe 2y ago
Hello - former NYT employee here, who would have been part of the Guild union if I worked there still. The story is written by a reporter, Katie Robertson, who is also part of their own union (Times Guild). The Times has been pretty good at covering itself imho.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > who is also part of their own union (Times Guild). This doesn't remove the conflict of interest because it's not the same union. Those in the other unions may well be more sympathetic to the company than to the strikers, especially given the timing of the strike. It's likely interfering with their jobs right now in pursuit of a negotiation that they don't stand to gain from.
  - Wowfunhappy 2y ago
    If we used the Wall Street Journal, they'd also have a conflict interest, because their company competes with the New York Times. I really think this is silly. If there is anything specific you don't think the New York Times article is presenting fairly, please share that.
  - donohoe 2y ago
    So maybe I mis-read but... The comment I was replying to suggests the reporter is pro-NYT but you are suggesting that the reporter is pro-Union? Maybe the reporter did a great job after all :)
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Nope, I'm saying that them being part of an unrelated union does not change the fact that they have a conflict of interest in reporting here.
- bb611 2y ago
  NYT's political coverage has been extremely poor this year, with very obvious editorial control preventing negative coverage of Trump. It's not obvious to me they have a bias here, but given the clear systemic issues in other reporting it's reasonable to bring a skeptical view to their own reporting.
sowut 2y ago
"Times management has engaged in numerous labor law violations, including implementing return-to-office mandates without bargaining" this is insane. you can't require your workers to come into an office anymore? that's against the law?
- seanw444 2y ago
  [flagged]
- jacksnipe 2y ago
  They have a union and an agreement with the union. To change it, they have to negotiate. That’s how unions work.
- nickff 2y ago
  [flagged]
- heavyset_go 2y ago
  They signed a contract with the union and violated the contract by sidestepping negotiations with their RTO mandate.
dang 2y ago
Ok, we've changed from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/04/business/media/new-york-times-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/04/business/media/new-york-t... to a different source.

gruez 2y ago

>"Why would anybody trust a NYT article about internal drama at the NYT? Does HN not understand bias?" >links to a blog post from the union

lallysingh 2y ago
Descriptions from both sides are now included, what did you want here?
- themacguffinman 2y ago
  A neutral source from a third party news outlet. Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined?
  - gklitz 2y ago
    Being unbiased yourself does mean listening to both sides. What an off request that you would want to hear only from one party and then only additionally neutral parties but not hear from the other side at all because of “bias”.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    Too many people believe that we can balance excessive bias with excessive bias in another direction. In reality: - bias cannot be eliminated, merely mitigated; - the truth is not the average of all opinions; - some sources are important even if their point of view is subjective. Unfortunately, the whole internet seems to be engulfed in a nihilistic tribal war where everything is black or white. This kind of argument is a hammer you can use at any point when you don’t like an argument, because there is no objective source. Then, the conversation shifts to a discussion of the various point of views and all contact with reality is lost.
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      True but I'm not sure of the relevance here. NYT is clearly going to be biased here. This isn't Carl Sagan being "balanced" by flat earthers.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        The point is that you’re not going to learn about the world by averaging religious texts with flat Eartherism. Only once you have a foundation can you start measuring how each side is describing events.
        IshKebab 2y ago
        Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it? This isn't a case of one side being sane and the other crazy, or even both being crazy. It's two sides of a business dispute. Are you really going to draw your conclusion based on what just one side says?
        kergonath 2y ago
        > Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it? I was broadly agreeing with this in the parent post: > Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined? I am not saying that we should not seek other sources, just that quoting the union on one side of the dispute is not better than a reporter paid by the journal on the other side. Even worse, because a journal has some incentives to keep a reputation for being truthful, while communications from a union are purely partisan. (That’s not some criticism and unions play an important role; journalism is just not it) The point is, two wrong points of view do not magically average out to something right. Ideally someone reporting with some distance would be better.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - slg 2y ago
    > Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined? Ironically, the NYT's apparent belief in this exact thing is the main reason I'm no longer a subscriber.
  - lallysingh 2y ago
    So.. journalism? We're in a meta space for that.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    Would you prefer neutral coverage from a third party news outlet with a unionized workforce or one without a unionized workforce?
    - bhelkey 2y ago
      Just a third party news outlet is probably fine.
    - dowager_dan99 2y ago
      How is this relevant? We expect newspapers to be balanced regardless. The issue here is reporting from someone, <anyone>, at arm's length.
  - GeekyBear 2y ago
    Personally, I would rather have a single story that includes the viewpoints of management and the union along with a neutral account of the events.
    - dowager_dan99 2y ago
      This describes newspaper 101... from 20+ years ago. Now it's all "the reaction to the reaction to the most salacious and inflammatory interpretation"
      - GeekyBear 2y ago
        I also prefer the old fashioned notion that opinions from the writer of the piece are appropriate in stories labeled as opinion pieces and editorials, but not in news reporting.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  A third party not directly invested in the outcome?
  - kaibee 2y ago
    There's no such thing.
    - pc86 2y ago
      Are you implying every person capable of writing about this has a personal investment in the outcome? That seems so obviously false that I have to be misunderstanding you.
    - MBCook 2y ago
      Not completely, but you certainly do far better than one side reporting on itself.
- joenot443 2y ago
  I found this article to be a pretty balanced perspective - https://www.axios.com/2024/11/04/nyt-tech-workers-strike-ahead-of-election-day https://www.axios.com/2024/11/04/nyt-tech-workers-strike-ahe...
- casey2 2y ago
  People are claiming they want 3rd party reporting would you be happy with NPR? Why do you think any for profit newspaper wouldn't be biased against unions? Do you think the WSJ has ever published a pro- or even neutral union story? Or will you get fluff like someone, in quotes, implying the NYT will have to shut it's doors if they are forced to pay some of their record profits to their employees. And before you start. The problem affecting article quality in reporting ISN'T a direct conflict of interest, it's bias. A direct conflict of interest just implies bias.
- pc86 2y ago
  You don't account for bias by having two equally biased things from opposite sides of the conversation.
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    Well it is better than having only one side.
    - dowager_dan99 2y ago
      is this really true? With one side we can at least get something done and move on with are lives. Two extreme perspectives does not lead to finding a friendly middle ground, it just leaves us locked in a painful & unpleasant stasis.
    - pc86 2y ago
      Rather than having two slightly different piles of bullshit we should encourage not having any bullshit at all.
throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]

gosub100 2y ago

Don't assume we all trust what we read. Some of us like pointing out subterfuge or bias.

sealeck 2y ago

@dang would it be better to change the link to an article from another (reputable) newspaper?

bloomingkales 2y ago
Oddly, the NYT itself would agree with this gem of a source: https://nypost.com/2024/09/17/media/ny-times-tech-unions-bizarre-demands-to-avert-strike-include-higher-pay-for-non-white-workers-ban-on-scents-in-break-rooms/ https://nypost.com/2024/09/17/media/ny-times-tech-unions-biz...

donohoe 2y ago

Hello - former NYT employee here, who would have been part of the Guild union if I worked there still. The story is written by a reporter, Katie Robertson, who is also part of their own union (Times Guild). The Times has been pretty good at covering itself imho.

lolinder 2y ago
> who is also part of their own union (Times Guild). This doesn't remove the conflict of interest because it's not the same union. Those in the other unions may well be more sympathetic to the company than to the strikers, especially given the timing of the strike. It's likely interfering with their jobs right now in pursuit of a negotiation that they don't stand to gain from.
- Wowfunhappy 2y ago
  If we used the Wall Street Journal, they'd also have a conflict interest, because their company competes with the New York Times. I really think this is silly. If there is anything specific you don't think the New York Times article is presenting fairly, please share that.
- donohoe 2y ago
  So maybe I mis-read but... The comment I was replying to suggests the reporter is pro-NYT but you are suggesting that the reporter is pro-Union? Maybe the reporter did a great job after all :)
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Nope, I'm saying that them being part of an unrelated union does not change the fact that they have a conflict of interest in reporting here.
bb611 2y ago
NYT's political coverage has been extremely poor this year, with very obvious editorial control preventing negative coverage of Trump. It's not obvious to me they have a bias here, but given the clear systemic issues in other reporting it's reasonable to bring a skeptical view to their own reporting.

sowut 2y ago

"Times management has engaged in numerous labor law violations, including implementing return-to-office mandates without bargaining" this is insane. you can't require your workers to come into an office anymore? that's against the law?

seanw444 2y ago
[flagged]
jacksnipe 2y ago
They have a union and an agreement with the union. To change it, they have to negotiate. That’s how unions work.
nickff 2y ago
[flagged]
heavyset_go 2y ago
They signed a contract with the union and violated the contract by sidestepping negotiations with their RTO mandate.

dang 2y ago

Ok, we've changed from https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/04/business/media/new-york-times-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/04/business/media/new-york-t... to a different source.