2 ms·

They didn’t need moral outrage. They needed to not report on this like insider trading was some problem these companies were having that they were trying to avo

by lovich 3mo ago

They didn’t need moral outrage. They needed to not report on this like insider trading was some problem these companies were having that they were trying to avoid or fix when the CEOs have publicly stated it was their goal.

xtiansimon 3mo ago
> _"They needed to not..."_ I think I'm reading a moral stance in your comments. Like Commandments. "Thou shall not bear false witness". Maybe a radical stance in the context of news? I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me. NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. If there's a failure, I would say it's *Naivete*. A presumption of regularity and the rule of law will prevail. And if the reporter was also naive, then it's in the face of <evidence>. What's the purpose of taking one article and painting all news media as corrupt? I'm ready to grant that your conclusion [1] _"CEOs have publicly stated [insider trading] was their goal"_ is possible for some CEO. And unless you're an insider or receiving private information (which you've not claimed here), then your ground knowledge comes from reporting. The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does, is relying on sources whose positions are blatantly one-sided or whose information is so complex [2] only a few can determine its veracity from one article to the next. Mainstream News about complex issues fundamentally lags real-time, because it comes from the people who report it and from the people willing to go on record, and some editorial process of evaluation. The moral crisis of mainstream media has always been ownership (gatekeeping), but NPR is "funded by people like you". If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical), then something else is driving this vehemence and absolute certainty that all CEOs are crooks and so are all the mainstream news agencies (NPR) reporting about them. I'm sorry if you've been personally hurt (or threatened, as I feel about the AI bubble; that's another story), but I don't feel informed from your comments, or inspired to _take up arms_ following your reasoning. I think, dammit. We're between a rock and the hard place, and I'm going to be late to act. But I'm not going to throw NPR on the pyre. I will defend conscientious reporting where ever I find it. [1]: I say "conclusion" because it must be a conclusion of reasoning to take the _may_ in the article you offered and insist it means _must_. [2]: using the novel definition of 'complex' vs. 'complicated' where complex differentiates systems with social dynamics separate from systems with organization charts.
- lovich 3mo ago
  > I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me. > NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. Using the word "dogged" to describe a problem for companies that is a direct result of their business model, which the CEO's have admitted is their business model, and talk about how its a positive, is not neutral and where you lose me. > 'm ready to grant that your conclusion [1] _"CEOs have publicly stated [insider trading] was their goal"_ is possible for some CEO. And unless you're an insider or receiving private information (which you've not claimed here), then your ground knowledge comes from reporting. I linked an article with Polymarket(kalshi's competitor) and his statements on this. Do you think those comments didnt imply they felt insider trading was the goal? > The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does. Wasn't neutral. The term "dogged" has non neutral connotations, and the term didnt come from someone else they were quoting. > If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical) I did not expect you to look through my post history, so I would not judge you negatively for thinking this was radical if it came out of the blue, but it was in reference to a comment thread I was in previously with several other examples of sanewashing coming from apnews where I had several examples[1]. Including at least one where they explicitly changed the reported quote from "fourth" to "third" because the one using "fourth" invoked multiple issues. > I think, dammit. We're between a rock and the hard place, and I'm going to be late to act. But I'm not going to throw NPR on the pyre. I will defend conscientious reporting where ever I find it. NPR, reuters, and apnews used to be news organizations I looked to for unbiased news beyond the infotainment organizations like Fox News(stated in court they werent news), and CNN and CBS after they got bought up by conservative billionaires and then ran by Bari Weiss. However, ever since the past 2 years of this admin attacking news organization for reporting on events in a way that offends the king, they appear to have lost their balls and are reporting on things in a way that is subjective or not reflective of reality. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49088418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49088418
  - xtiansimon 2mo ago
    > “…they appear to have lost their balls…” I see where this is going. It’s the flip side of the Trump coin as expressed to me by my neighbor who I only just met: “President Trump is the only president in my lifetime who has any _balls_!” (he was yelling this at me at this point). I think your vision of news is without praxis. Peace.

by lovich 3mo ago

xtiansimon 3mo ago

> _"They needed to not..."_ I think I'm reading a moral stance in your comments. Like Commandments. "Thou shall not bear false witness". Maybe a radical stance in the context of news? I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me. NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. If there's a failure, I would say it's *Naivete*. A presumption of regularity and the rule of law will prevail. And if the reporter was also naive, then it's in the face of <evidence>. What's the purpose of taking one article and painting all news media as corrupt? I'm ready to grant that your conclusion [1] _"CEOs have publicly stated [insider trading] was their goal"_ is possible for some CEO. And unless you're an insider or receiving private information (which you've not claimed here), then your ground knowledge comes from reporting. The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does, is relying on sources whose positions are blatantly one-sided or whose information is so complex [2] only a few can determine its veracity from one article to the next. Mainstream News about complex issues fundamentally lags real-time, because it comes from the people who report it and from the people willing to go on record, and some editorial process of evaluation. The moral crisis of mainstream media has always been ownership (gatekeeping), but NPR is "funded by people like you". If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical), then something else is driving this vehemence and absolute certainty that all CEOs are crooks and so are all the mainstream news agencies (NPR) reporting about them. I'm sorry if you've been personally hurt (or threatened, as I feel about the AI bubble; that's another story), but I don't feel informed from your comments, or inspired to _take up arms_ following your reasoning. I think, dammit. We're between a rock and the hard place, and I'm going to be late to act. But I'm not going to throw NPR on the pyre. I will defend conscientious reporting where ever I find it. [1]: I say "conclusion" because it must be a conclusion of reasoning to take the _may_ in the article you offered and insist it means _must_. [2]: using the novel definition of 'complex' vs. 'complicated' where complex differentiates systems with social dynamics separate from systems with organization charts.

lovich 3mo ago
> I conclude you're demanding "mainstream media" (NPR) adopt a radical type of reporting and, yes, outrage by the use of your term "sanewashing". This is where you lose me. > NPR is a news machine designed for neutrality. Using the word "dogged" to describe a problem for companies that is a direct result of their business model, which the CEO's have admitted is their business model, and talk about how its a positive, is not neutral and where you lose me. > 'm ready to grant that your conclusion [1] _"CEOs have publicly stated [insider trading] was their goal"_ is possible for some CEO. And unless you're an insider or receiving private information (which you've not claimed here), then your ground knowledge comes from reporting. I linked an article with Polymarket(kalshi's competitor) and his statements on this. Do you think those comments didnt imply they felt insider trading was the goal? > The problem with reporting that's not making an effort at neutrality as NPR does. Wasn't neutral. The term "dogged" has non neutral connotations, and the term didnt come from someone else they were quoting. > If you're not taking a radical stance (and I call out "Yet another article...", as radical) I did not expect you to look through my post history, so I would not judge you negatively for thinking this was radical if it came out of the blue, but it was in reference to a comment thread I was in previously with several other examples of sanewashing coming from apnews where I had several examples[1]. Including at least one where they explicitly changed the reported quote from "fourth" to "third" because the one using "fourth" invoked multiple issues. > I think, dammit. We're between a rock and the hard place, and I'm going to be late to act. But I'm not going to throw NPR on the pyre. I will defend conscientious reporting where ever I find it. NPR, reuters, and apnews used to be news organizations I looked to for unbiased news beyond the infotainment organizations like Fox News(stated in court they werent news), and CNN and CBS after they got bought up by conservative billionaires and then ran by Bari Weiss. However, ever since the past 2 years of this admin attacking news organization for reporting on events in a way that offends the king, they appear to have lost their balls and are reporting on things in a way that is subjective or not reflective of reality. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49088418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49088418
- xtiansimon 2mo ago
  > “…they appear to have lost their balls…” I see where this is going. It’s the flip side of the Trump coin as expressed to me by my neighbor who I only just met: “President Trump is the only president in my lifetime who has any _balls_!” (he was yelling this at me at this point). I think your vision of news is without praxis. Peace.