4 ms·

You do realize you're commenting on a HN thread for a New York Times piece, right? A piece that casually included terms such as "racist" and "misogynistic" as

You do realize you're commenting on a HN thread for a New York Times piece, right? A piece that casually included terms such as "racist" and "misogynistic" as if they were describing the weather. If those terms do sound natural enough to use in something as casual as describing the weather, then congratulations, you've discovered the dangers that this book tried to highlight.

eli 11y ago
You lost me. What is the linked article supposed to be an example of? Would we be having a different conversation if the thread linked to the Reddit announcement instead? And I don't think racism or sexism is something to be taken lightly. I don't think the New York Times does either, which is probably why the fact that there were racist and misogynistic posts about Ellen Pao was noteworthy enough to include in 8th graf of the article.
- axlprose 11y ago
  > What is the linked article supposed to be an example of? It's an example of exactly what the book talks about: subtle, lightly filtered "news". > Would we be having a different conversation if the thread linked to the Reddit announcement instead? No, because if you read my previous summary of the book, you would realize that the mechanisms in these two outlets is exactly the same. A single highly emphasized voice/view, with little curation/filtering, being projected loudly through network effects. If you're still unsure about what I'm talking about, or how it fits in, I can only recommend that you pick up the book. It's really quite an interesting and quick read. And interestingly, the issue you're having of having difficulty seeing what I'm talking about, is basically exactly what the book talks about.
madeofpalk 11y ago
Are those "racist" and "misogynistic" claims false? Judging by the top post(s), here https://www.reddit.com/r/Ellenpaoinaction/top/?sort=top&t=all https://www.reddit.com/r/Ellenpaoinaction/top/?sort=top&t=al... I would say no. That's pretty "racist" and "misogynistic". There was another sub reddit that was worse, but I can't seem to find it on my phone. If you think the NYT article made those claims lightly (I don't) then I think that says more about the state of the Internet and its communities in general (or perhaps just you) rather than "The Media"
- axlprose 11y ago
  The point isn't whether it's "true" or "false", because that will vary depending on who you ask. Yes, even people you find disgusting are legitimate human beings with opinions too. Who are any of us to decide what is "right" or "wrong"? Good journalism is supposed to let you make those decisions on your own, not give them to you. So in order to be good journalism, it must be objective, and to not describe things in terms of loaded phrases that convey any opinions. The opinions may be right, or they may be wrong, but that has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is the one highlighted in the book, which is that our news isn't getting properly filtered, and as a result, we're being shown rather restricted points of view in our media. If current media organizations were run with proper journalistic merit, almost 99% of what gets published out there as 'news', would be filed in the editorials section.
  - orbitur 11y ago
    > The point isn't whether it's "true" or "false", because that will vary depending on who you ask. Please, it seems like you're the one who needs to be honest. The most vocal, outraged reddit users are clearly sexist. Here's the top most used words in the petition. Sure, let's NOT use the word "sexism" here, since it's kind of unclear. https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3cetav/i_made_a_wordcloud_of_the_signatures_on_the/csuwej6?context=10000 https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3cetav/i_made_...
    - axlprose 11y ago
      It seems you missed what I tried to convey. I explicitly stated that the issue is objectiveness, and subjective terms, by definition cannot be objective. You can gather all the data in the world about reddit users and their mannerisms, but that does not change the way the logic behind 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' work.
      - madeofpalk 11y ago
        I think the overwhelming majority of our society will agree that the mentioned behaviour was misogynistic. That makes it a fairly objective statement. You can still disagree with it (in the same way people disagree with other objective statements, like vaccines and autism), but that doesn't make it subjective.

eli 11y ago

You lost me. What is the linked article supposed to be an example of? Would we be having a different conversation if the thread linked to the Reddit announcement instead? And I don't think racism or sexism is something to be taken lightly. I don't think the New York Times does either, which is probably why the fact that there were racist and misogynistic posts about Ellen Pao was noteworthy enough to include in 8th graf of the article.

axlprose 11y ago
> What is the linked article supposed to be an example of? It's an example of exactly what the book talks about: subtle, lightly filtered "news". > Would we be having a different conversation if the thread linked to the Reddit announcement instead? No, because if you read my previous summary of the book, you would realize that the mechanisms in these two outlets is exactly the same. A single highly emphasized voice/view, with little curation/filtering, being projected loudly through network effects. If you're still unsure about what I'm talking about, or how it fits in, I can only recommend that you pick up the book. It's really quite an interesting and quick read. And interestingly, the issue you're having of having difficulty seeing what I'm talking about, is basically exactly what the book talks about.

madeofpalk 11y ago

Are those "racist" and "misogynistic" claims false? Judging by the top post(s), here https://www.reddit.com/r/Ellenpaoinaction/top/?sort=top&t=all https://www.reddit.com/r/Ellenpaoinaction/top/?sort=top&t=al... I would say no. That's pretty "racist" and "misogynistic". There was another sub reddit that was worse, but I can't seem to find it on my phone. If you think the NYT article made those claims lightly (I don't) then I think that says more about the state of the Internet and its communities in general (or perhaps just you) rather than "The Media"

axlprose 11y ago
The point isn't whether it's "true" or "false", because that will vary depending on who you ask. Yes, even people you find disgusting are legitimate human beings with opinions too. Who are any of us to decide what is "right" or "wrong"? Good journalism is supposed to let you make those decisions on your own, not give them to you. So in order to be good journalism, it must be objective, and to not describe things in terms of loaded phrases that convey any opinions. The opinions may be right, or they may be wrong, but that has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is the one highlighted in the book, which is that our news isn't getting properly filtered, and as a result, we're being shown rather restricted points of view in our media. If current media organizations were run with proper journalistic merit, almost 99% of what gets published out there as 'news', would be filed in the editorials section.
- orbitur 11y ago
  > The point isn't whether it's "true" or "false", because that will vary depending on who you ask. Please, it seems like you're the one who needs to be honest. The most vocal, outraged reddit users are clearly sexist. Here's the top most used words in the petition. Sure, let's NOT use the word "sexism" here, since it's kind of unclear. https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3cetav/i_made_a_wordcloud_of_the_signatures_on_the/csuwej6?context=10000 https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/3cetav/i_made_...
  - axlprose 11y ago
    It seems you missed what I tried to convey. I explicitly stated that the issue is objectiveness, and subjective terms, by definition cannot be objective. You can gather all the data in the world about reddit users and their mannerisms, but that does not change the way the logic behind 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' work.
    - madeofpalk 11y ago
      I think the overwhelming majority of our society will agree that the mentioned behaviour was misogynistic. That makes it a fairly objective statement. You can still disagree with it (in the same way people disagree with other objective statements, like vaccines and autism), but that doesn't make it subjective.