7 ms·

It is quite clear that with these types of articles, NYTimes is pushing an agenda.

by 8458e112e7b2 5y ago

NationalPark 5y ago
It isn't quite clear to me. What agenda and who does it benefit? Where's the connection to the New York Times itself?
- wil421 5y ago
  Not sure but everyone they asked said they would like to go back to the office. I don't think a single person said no I don't want to go back to the office full or part time. Seems biased.
- jmeister 5y ago
  The decline of SF is seen as an indictment of progressivism run amok. From a card-carrying progressive Ezra Klein: “If progressivism can’t work there, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-francisco-schools.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-fr...
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    How is massive consolidation of wealth for VCs and unicorn startups, fueled by a speculative investment environment, seen as "progressive?"
    - refurb 5y ago
      That’s a bit of a cop out. The Bay Area had some of the most progressive politicians and progressive policies in the country. I’ve seen plenty of progressives claim “they aren’t true progressives” but that comes across as a bit of a “no true Scotsman” argument that you hear from defenders of communism. And it begs the question - if no one has been able to attain “true” whatever, is it really even an option?
      - salt-thrower 5y ago
        So laying it solely at the feet of politicians is the real answer? SF has seen a massive accumulation of capital and influx of wealthy residents to its housing market over an incredibly short time span. Huge changes in material conditions like that have infinitely more effect on a city than the stated policy agendas of its figureheads. EDIT since you added more: it's not about a purity test for different shades of progressivism, it's that a hyper-capitalistic corporate investment market converging on one city is literally the opposite of anything progressivism has ever claimed to be.
      - majormajor 5y ago
        "Extreme inequality ruins things" is more of a progressive belief than a conservative one. Enter SF! How a place is governed is different from the party people run on, and the lack of accountability on results is the current failing of SF. Execution matters, not just ideas. What is it that people think the TX government is better at? What similar challenges has the government of, say, Fort Worth faced as SF, and what solution did it have? NIMBYism and other such fun aspects are alive and well there, so if you throw the rapid change and influx of huge money at it, you're going to see some shit. Show me the policies existing in a TX city you'd use to fix SF. You'll be helped by the massive amount of land still available to sprawl into... but that's a natural difference, not a political one!
        throwawayboise 5y ago
        Lack of accountability on results is the hallmark of progressivism. As long as the intentions were good, outcomes don't seem to matter.
        username90 5y ago
        To add to this, there is little to no evidence that diversity initiatives we see today actually helps diversity. It is a big charade and they attack those who don't want to play along with it.
        majormajor 5y ago
    - WalterSear 5y ago
      NYT complains about that, too.
  - amirhirsch 5y ago
    I agree with your take and it is ironic/funny because the rise of SF is so much due to capitalism run amok.
  - warglebargle 5y ago
    progressivism isn’t the problem in SF, I’m not sure how anyone can think their city level policies are progressive
    - WillPostForFood 5y ago
      SF isn’t idealistic/fantasy progressivism, it is what it progressivism looks like in practice.
      - salt-thrower 5y ago
        Can you describe more of what you mean by that? What part of letting the richest companies on earth set up shop in your city and using little to none of that wealth to establish helpful social programs is progressive?
      - NationalPark 5y ago
        This is obviously farcical because SF does not exist in a vacuum separate from the federal government or the desperately poor conservative areas that siphon tax revenues from the progressive cities. Let alone the fact that SF hyper capitalism is about as far from progressive economic beliefs as possible. But by the same vacuum-logic, Kansas under Brownback is what conservatism looks like in practice: a massive, unmitigated failure so big that even the conservatives themselves raised taxes. And that’s with all that free tax money from well run states helping out.
        salt-thrower 5y ago
        Well said, and great counter-example. People in this thread think "progressive" means "vaguely liberal west coast city," regardless of actual policy, economic systems or the broader context of what's going on in the entire country.
- skystarman 5y ago
  I don't think there's an "agenda" here. There were dozens and dozens of articles in every publication over the last decade or longer about the decline of SF, COL is too expensive, homeless, dodging shit on the street, etc. Then the pandemic and exponentially more articles about the flight from SF, NYC, etc. people are now fleeing for good. Of course the actual statistics show a tiny fraction of people left SF. I think an article which focuses on this reality is well warranted. If anything the people criticizing this article have an agenda in their belief that SF is awful and everyone should leave and anything to the contrary is of course biased. Not that I should have to say this but there is of course plenty to criticize about SF and the Bay Area. The reality is the overwhelming majority of people are not leaving anytime soon. Only a tiny fraction are leaving.
- Aboh33 5y ago
  I would guess a return-back-to-the-office agenda, but then again, I've been told here on HN that the NYT is not of 'one mind' and/or is diverse and impartial so what do I know /s
carschno 5y ago
"it is quite clear" sounds very much like an euphemism for "I just believe that" here.
- heyoni 5y ago
  Yea seriously. How is population shifts not in the public interest? Especially in the most expensive state in the country? If there is some agenda, I’d love to hear the reasoning behind it but COVID’s impact on cities seems like a reasonable thing to write about.
Voloskaya 5y ago
I'm not native english speaker, is "It is quite clear" a synonym for "I'm baselessly speculating"?
- wil421 5y ago
  Lol not always but an observer could take it that way. It’s clear to them but it is still just someone’s opinion.
mapgrep 5y ago
At least then there would be a consistent narrative, but if you look under the article you can see that in January they had a headline about how everyone was leaving.

It is quite clear that with these types of articles, NYTimes is pushing an agenda.

NationalPark 5y ago

It isn't quite clear to me. What agenda and who does it benefit? Where's the connection to the New York Times itself?

wil421 5y ago
Not sure but everyone they asked said they would like to go back to the office. I don't think a single person said no I don't want to go back to the office full or part time. Seems biased.
jmeister 5y ago
The decline of SF is seen as an indictment of progressivism run amok. From a card-carrying progressive Ezra Klein: “If progressivism can’t work there, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-francisco-schools.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/opinion/california-san-fr...
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  How is massive consolidation of wealth for VCs and unicorn startups, fueled by a speculative investment environment, seen as "progressive?"
  - refurb 5y ago
    That’s a bit of a cop out. The Bay Area had some of the most progressive politicians and progressive policies in the country. I’ve seen plenty of progressives claim “they aren’t true progressives” but that comes across as a bit of a “no true Scotsman” argument that you hear from defenders of communism. And it begs the question - if no one has been able to attain “true” whatever, is it really even an option?
    - salt-thrower 5y ago
      So laying it solely at the feet of politicians is the real answer? SF has seen a massive accumulation of capital and influx of wealthy residents to its housing market over an incredibly short time span. Huge changes in material conditions like that have infinitely more effect on a city than the stated policy agendas of its figureheads. EDIT since you added more: it's not about a purity test for different shades of progressivism, it's that a hyper-capitalistic corporate investment market converging on one city is literally the opposite of anything progressivism has ever claimed to be.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      "Extreme inequality ruins things" is more of a progressive belief than a conservative one. Enter SF! How a place is governed is different from the party people run on, and the lack of accountability on results is the current failing of SF. Execution matters, not just ideas. What is it that people think the TX government is better at? What similar challenges has the government of, say, Fort Worth faced as SF, and what solution did it have? NIMBYism and other such fun aspects are alive and well there, so if you throw the rapid change and influx of huge money at it, you're going to see some shit. Show me the policies existing in a TX city you'd use to fix SF. You'll be helped by the massive amount of land still available to sprawl into... but that's a natural difference, not a political one!
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        Lack of accountability on results is the hallmark of progressivism. As long as the intentions were good, outcomes don't seem to matter.
        username90 5y ago
        To add to this, there is little to no evidence that diversity initiatives we see today actually helps diversity. It is a big charade and they attack those who don't want to play along with it.
        majormajor 5y ago
  - WalterSear 5y ago
    NYT complains about that, too.
- amirhirsch 5y ago
  I agree with your take and it is ironic/funny because the rise of SF is so much due to capitalism run amok.
- warglebargle 5y ago
  progressivism isn’t the problem in SF, I’m not sure how anyone can think their city level policies are progressive
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    SF isn’t idealistic/fantasy progressivism, it is what it progressivism looks like in practice.
    - salt-thrower 5y ago
      Can you describe more of what you mean by that? What part of letting the richest companies on earth set up shop in your city and using little to none of that wealth to establish helpful social programs is progressive?
    - NationalPark 5y ago
      This is obviously farcical because SF does not exist in a vacuum separate from the federal government or the desperately poor conservative areas that siphon tax revenues from the progressive cities. Let alone the fact that SF hyper capitalism is about as far from progressive economic beliefs as possible. But by the same vacuum-logic, Kansas under Brownback is what conservatism looks like in practice: a massive, unmitigated failure so big that even the conservatives themselves raised taxes. And that’s with all that free tax money from well run states helping out.
      - salt-thrower 5y ago
        Well said, and great counter-example. People in this thread think "progressive" means "vaguely liberal west coast city," regardless of actual policy, economic systems or the broader context of what's going on in the entire country.
skystarman 5y ago
I don't think there's an "agenda" here. There were dozens and dozens of articles in every publication over the last decade or longer about the decline of SF, COL is too expensive, homeless, dodging shit on the street, etc. Then the pandemic and exponentially more articles about the flight from SF, NYC, etc. people are now fleeing for good. Of course the actual statistics show a tiny fraction of people left SF. I think an article which focuses on this reality is well warranted. If anything the people criticizing this article have an agenda in their belief that SF is awful and everyone should leave and anything to the contrary is of course biased. Not that I should have to say this but there is of course plenty to criticize about SF and the Bay Area. The reality is the overwhelming majority of people are not leaving anytime soon. Only a tiny fraction are leaving.
Aboh33 5y ago
I would guess a return-back-to-the-office agenda, but then again, I've been told here on HN that the NYT is not of 'one mind' and/or is diverse and impartial so what do I know /s

carschno 5y ago

"it is quite clear" sounds very much like an euphemism for "I just believe that" here.

heyoni 5y ago
Yea seriously. How is population shifts not in the public interest? Especially in the most expensive state in the country? If there is some agenda, I’d love to hear the reasoning behind it but COVID’s impact on cities seems like a reasonable thing to write about.

Voloskaya 5y ago

I'm not native english speaker, is "It is quite clear" a synonym for "I'm baselessly speculating"?

wil421 5y ago
Lol not always but an observer could take it that way. It’s clear to them but it is still just someone’s opinion.

mapgrep 5y ago

At least then there would be a consistent narrative, but if you look under the article you can see that in January they had a headline about how everyone was leaving.