38 ms·

I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me,

I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.

glitcher 4y ago
Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.
- mountainb 4y ago
  Journalism isn't a profession. Even nurses and some managerial employees are held to a higher standard of duty. You will have an easier time holding someone who is responsible for fixing ice cream machines to an objective standard of professionalism than you will a journalist. Some journalists have tried to conjure up "professional standards" that aren't binding, but the fact that they are not binding is why it's not a profession and why those "standards" are just suggestions. Unfortunately, the accumulated cruft of decades of wrongly decided cases grants this pseudo-profession many special rights and no formal duties to counterbalance those.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - rad88 4y ago
    That is a very incisive analysis of "software engineering". I don't know how you did it.
- azinman2 4y ago
  Leak why? This isn’t exactly controversial to say hey this sector that’s becoming insanely integrated into our society and economy deserves a critical lens. In fact I’d argue that’s exactly their job.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Critical in the sense you’re using is being skeptical and investigative. Critical in the sense discussed in the tweet is monotone complaining.
    - azinman2 4y ago
      Sorry yes. I didn’t read the tweet, you’re right. I thought it was the tweet that this one referenced which wasn’t so negative.
throwoutway 4y ago
There's two people claiming it. This one and the one discussed yesterday. Hopefully more will come out, but at this point I'm inclined to give them the benefit of believing it. Or maybe we just run every NYT tech story for the past 24 months through a sentiment analysis
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Cupertino95014 4y ago
Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts? > it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it? A reporter in a position to know is a great source. The news business runs on "a source close to... said" and "a high-placed source said..." If what the source said seems to contradict other evidence, that's a different matter.
- barney54 4y ago
  Can anyone find a NYT article that is pro-tech?
  - trs8080 4y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/technology/the-2021-good-tech-awards.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/technology/the-2021-good-... https://www.nytimes.com/by/john-markoff https://www.nytimes.com/by/john-markoff
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    It’s always read as the Luddite paper of record to me. Not only does it hate all over tech as an industry compulsively, it hates all over technology in general ritually. I can’t imagine how such a directive could change the paper visibly.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    A thinly veiled advertisement extolling the virtue of parents who buy apple product for their kids: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-children-kids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-ch...
    - Cupertino95014 4y ago
      I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all. It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly. The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose it."
afavour 4y ago
Even within what’s said I’d be curious for the exact quote. NYT doesn’t exist in a vacuum, if the exact quote had been “plenty of other outlets have fawning coverage, let’s focus our efforts on casting a critical eye on the industry” that… doesn’t really seem scandalous at all to me?
whamlastxmas 4y ago
> I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. I wish this exact same method of sourcing wasn't the basis for 95% of journalism these days.

glitcher 4y ago

Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.

mountainb 4y ago
Journalism isn't a profession. Even nurses and some managerial employees are held to a higher standard of duty. You will have an easier time holding someone who is responsible for fixing ice cream machines to an objective standard of professionalism than you will a journalist. Some journalists have tried to conjure up "professional standards" that aren't binding, but the fact that they are not binding is why it's not a profession and why those "standards" are just suggestions. Unfortunately, the accumulated cruft of decades of wrongly decided cases grants this pseudo-profession many special rights and no formal duties to counterbalance those.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rad88 4y ago
  That is a very incisive analysis of "software engineering". I don't know how you did it.
azinman2 4y ago
Leak why? This isn’t exactly controversial to say hey this sector that’s becoming insanely integrated into our society and economy deserves a critical lens. In fact I’d argue that’s exactly their job.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Critical in the sense you’re using is being skeptical and investigative. Critical in the sense discussed in the tweet is monotone complaining.
  - azinman2 4y ago
    Sorry yes. I didn’t read the tweet, you’re right. I thought it was the tweet that this one referenced which wasn’t so negative.

throwoutway 4y ago

There's two people claiming it. This one and the one discussed yesterday. Hopefully more will come out, but at this point I'm inclined to give them the benefit of believing it. Or maybe we just run every NYT tech story for the past 24 months through a sentiment analysis

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Cupertino95014 4y ago

Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts? > it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it? A reporter in a position to know is a great source. The news business runs on "a source close to... said" and "a high-placed source said..." If what the source said seems to contradict other evidence, that's a different matter.

barney54 4y ago
Can anyone find a NYT article that is pro-tech?
- trs8080 4y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/technology/the-2021-good-tech-awards.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/27/technology/the-2021-good-... https://www.nytimes.com/by/john-markoff https://www.nytimes.com/by/john-markoff
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  It’s always read as the Luddite paper of record to me. Not only does it hate all over tech as an industry compulsively, it hates all over technology in general ritually. I can’t imagine how such a directive could change the paper visibly.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  A thinly veiled advertisement extolling the virtue of parents who buy apple product for their kids: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-children-kids.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/technology/apple-watch-ch...
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all. It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly. The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose it."

afavour 4y ago

Even within what’s said I’d be curious for the exact quote. NYT doesn’t exist in a vacuum, if the exact quote had been “plenty of other outlets have fawning coverage, let’s focus our efforts on casting a critical eye on the industry” that… doesn’t really seem scandalous at all to me?

whamlastxmas 4y ago

> I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. I wish this exact same method of sourcing wasn't the basis for 95% of journalism these days.