[52-6F-62]

With respect, I work closely with editors for a couple of major Canadian publication.

The number of them who understand the subscription and unsubscribe process of any of their media properties and UX patterns enough to rule on the subject for one of their writers is probably near 0.

It's not because they don't care, or wouldn't take to concern; it's because it's a business matter and a big blind spot. They have no ruling power over it, and just generally expect subscriptions to be a resolved business matter since it has long been.

It's easy for us "tech" people to see these kinds of things; it's obvious to a lot of us because our days are consumed by it. That is not at all true for most people.

Thankfully, even with blaring blind spots, editors tend to be open for discussion—hell, they started the discussion.

I think before anyone goes off the rails, they should take a look at the NYT comments section on this article where they can see the top comments on both the All and Reader Picks tabs. There are a number of comments pointing directly back at the NYT about this issue. A lot of those comment sections, like HN, are moderated by humans: https://qr.ae/pGncF5

To me, it reads that this particular writer came upon a subject that began to concern them, did some research and put together a piece to open up a discussion. It's not a final ruling, and it's not complete (it's just an opinion after all).

To me, that seems healthy, not intellectually dishonest.

[cosmotic]

> did some research

How did said research not uncover the problem with NYT itself? I think that's the upsetting part.

As part of a journalistic organization, journalists and editors have some ethical responsibility to be especially rigorous about the organization they represent, similar to full disclosure. At the very least, they should acknowledge what research they performed on their own employer. This is similar to Reply All reporting on racism at BA but forgetting to reflect on their own internal structure first.

[52-6F-62]

That's not the function of an opinion column, though.

He had the freedom to go as far as he wanted for the column of course, but it's not a requirement.

The column does carry a disclaimer that he is a member of the editorial board, but being an opinion column does mean he's not speaking for the paper, but himself. Of course any halfway-intelligent person can extrapolate and understand that his opinions will help form the editorial direction of the paper but is not representing the paper directly in this column. It wasn't a deep-dive.

I'm speaking to the function of the newspaper and opinion columns here, not about whether the article was good enough or not.

[cosmotic]

Regardless of how prominent it is to some, I suspect being "an opinion piece" will escape or be meaningless to at least a majority of readers. Who's fault is it then? The educated, professional author that should know their audience or the common reader doing a drive by scan of the article?

[52-6F-62]

Fair point. That’s probably an endless discussion subject. I could see many arguments for either.

I suppose it depends on what the intent was.

If it’s just to illuminate the subject, then the ball is entirely in the readers court. It certainly wasn’t hard to apply his reasoning to the NYT for anyone who was paying attention.

I’m sure there are plenty of sound arguments for the opposite, too, but that discussion is outside of the point I was trying to make.

Hope I wasn’t confusing. I have a tendency to ramble.

[dang]

Oh I agree! but the very first example that the author gives is the difficulty of canceling Amazon Prime. That's a pretty big gaffe.

I canceled Amazon Prime once; yes it was a pain, yes it "required multiple screens and clicks"—but it was nothing as abusive as having to make a phone call and (one can only expect) wait on hold for a punishing length of time.

[52-6F-62]

It's an oversight for sure. I agree that the writer should have asked the question "do we do this, too?" but didn't. At least not in writing. It would have made for a better, more rounded argument.

But that's a pretty small qualm. At worst it means the article wasn't as good as it could have been, but that's about as far as I would take that qualm.

At least as I understood the article, the maxims they put out there should be applied equally, not conditionally anyway.

But that's a failure as a thoughtful writer, not of a dishonest person or editorial process or body of colleges or an entire media industry—but those are the kinds of comments that are proliferating the larger thread.

There are a lot of accusations about dishonesty. That's pretty heavy-handed, even if the writer is on the editorial board. Being on a panel of editors does not magically make one all-seeing, even if we think that would be best.

[dang]

(Sorry, I was editing while you were replying.)

I take your point that it isn't an intellectual honesty issue if the author didn't know; it's just an embarrassing gaffe. I also take your point that one should be scrupulous about using terms like that only where they're warranted. I appreciate your defense against unfairness! usually I'm the one posting those, and it's interesting to be on the other side for a change. You outdanged me :)

On the other hand: if the commenters have pushed back as you say, surely he knows by now. If he knows, then why has the article not been updated? That would be an honesty issue, no? This isn't some minor inconsistency, this is NYT behaving markedly worse than the leading example criticized.

I think I'd disagree a bit with this too: "At worst it means the article wasn't as good as it could have been". That doesn't take into account the externalities. For example, it damages credibility.

If I map this into the HN space and imagine some sort of comparable scenario, it's unthinkable that we wouldn't post something saying "Ok you guys, you got me, mea culpa."

[52-6F-62]

> you outdanged me

I can only take that as a badge of honour!

You've got a point on one end of that—I agree I think he should be more engaging in response to some of the critiques and questions he faced. I read through the comments. Some of the same critiques came later (they appear to have closed the comments after a week elapsed), but others were posted the same day as the article.

I know some of their writers, editors, and moderators take part in online discussion in the comments; but most publishers maintain their discussions offline.

Usually they'll respond in a later article or shorter columns to an aggregate of the comments or direct letters. At least, traditionally that's how those kinds of publishers have operated.

So while I would also prefer he be more engaged, especially to a reasonable and seemingly obvious question like the one we're all posing, I can't give him marks for not engaging in another manner than is usual for the paper.

Credibility? Well I can't argue there—people will form their opinions no matter what. It's certainly best to try and get ahead of the obvious which he failed to do.

But then, credibility how? As a thoughtful person remarking quite fairly and accurately about a problem? Not at all, what he said is valid regardless. But as a self-reflecting finger wagger? Surely.

Personally, the article seems to be net-good to me. I'm just glad people are writing about the subject in the mainstream, so I have to give him kudos there, even if it made him look bad (not to make him sound like some kind of credibility martyr, not even close—just a step up from soapboxing).

All of what I really take issue with, is the seemingly growing consensus that it's somehow a moral failing of the newspaper itself. I have no real attachment to any outlet in particular, but I believe what they do and represent is important; that as a society it's good to have panels of people who work to keep up with the current, and work to understand the goings-on enough to remark and report on them intelligently. The last several years we've seen first-hand what happens when even good information is grossly misunderstood. It helps to have institutions working to form coherent discussions. I find it frustrating when I see so many very smart people swept up in disparaging one of the pillars of cooperative society; usually growing from one small gripe into sweeping condemnations of an "other" they don't seem to fully understand, but think they do.