[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.