[Bukhmanizer]

I don’t really get how people keep misunderstanding the point that it’s not that journalists are being critical, it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests.

The absurdity of the NYT crying over big tech for practices the NYT uses all the time ( dark patterns, user tracking, algorithmic curation, etc. ) should not go unnoticed.

[tayo42]

For me, this is one of the complaints

> Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential.

Why does it need to be in awe? that seems like an extreme in an unproductive direction.

> it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests.

where in the thread is the support for this?

[blululu]

It’s not but a basic Google search should show some of the more clear examples of the NYT using aggressive spyware for ads, AB modifying stories in real time to drive engagement, and subscription policies that are virtually impossible to back out of for people outside of California.

[trs8080]

Therefore they're not allowed to report on malfeasance in the technology sector?

[blululu]

Logically no, but there are good reasons to distrust and despise hypocrites.

[matt-attack]

But when the proverbial kettle calls the pot black, what no one seems to admit is, the kettle is not wrong.

Statements are, in the most fundamental sense, either write or wrong. Whether they’re insensitive, irrelevant or hypocritical are entirely orthogonal concepts. People tend to focus on the latter when listening to people speak, and often disregard the for former.

[Bukhmanizer]

> Why does it need to be in awe? that seems like an extreme in an unproductive direction.

There’s a major difference between banning awe and making it mandatory. The claim is that they did the former, yet you imply the latter.

> where in the thread is the support for this?

The bleeding obvious point in all of this is that tech and news organizations have been competing for the same eyeballs for years now.

[trs8080]

> it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests

Nobody ever claimed they were doing it "to propagate their own interests." The original tweets say this: "Instead of covering the industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair."

Ok, define "unfair." Yeah, having all your problems pointed out is "unfair," but that's exactly what journalism is about? Speaking truth to power.

There are plenty of outlets whose only coverage of tech is critical. This sounds like the NYT wasn't interested in articles fawning over tech, which happens all the time and are basically just advertisements.

[rufus_foreman]

>> Ok, define "unfair."

OK, here you go:

the New York Times

/ðə ˌnjuː jɔːk ˈtaɪmz/

/ðə ˌnuː jɔːrk ˈtaɪmz/

The paper is published each morning in New York and can also be bought all round the world. There is also a large Sunday issue.

[trs8080]

ob·tuse /əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand

[rufus_foreman]

How about this one, I helped you out on a definition, can you explain what it means to "carry water for" someone?

[bilbo0s]

it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests.

So?

In a republic we need checks and balances. I want all the power centers in the country at each others' throats. I want bankers being critical of oil men. And oil men being critical of big tech. And big tech being critical of politicians. And politicians being critical of judges. And judges being critical of the cops. And cops being critical of the press. And the press being deeply critical of everything. And on and on and on.

NYTimes being critical of big tech is good. We need more of that sniping in all directions. That's what keeps us safe.

The only time we need to worry, is whenever they all speak with one voice. When that happens, I can guarantee we're getting screwed somehow.

Let big tech and the press go at each other, that's only a win for every regular American. In fact if the press is not doing that, then they aren't doing their job as the fourth estate.

[hotpotamus]

I don't get the impression that the NY Times is all that guilty of dark patterns, but I also read it like I do most sites; with javascript disabled, so I could be missing something. But really it seems like one of the better journalistic institutions remaining after decades of generally lowered standards and capabilities for the US writ large. I think Ezra Klein is one of the most thoughtful writers/interviewers in the world today, for instance, so I follow his work there.