[bhauer]

This should not be a surprise to anyone who has been reading the New York Times' technology journalism for the past several years.

In fact, I'd argue that even before any such "directive" was made, the bias in high-profile papers was already predominantly anti-tech, except in rare circumstances where praising a technology sector or tech company served the overarching political narrative of the moment (e.g., then-nascent social media was a good thing when Obama leveraged it to success; and a toxin when later less palatable politicians did the same).

This is not limited to the New York Times. Even tech-oriented journalistic venues such as The Verge have a decidedly snarky and grim view of many technologies. And they are effective at steering discourse, even among notionally technology-savvy people. Consider, for example, how antagonistic coverage of autonomous transportation by major media outlets has yielded widespread pessimism and doubt. Presently, you have non-trivial numbers of otherwise intelligent technology-forward journalism consumers convinced that autonomy is an unsolvable problem.

[lr4444lr]

In a sense, it's totally understandable. For over a decade now, almost 2, the internet has put traditional news media in continuous peril of losing their reliable revenue and eyeballs: ads, local reporting, community postings, national, and international journalism have seen playing fields entirely leveled and reshaped due to (mostly) free technology interconnecting billions of people.

[trs8080]

> the bias in high-profile papers was already predominantly anti-tech

As opposed to what? Publishing tech companies' press releases verbatim? Advertisements for apps?

Journalism exists to speak truth to power - you say "anti-tech" but the reality is that tech companies have been trying to convince us for years that what they're doing is some exercise in advancing humanity, "disrupting" industries (read: breaking laws) and "connecting the world" (read: undermining democracy, manipulating psychological triggers for addiction). It's a good thing that journalists have at least managed to remain critical - I would prefer to shine a light on billionaire VCs and the companies they're funding rather than doting coverage.

[kodyo]

Journalists have also propagandized in favor of every expansion of the state and every every war western democracies have chosen to engage in. Journalists deserve to be mistrusted.

[tomjen3]

Journalism exists to tell what is going on and why. They are not part of some post-modern maxism class struggle.

Except as part of interviews, they should not be speaking to power at all, they should be explaining things to their readers, so they can make an informed decision. Sometimes that means telling them what the powers that be are planing to do and explain it better than they can, sometimes it means digging through expenses and reveal that power corrupts.

[dclusin]

I don’t think autonomous driving is unsolvable. But every single company in that field has shamelessly lied about the time tables for the availability of the tech. And there’s been zero accountability for it. Remember how 2020 was supposed to be the year we get fully autonomous vehicles?

The only thing unfortunate about the coverage is that the media was entirely complicit and exercised no skepticism or pushback against these seemingly impossible time tables for deliveries of such a clearly complicated and as yet unsolved problem. They just blindly regurgitated the tech industry marketing pr around it. Has any single car company ever demonstrated a car that can drive while it’s pouring rain out?

[spfzero]

I agree with you in general about media bias, but with regard to autonomous vehicles you've picked the exact thing media should have been skeptical about. It's the critical, even skeptical view, that is appropriate.

I don't think people got the impression that it is unsolvable, but hopefully people understand that it is difficult, and far from solved at the moment. That's not the feeling you'd get if you just blindly accepted tech companies' press releases.

Of course, major media outlets like NYT telling reporters to bend stories away from the reporter's own experience, and slant them towards an editorial position, is disturbing at the very least.

[heavyset_go]

I disagree, I believe all press coverage should be critical. NYT and others have spent decades writing fluff pieces and thinly veiled press releases for tech companies, and they are some of the larger champions of techno-optimism in past decades.

Critical doesn't mean bad, it means taking off the rose-colored and not taking "we're changing the world!" narratives at face value.

[greenthrow]

I do read the NYT and I 100% disagree with your claim. In my view it is overly friendly to big corporations of all kinds.