[healsdata]

The linked article is clearly sensationalist and focuses on "experts" who are trying to make their career off this "crisis" (I expect they all have books lined up and speaking engagements).

Meanwhile "As the New York Times reports, schools where smart devices have been partially or fully banned during instructional hours have seen incredible increases in student attentiveness and communication."

As much as their opinion page sucks, I'm much more inclined to go with the reporting in the New York Times instead of someone who says "zombie apologists" in all sincerity.

[jeswin]

> I'm much more inclined to go with the reporting in the New York Times

Quite the opposite for me. I don't have a problem with their opinion pages, because it's labelled as such and is at times interesting. I wouldn't trust their reporting though, least of all the numbers.

[throwaway2037]

    > I wouldn't trust their reporting though

If you don't trust the quality of reporting from the New York Times, who do you trust? Washington Post? Chicago Tribune? LA Times? SF Chronicle?

[jeswin]

I use them (more than one) as signals, and draw my own conclusions. I had subscribed to the NYT for several years, and my view is that much of their reporting is just a narrative that the journalist prefers. There's a certain amount of wiggle room with facts and even numbers, and the journalists make good use of it.

Distrust all media deeply. Not because there's an organizational directive to say something in a certain way, but they staff themselves with people who want to say something in a certain way.