[conn10mfan]

not a very useful comment, respond to the claims on their merit, whether NYT sees SV as adversarially really has limited bearing on determining if their critiques are valid, especially given that they are reporting on real phenomenon

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

People will generally approach information differently if they know the source of that information has a financial interest in pushing a certain narrative.

E.g. hedge funds or short sellers publishing financial advice is seen as "talking their book" rather than high quality analysis.

[moritzwarhier]

"Silicon valley" is not a media company though.

I find it absurd to think that the NYT would hope to achieve some commercial advantage by (and being able to) "slander" big software as a whole.

That makes no sense to me.

You could also say that every member of this board should be considered biased towards journalism as a whole, because most work for companies who have nothing to win from independent journalism.

Maybe some even work for direct competitors (online media) or companies with an interest to thwart the independence of journalism?

Framing the NYT as a competitor to SV as a whole also says that SV would be a competitor to journalism: that makes no sense to me.

Which one of the MAG7 is a journalism company? I know Amazon owns The Washington Post and I know that Alphabet and MS want to use content from journalists without paying and best replace journalism with AI or at least become a gatekeeper.

> Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news

(unknown)

[conn10mfan]

respond to the claims in the article

[efitz]

If the NYT was journalistic, your point would be valid. They are now activist, so their motives should factor into the weight you ascribe to their analysis.