I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.
I don't get why this seems like a big deal or a negative thing. Why wouldn't you want reporters to be critical? Isn't that like the whole point. That's even why we have freedom of press in the 1st amendment, so journalists can be critical.
This should not be a surprise to anyone who has been reading the New York Times' technology journalism for the past several years.<p>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).<p>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.
Former NYT writer here.... NYT, as far as I know, has <i>always</i> had a "top-down" directive that coverage be critical. That's, you know, the job of journalism and all. Non-critical pieces are opinion, not reporting.
The post title here is misleading. What's being described here by Yglesias
isn't a directive to be "critical" (in the colloquial sense meaning "negative"), but more a directive to be <i>skeptical</i> and investigate:<p>> 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.<p>A lot of tech people would like tech coverage puffy, un-skeptical, and positive, but that's totally inappropriate for an industry as influential and frankly difficult to understand (for a layman) as tech. It sounds like now they coverage like they cover the government, which to me is totally appropriate.
Careful! "Critical" is paraphrased. The thread says "tough investigative lens"!<p>"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."<p>Of course that will often lead to critical articles, but it is not precise to paraphrase the actual meaning here IMO.
Tech Companies are the most valuable companies in the world right now.<p>Their CEO's/founders are some of the richest most powerful people in the world right now.<p>As a Technologist, I do find it unfair that there is a lack of "awe" in terms of the technological progress. But I think on a global societal scale, the non-technological impact of the largest corporations in the world and the richest people in the world is more meaningful than the impact of their technologies.<p>Put another way, the impact that Uber/AirBbnb has on employment, housing prices, and the health of cities and communities is much bigger than the impact they have on my ability to get a convenient ride to a destination, or to rent lodging on my vacation.
Why wouldn't they? They are more powerful than tech in being arbiters of truth, and the fact that they convinced everyone, even tech workers, about it proves that they are higher in the pecking order
If I understand Yglesias' point, tech executives got annoyed that twitter would grant verification to journalists that gave them negative press attention? Why is everyone so obsessed with blue checks? Don't tech executives have their own PR departments?<p>The twitter thread doesn't mention any specifics, but I've seen self-driving cars mentioned in other comments as something "unfairly maligned" by major newspapers. So far as I can tell, the self-driving efforts of Tesla, Uber, and other startups have failed to deliver again and again on the promise of having a car that can drive itself without human supervision. Is that not deserving of criticism?<p>Not to mention how Google in particular has gone to war to not pay newspapers a single dime for reproducing their content. Business is business, and a lot depends on interpersonal relationships. Strong-arming somebody usually doesn't endear them to you.<p>Skepticism of new technologies has been around forever. The way to earn public trust is to actually deliver on things that make people's lives better.
The thing is, what else can NYT, or any mainstream paper do ? The mainstream papers lack the talent or expertise to cover technology rigorously. There are specialized technical publications (e.g., at the level of lwn or anandtech), a few middle of the road ones (e.g., at the level of verge or ars), and then garden variety blog spam and youtube content. NYT has to find some niche that works for its core competence and its reader base. And that would be broad coverage with political undertones. That seems like what they do - mostly useless stuff with occasional well-sourced articles that may have tie ins with public policy.
Not sure that this is entirely a bad thing. I would read any glowing article about a tech company suspiciously (was it a paid placement?)<p>I wonder though if this was fallout from the media's fawning coverage of Holmes pre-Carreyeou, and Facebook's fall from grace with the Cambridge Analytica story.
Relevant to the top-down nature of NYT coverage: <a href="https://twitter.com/DaCaveOfWonders/status/1366168277676920832" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/DaCaveOfWonders/status/13661682776769208...</a>
If you see coverage of any countries not part of the western countries, you will see a similar pattern in NYT, BBC, etc. This just looks like a domestic equivalent with one industry in cross-hairs.
> For the record, Vox has never told me that my coverage of something must be 'hard-hitting'<p>Perhaps Vox might be worth something if they did, Kelsey.
I feel like journalism needs to be re-invented in a way that accounts for our modern understanding of human psychology. We might need to define new standards and processes that counteract against a natural inclination towards various biases, herd effects, conformity, double standards, partisanship etc. The current system seems quite dysfunctional.
I wonder how many other top-down directives they might have. I'm sure there was one about only portraying mRNA vaccines in a positive light, for all age groups.
From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter:<p><i>a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. 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. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This was a very deliberate top-down decision. They decided tech was a major power center that needed scrutiny and needed to be taken down a peg, and this style of coverage became very widespread and prominent in the industry.</i><p>From journalist Kelsey Piper on Twitter in response:<p><i>People might think Matt is overstating this but I literally heard it from NYT reporters at the time. There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story. I'd never heard anything like it.</i><p>It's shocking to me that the NYTimes would make such an editorial decision, and it's disappointing to hear this about one of the newspapers that I trust the most. Certainly there are many aspects of the tech sector that ought to be criticized and exposed to the public, but I don't think it's good for truth-seeking to take an editorial stance that tech should generally be covered negatively.
I mean the NYT is wrong about everything. Krugman said the Internet was never going to be a thing, post Covid the editorializing was inflation wasn’t possibly a thing, the government should go bigger with stimulus and print more money. Their whole paper ages like milk, the only reason it persists is apparently Americans have no short term memory.
Past comments: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33459740" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33459740</a>
It's wild that HN, forum that seems disproportionately in favor of unregulated speech should feel uncomfortable when a newspaper chooses a critical editorial stance.<p>You agree that, <i>by your own lights</i>, editorial stances of newspapers are none of your business, yes? Free speech, yes?<p>Everyone says 'both sides' but that's not actually the case, is it? Shoe, meet other foot.<p>[EDIT]: typos removed
Matt Yglesias is not a reliable source for this kind of claim. Nor is this even believable if you actually have been reading the NYT instead of just listening to the imaginary bogeyman peddled by the far right.<p>The NYT is a center right paper that is generally friendly and welcoming to big money (see greenwashing "advertorials" by Shell and many others), it is not the leftist rag that right wing hacks like Yglesias constantly paint it as.
A lot of HNers say Twitter and Google and FB and the like have gotten so powerful they are pseudo-governmental institutions.<p>Don't those same people want the journalistic lens used for government to be investigative?
So?
These companies became so big and powerful, they are basically our new governing bodies. They should be critically treated. Exactly like the political entities they are.
You do understand that critical thinking is literally the point of journalism, right?<p>In 2022, I'd certainly give the same directive. Our industry can and should be held to account, just like any other seat of power. (Because that's what we are now, whether we like it or not.)