Ask HN: Is HN Press?
In your opinion, is HN part of the press?
5 comments
I can tell you that the press sometimes looks at HN for material, anyway. Several years ago I made a comment on HN, and it got seen by someone at the New York Times who asked me to write an opinion piece based on it: https://www.rosshartshorn.net/stuffrossthinksabout/nyt_opini...
But, "the press" is normally considered to be content generated by people doing that for a living (albeit not necessarily a good one), and most HN contributors do other things for a living.
But, "the press" is normally considered to be content generated by people doing that for a living (albeit not necessarily a good one), and most HN contributors do other things for a living.
I understand where you're basing your description. It's like you're describing it in pieces (sources, writers, etc).
Perhaps I should have been more inquisitive. Would you say that HN serves the same social purpose as the press?
Perhaps I should have been more inquisitive. Would you say that HN serves the same social purpose as the press?
The same social purpose that the press was traditionally expected to serve, yes. Not necessarily the purpose it serves in recent decades.
There's no standard definition of what constitutes the press.
Now, if the question is some flavor of: Do Hacker News posts and comments enjoy First Amendment protections generally described as "freedom of the press?" Absolutely.
The press isn't a special class under 1a; "or of the press;" in the First Amendment simply means you're free to write and publish -- not just speak -- without interference from the government.
Now, if the question is some flavor of: Do Hacker News posts and comments enjoy First Amendment protections generally described as "freedom of the press?" Absolutely.
The press isn't a special class under 1a; "or of the press;" in the First Amendment simply means you're free to write and publish -- not just speak -- without interference from the government.
You seem to be approaching the question as something related to censorship. That's not what I meant.
From a less legalese definition of "The Press", and a more of a social function one, what do you think? Let's assume a hypothetical scenario where censorship is not something to worry about (in this hypothetical scenario, it is not being applied and also not a general concern of the population). Down to the basics, what is supposed to be. What would be your thoughts on it?
From a less legalese definition of "The Press", and a more of a social function one, what do you think? Let's assume a hypothetical scenario where censorship is not something to worry about (in this hypothetical scenario, it is not being applied and also not a general concern of the population). Down to the basics, what is supposed to be. What would be your thoughts on it?
It is an important part of the world's media ecosystem.
Like much of the rest of the serious (not pure entertainment) part of the ecosystem, its importance might decline soon as AI services get better, but I have seen no signs of that yet.
Like much of the rest of the serious (not pure entertainment) part of the ecosystem, its importance might decline soon as AI services get better, but I have seen no signs of that yet.
Can you elaborate?
It is unclear if you see it as a press-wannabe that doesn't quite live up to expectation, or if you see it as something beyond press that is meant to replace it.
It is unclear if you see it as a press-wannabe that doesn't quite live up to expectation, or if you see it as something beyond press that is meant to replace it.
I used "media ecosystem" instead of "press" because I do not care to get involved in any attempt to define "press".
I don't see HN as not living up to expectation.
I do think that it has partially replaced older media institutions in the battle for the attention of and influence on influential and informed people.
I don't see HN as not living up to expectation.
I do think that it has partially replaced older media institutions in the battle for the attention of and influence on influential and informed people.
There you go, your answer indicates that you see it as beyond the press and aimed to replace it ("beyond it's traditional definition").
My question is tricky (in a good sense). I want to get people involved in the discussion of what the press means. What "news" means.
My question is tricky (in a good sense). I want to get people involved in the discussion of what the press means. What "news" means.
Well, yeah, its format and the way it does what it does would certainly surprise someone living in 1980 or even 1990. We could say the same thing about Wikipedia of course.
How is HN different from a niche magazine about a specific subject? I mean, I know some differences, but you hinted at something that I think deserves more exposition.
No
No.
Would you trust HN as a source of information?
I trust some things I see on HN, I distrust other things.
If I rephrased your comment as you saying that "It is entirely up to the reader to decide if things on HN can be trusted or not", would you agree with that statement?
In light of that interpretation, can you say the same about the press? (that it is entirely up to the reader to decide?)
In light of that interpretation, can you say the same about the press? (that it is entirely up to the reader to decide?)
Yes.
The situation with the press is far worse than you think for structural reasons, it's a bit naive that you're asking this kind of question at all.
I'm old enough that I've had an experience where an "event" (French theorists would say l' événement) happens and
-- I watch it live on TV
-- I watch it again on the evening news
-- I read about it in the daily paper the next day
-- I read about it in a weekly paper (say The Economist) next week
-- I read about it in a monthly paper (say The Atlantic) next month
And then 25-30 years later a book comes out that is meticulous researched, they looked over all the primary sources, they interviewed everyone they could, etc. The picture of l' événement that I get from that book is entirely different than the picture that I recall having at the time, some of that is drift in my memories, some of that is the failure of my meaning making at the time, some of that is errors of commission, omission, connotation and denotation on the part of the media. I take the blame for my memory (although everybody's memory drifts over time), but the media + the meaning making process are fairly considered to be a system, and it doesn't work well.
To back this up
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Armies_of_the_Night
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_on_the_Campa...
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Fictions (anything by Didion!)
-- https://www.worldradiohistory.com/BOOKSHELF-ARH/News/The-Inf... (1971 book that predicted you'd be reading the news on the WWW around 1980 or so -- the author prepared a report for the RAND corporation and was really angry and bitter that the media industry didn't want to make the investments to make it happen... and thus was the origin story of a legendary critic of the media who is more famous for https://www.amazon.com/effete-conspiracy-other-crimes-press/... and https://www.amazon.com/New-Media-Monopoly-Completely-Chapter...)
The situation with the press is far worse than you think for structural reasons, it's a bit naive that you're asking this kind of question at all.
I'm old enough that I've had an experience where an "event" (French theorists would say l' événement) happens and
-- I watch it live on TV
-- I watch it again on the evening news
-- I read about it in the daily paper the next day
-- I read about it in a weekly paper (say The Economist) next week
-- I read about it in a monthly paper (say The Atlantic) next month
And then 25-30 years later a book comes out that is meticulous researched, they looked over all the primary sources, they interviewed everyone they could, etc. The picture of l' événement that I get from that book is entirely different than the picture that I recall having at the time, some of that is drift in my memories, some of that is the failure of my meaning making at the time, some of that is errors of commission, omission, connotation and denotation on the part of the media. I take the blame for my memory (although everybody's memory drifts over time), but the media + the meaning making process are fairly considered to be a system, and it doesn't work well.
To back this up
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Armies_of_the_Night
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_on_the_Campa...
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Fictions (anything by Didion!)
-- https://www.worldradiohistory.com/BOOKSHELF-ARH/News/The-Inf... (1971 book that predicted you'd be reading the news on the WWW around 1980 or so -- the author prepared a report for the RAND corporation and was really angry and bitter that the media industry didn't want to make the investments to make it happen... and thus was the origin story of a legendary critic of the media who is more famous for https://www.amazon.com/effete-conspiracy-other-crimes-press/... and https://www.amazon.com/New-Media-Monopoly-Completely-Chapter...)
It seems that you're approaching this from a "mature" standpoint against a perceived "truth at all costs" standpoint, which is commonplace.
Although a little bit more verbose, you're answer could be summed up to "You're naive and idealist, little boy" without loosing meaning. It has more words but the same amount of basic emotional architecture.
It reveals what you believe I think about the press role in society. You filled in the gaps with your imagination of what I am and popular personas.
Let's say I'm less idealistic than you imagine me to be. I could even reverse this, right? Say that you're the idealistic for believing that a new platform could avoid the mistakes of the past, but I'll only mention that in passage (I'm not assuming you're naive).
If we're all adults here, there's no reason to hide or misdirect anything. Let's consider the whole history of press then, since you came up with it. Its many turns to questionable attitude and comebacks, the many interests that might be influencing it. Do you think HN deserves to be in that same category?
I think it's an interesting question if we exclude these obvious cul de sacs ("it's about censorship", "it's about naive idealism", etc). We should not avoid it.
Although a little bit more verbose, you're answer could be summed up to "You're naive and idealist, little boy" without loosing meaning. It has more words but the same amount of basic emotional architecture.
It reveals what you believe I think about the press role in society. You filled in the gaps with your imagination of what I am and popular personas.
Let's say I'm less idealistic than you imagine me to be. I could even reverse this, right? Say that you're the idealistic for believing that a new platform could avoid the mistakes of the past, but I'll only mention that in passage (I'm not assuming you're naive).
If we're all adults here, there's no reason to hide or misdirect anything. Let's consider the whole history of press then, since you came up with it. Its many turns to questionable attitude and comebacks, the many interests that might be influencing it. Do you think HN deserves to be in that same category?
I think it's an interesting question if we exclude these obvious cul de sacs ("it's about censorship", "it's about naive idealism", etc). We should not avoid it.
There is no greater enemy of the truth than the use of the phrase “the truth”. This is a basic problem in logic and philosophy, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
Where adding an operator that can determine the logical truth of a statement breaks the system. At a bellyfeel level consider “9/11 truther”. There is no truth, only seduction
https://monoskop.org/images/9/96/Baudrillard_Jean_Seduction....
There is no “little boy” about it but I don’t think your question is really a productive question to ask. In that there are no journalists, nobody pounding the pavement to get facts, interview people, etc, HN is not “the press”. Particularly there is no editor-in-chief. A counter to that is that you will find people writing on HN (like Mailer) about their experiences vibe coding or developing photographs or what went down at the third last startup they worked at. That is mostly ‘true’ in the Norman Mailer sense or the lucid bits of that Hunter S. Thompson bit and might be all the more ‘true’ if it goes off the rails once in a while the way Hunter did even if it departs from conventionally defined factually. Hunter and Mailer both emphasize the gap between the personal account which is more ‘real’ in a certain sense than ‘objective’ journalism. That Bagdikian book has one of the most damning critiques of the media I’ve ever seen —- the editor of a small town newspaper he just 6 seconds to look at an AP newswire study and decide if it is ‘fit to print’ which is an act of violence against the very fabric of reality.
Baudrillard’s next book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
is an attempt to shit on the word ‘real’ the way that wolves shit on a trap in that the words ‘true’ and ‘real’ (not to mention ‘trustworthy’) are frequently used in attempts to deceive.
From that perspective we have been in a post-apocalyptic environment for quite some time, at least 1970 if not 1945 or 1870. However problematic you think the media is, the reality is so much worse and it is not a function of who owns it or works it or bias on a left/right access it is a structural property of the system itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
Where adding an operator that can determine the logical truth of a statement breaks the system. At a bellyfeel level consider “9/11 truther”. There is no truth, only seduction
https://monoskop.org/images/9/96/Baudrillard_Jean_Seduction....
There is no “little boy” about it but I don’t think your question is really a productive question to ask. In that there are no journalists, nobody pounding the pavement to get facts, interview people, etc, HN is not “the press”. Particularly there is no editor-in-chief. A counter to that is that you will find people writing on HN (like Mailer) about their experiences vibe coding or developing photographs or what went down at the third last startup they worked at. That is mostly ‘true’ in the Norman Mailer sense or the lucid bits of that Hunter S. Thompson bit and might be all the more ‘true’ if it goes off the rails once in a while the way Hunter did even if it departs from conventionally defined factually. Hunter and Mailer both emphasize the gap between the personal account which is more ‘real’ in a certain sense than ‘objective’ journalism. That Bagdikian book has one of the most damning critiques of the media I’ve ever seen —- the editor of a small town newspaper he just 6 seconds to look at an AP newswire study and decide if it is ‘fit to print’ which is an act of violence against the very fabric of reality.
Baudrillard’s next book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
is an attempt to shit on the word ‘real’ the way that wolves shit on a trap in that the words ‘true’ and ‘real’ (not to mention ‘trustworthy’) are frequently used in attempts to deceive.
From that perspective we have been in a post-apocalyptic environment for quite some time, at least 1970 if not 1945 or 1870. However problematic you think the media is, the reality is so much worse and it is not a function of who owns it or works it or bias on a left/right access it is a structural property of the system itself.
[flagged]
More than most of the Press.