A Grand Anticlimax: The New York Times on Scott Alexander(scottaaronson.com)
scottaaronson.com
A Grand Anticlimax: The New York Times on Scott Alexander
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5310
10 comments
Imagine my name was printed in my early HN posts. Then imagine I became the most influential commenter on HN - to the point I was shifting political discourse online. The idea of a newspaper not printing my name in a story about me would be absurd.
It wouldn't really matter if I said it would hurt my current business or that my wife would be upset that I was commenting so much online. It isn't really the newspaper's job to worry about those things because, as you said, it isn't a PR piece.
It wouldn't really matter if I said it would hurt my current business or that my wife would be upset that I was commenting so much online. It isn't really the newspaper's job to worry about those things because, as you said, it isn't a PR piece.
Sure, but at that point, by their behavior, NYT devolves from "sacred guardians of democracy" to "fucking troll."
Sure, it's not "their job" to worry about SSC. But then, nobody's paying me to be nice on HN. That's fine! I don't want money! I'm civil because it's good for the space, and because it's the right thing to do. If I weren't, I would, effectively, be an enemy of the space.
SSC has been a beacon of...reasonableness, of niceness, of clarity (though not necessarily agreement), on the internet, for near a decade. You know what we call people who screw that up online? Trolls. Why should companies be any different?
Nothing will happen, nobody is going to light their building on fire or whatever. Their name will just carry that much less weight in the future.
Sure, it's not "their job" to worry about SSC. But then, nobody's paying me to be nice on HN. That's fine! I don't want money! I'm civil because it's good for the space, and because it's the right thing to do. If I weren't, I would, effectively, be an enemy of the space.
SSC has been a beacon of...reasonableness, of niceness, of clarity (though not necessarily agreement), on the internet, for near a decade. You know what we call people who screw that up online? Trolls. Why should companies be any different?
Nothing will happen, nobody is going to light their building on fire or whatever. Their name will just carry that much less weight in the future.
fwiw the NYT's slogan isn't "sacred guardians of democracy" or "Democracy Dies in Darkness". That's the Washington Post.
It's slogan is "All The News That's Fit To Print". It is considered The Newspaper of Record for the US and sees itself as having value for future historical research.
It's slogan is "All The News That's Fit To Print". It is considered The Newspaper of Record for the US and sees itself as having value for future historical research.
For WaPo, it's not so much a slogan as a mission statement.
>It isn't really the newspaper's job to worry about those things...
It's not the job of a major newspaper, which not only informs on but explicitly drives opinion, to consider the second order effects of their reporting?
It's not the job of a major newspaper, which not only informs on but explicitly drives opinion, to consider the second order effects of their reporting?
I think that they have already thought hard about the second order effects of publishing full names and this is the conclusion they have come to for all articles.
If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached. There is an article on a sex podcaster on the front-page now. She goes by her full name - but let's see she had asked just to go by her first name and also asked the NY Times not to report what medical/therapy qualification she did or did not have. In doing so, she could claim, it would jeopardize people she went to college with finding her talk about sex online on the podcast she publishes herself and spends time promoting. Should the NY Times honor that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/style/emily-morse-masterc...
If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached. There is an article on a sex podcaster on the front-page now. She goes by her full name - but let's see she had asked just to go by her first name and also asked the NY Times not to report what medical/therapy qualification she did or did not have. In doing so, she could claim, it would jeopardize people she went to college with finding her talk about sex online on the podcast she publishes herself and spends time promoting. Should the NY Times honor that?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/style/emily-morse-masterc...
Here's an article they wrote about the rapper Kendrick Lamar Duckworth. You may notice they leave off his last name. There are many examples of the NYT doing this, using the names people are popularly known by rather than their real ones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar...
That's fine - but I 100% think the NYT should be allowed to write a article about Kendrick Lamar Duckworth tomorrow where they use his full name - even if he asked them not to. It isn't his decision. Do you think the NYT would be wrong to publish his last name just because he asked them not to use it?
SSC yelling "I am not a public figure" has no meaning. He doesn't get to decide if he is a public figure or not. And it doesn't make any sense for public figures to be the arbiters of what facets of their life is public and which are not. He has a blog with hundreds-of-thousands of readers. I think that makes him a public figure.
This probably comes up all the time (at least in the not-to-distant-past) with actors and actresses not wanting their real age reported. They could claim a right to privacy or say that while they are an artist - they aren't a public figure - but it isn't there right to make up the rules for public figure. The news media has an obligation to its readers to report and the concerns of the subject aren't the newspaper's job to worry about.
SSC yelling "I am not a public figure" has no meaning. He doesn't get to decide if he is a public figure or not. And it doesn't make any sense for public figures to be the arbiters of what facets of their life is public and which are not. He has a blog with hundreds-of-thousands of readers. I think that makes him a public figure.
This probably comes up all the time (at least in the not-to-distant-past) with actors and actresses not wanting their real age reported. They could claim a right to privacy or say that while they are an artist - they aren't a public figure - but it isn't there right to make up the rules for public figure. The news media has an obligation to its readers to report and the concerns of the subject aren't the newspaper's job to worry about.
I want to notice a small change in the goalposts. In your previous comment you wrote "If I go to any NY Times article there are always full names attached" and now we seem to be discussing whether the NYT has the right to publish full names against the wishes of the named person. It's an important shift because we're acknowledging the NYT makes this choice and chose to use Scott's full name over his objection, not because of any policy, but just because they wanted to.
If Kendrick Lamar said "It would be better for my image if I was written about using my first and middle name and without my last name" because that's more consistent or he thinks "Duckworth" doesn't conjure the image of a rapper - then I'd say that the NYT should respect that. His concerns make sense and he's much more widely known by Kendrick Lamar than by Duckworth. There's no reason to include his last name, you don't know more or less about him by knowing it or not. It's a balancing act between no benefit on one side and some harm on the other. Seems clear what to do.
I think the NYT has a legal right to publish full names if they want but I think it's a moral flaw that they do so. Same way, maybe it would be legal for you to walk up to a little girl and tell her she's ugly. That's not a crime, but it says something negative about you. You're doing harm for no reason or benefit.
If Kendrick Lamar said "It would be better for my image if I was written about using my first and middle name and without my last name" because that's more consistent or he thinks "Duckworth" doesn't conjure the image of a rapper - then I'd say that the NYT should respect that. His concerns make sense and he's much more widely known by Kendrick Lamar than by Duckworth. There's no reason to include his last name, you don't know more or less about him by knowing it or not. It's a balancing act between no benefit on one side and some harm on the other. Seems clear what to do.
I think the NYT has a legal right to publish full names if they want but I think it's a moral flaw that they do so. Same way, maybe it would be legal for you to walk up to a little girl and tell her she's ugly. That's not a crime, but it says something negative about you. You're doing harm for no reason or benefit.
I really don't think that the NYT should be concerned about doing brand management for a rapper. Who cares if he doesn't want people to know his real name or if a rapper didn't want the public to know he grew up wealthy or something?
The NYT doesn't need to go around looking for fight but if it thinks it is relevant they can and should publish these details.
The NYT doesn't need to go around looking for fight but if it thinks it is relevant they can and should publish these details.
But why? There's no benefit to naming Lamar and there's some cost, both to Lamar, and to the NYT in terms of offending people they may want to talk to.
"Who cares" when asking about arbitrary decisions that hurt people is sociopathic. Obviously the people getting hurt care and the people who care about the needlessly hurt people care.
"Who cares" when asking about arbitrary decisions that hurt people is sociopathic. Obviously the people getting hurt care and the people who care about the needlessly hurt people care.
In certain contexts, news orgs will publish full names when it's in the public interest. Very often, the subject or source in a story will request to remain anonymous and they typically honor this unless, again, there is a compelling public interest in not doing so. Subject to your example, it's really, really hard to understand why NYT wouldn't honor Alexander's request here since a) if you really wanted to you could find his full name online and b) they didn't use the same standard when reporting on Chapo Trap House (for just one example) [1], which has much more influence (and revenue generating activity) than SSC ever did.
The reason the article you linked is quite different is, well, whoever that person is was explicitly trying to increase their profile via an interview with the NYT. It's already a literal puff piece.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander...
>The Chapo co-host Virgil Texas (he lives and works under that pseudonym) went to a nearby bar for a beer...
The reason the article you linked is quite different is, well, whoever that person is was explicitly trying to increase their profile via an interview with the NYT. It's already a literal puff piece.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sander...
>The Chapo co-host Virgil Texas (he lives and works under that pseudonym) went to a nearby bar for a beer...
I'd like to see a reference for the claim that very often, the subject in a news story will be granted anonymity (besides victims of sex crimes)
The Virgil stuff is a moot point. There are several differences (difficulty of finding the name, consistent usage rather than anonymizing), but I don't see how it would change anything if they slipped up by letting him use a pseudonym.
Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity?
The Virgil stuff is a moot point. There are several differences (difficulty of finding the name, consistent usage rather than anonymizing), but I don't see how it would change anything if they slipped up by letting him use a pseudonym.
Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity?
Unless you really do have evidence that they very often allow subjects anonymity?
Like any American news firm, they regularly "allow" anonymity in "national security" pieces. Some will argue that this anonymity is for "sources" rather than "subjects", but invariably those groups are the same. Deep-state and MIC reptiles talk their own books, using these media firms as sock-puppets. Without anonymity the whole exercise would be obviously pointless. With anonymity they're able to stoke lots of fear of brown people.
Like any American news firm, they regularly "allow" anonymity in "national security" pieces. Some will argue that this anonymity is for "sources" rather than "subjects", but invariably those groups are the same. Deep-state and MIC reptiles talk their own books, using these media firms as sock-puppets. Without anonymity the whole exercise would be obviously pointless. With anonymity they're able to stoke lots of fear of brown people.
IMO from that example it seems hypocritical but I don't think that means they would have been wrong to use the real name of Virgil Texas.
It would have been a totally acceptable and informative thing for a newspaper of record to print his real name - just as I think it is totally acceptable and informative to publish the real name of SSC.
This is a newspaper. Providing information to the public. Their obligation is to their readers to provide valuable reported information.
It would have been a totally acceptable and informative thing for a newspaper of record to print his real name - just as I think it is totally acceptable and informative to publish the real name of SSC.
This is a newspaper. Providing information to the public. Their obligation is to their readers to provide valuable reported information.
The NYT protects the anonymity of authors "whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure" when it suits their agenda.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house...
That's an opinion piece, not a news article. There's also a distinction between protecting a source, and excluding information about the subject of an article.
Fwiw, I was highly critical of the op-ed from the start, and I think it's particularly outrageous now that the author is known to be extraordinarily less senior than one would have reasonably expected.
And the NYT played an important role in starting the Iraq War with the help of their "anonymous sources".
I have no problem criticizing the Times when they're wrong. I think it's an awful paper overall, that's almost entirely entertainment rather than anything that could be called "news".
Fwiw, I was highly critical of the op-ed from the start, and I think it's particularly outrageous now that the author is known to be extraordinarily less senior than one would have reasonably expected.
And the NYT played an important role in starting the Iraq War with the help of their "anonymous sources".
I have no problem criticizing the Times when they're wrong. I think it's an awful paper overall, that's almost entirely entertainment rather than anything that could be called "news".
The fact that the article whose author the NYT kept anonymous was an opinion piece makes the example more relevant to Scott Alexander's case. Scott's work was closer to opinion than news, though it was opinion grounded in rational arguments, explained in detail.
And unlike the anonymous author the NYT did protect, I don't think Scott ever misrepresented himself. All Scott asked was for the NYT to honor the importance of anonymity - something whose importance they have previously acknowledged - in his case.
And unlike the anonymous author the NYT did protect, I don't think Scott ever misrepresented himself. All Scott asked was for the NYT to honor the importance of anonymity - something whose importance they have previously acknowledged - in his case.
Scott Alexander wrote opinion pieces. The article that was written about him is a news article.
I think I may have ninja-edited my comment as you were responding, but Scott Alexander is the subject of the article.
Often sources will be granted anonymity, although even that can be controversial. That is a situation where the reporter may have to use discretion, to obtain information.
Obscuring the name of the subject, at their request, when the name is easily found in their publicly released material, is a very different thing.
I think I may have ninja-edited my comment as you were responding, but Scott Alexander is the subject of the article.
Often sources will be granted anonymity, although even that can be controversial. That is a situation where the reporter may have to use discretion, to obtain information.
Obscuring the name of the subject, at their request, when the name is easily found in their publicly released material, is a very different thing.
The point of my link was that the NYT kept the author of that opinion piece anonymous. They're really stretching the definition by calling the author a "source", though I suppose he is the paper's best source for his own opinion.
In Miles Taylor's case, they recognized the importance of anonymity for authors whose job would be jeopardized by disclosing their name. In Scott Alexander's case, they ignored it.
In Miles Taylor's case, they recognized the importance of anonymity for authors whose job would be jeopardized by disclosing their name. In Scott Alexander's case, they ignored it.
imo the distinction between the subject of a profile, and a whistleblower, has long been established in the media.
If they had reported an article on someone who was running around the White House trying to subvert things they obviously would publish the name of who was the person doing that - even if in the same article they did not name the sources of who was giving them that information
The distinction between a source and a subject is clear and I think it is unfair to group these together
If they had reported an article on someone who was running around the White House trying to subvert things they obviously would publish the name of who was the person doing that - even if in the same article they did not name the sources of who was giving them that information
The distinction between a source and a subject is clear and I think it is unfair to group these together
> imo the distinction between the subject of a profile, and a whistleblower, has long been established in the media.
It's quite a stretch to call the author of an opinion piece (as labelled by the NYT themselves) a "whistleblower".
It's quite a stretch to call the author of an opinion piece (as labelled by the NYT themselves) a "whistleblower".
[deleted]
It's hardly absurd. The NYT regularly uses the names people are known by rather than their literal names. For example, there is a rapper whose full name is Kendrick Lamar Duckworth but known to fans and the public as Kendrick Lamar. Similar, you might notice, to how Scott Alexander Sorkin is better known by his two first names.
Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar...
It makes more sense to refer to people by the names they are known by rather than their actual names, unless there is some compelling reason not to. In this case, I think there was a decent reason to do leave the name out and no news value to be gained by including it. As the article mentions, Scott's name was easily Google-able, so it's not like they were breaking something new.
I can't imagine treating casual sociopathy like this as okay in any other profession. Why would it be for journalists? "Oh, your business and personal life would be damaged if I did this thing I don't need to do and doesn't really matter? Ha ha, too bad, I'm doing it anyway."
Example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/arts/music/kendrick-lamar...
It makes more sense to refer to people by the names they are known by rather than their actual names, unless there is some compelling reason not to. In this case, I think there was a decent reason to do leave the name out and no news value to be gained by including it. As the article mentions, Scott's name was easily Google-able, so it's not like they were breaking something new.
I can't imagine treating casual sociopathy like this as okay in any other profession. Why would it be for journalists? "Oh, your business and personal life would be damaged if I did this thing I don't need to do and doesn't really matter? Ha ha, too bad, I'm doing it anyway."
> Similar, you might notice, to how Scott Alexander Sorkin is better known by his two first names.
To be clear, it no longer matters as much, since he went to a lot of effort to minimize damage.
To be clear, it no longer matters as much, since he went to a lot of effort to minimize damage.
[deleted]
"The trouble with the NYT piece is not that it makes any false statements, but just that it constantly insinuates nefarious beliefs and motives, via strategic word choices and omission of relevant facts that change the emotional coloration of the facts that it does present."
My very limited personal interaction with the press boiled down to this and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, kind of a deep rooted cynicism.
Growing up in this world, we tend to accept what's in print as 'truthy' at least, it's an incredible form of power. Their job is to keep an eye on more institutional power, so it's kind of a paradox we are stuck in.
My very limited personal interaction with the press boiled down to this and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth, kind of a deep rooted cynicism.
Growing up in this world, we tend to accept what's in print as 'truthy' at least, it's an incredible form of power. Their job is to keep an eye on more institutional power, so it's kind of a paradox we are stuck in.
> Their job is to keep an eye on more institutional power
Buddy, the NYT is institutional power. The government listens to them, not the other way around. (Occasionally, NYT does USG a solid, like convincing the public to invade Iraq.)
Oh, and the NYT listens to Harvard, Yale, and other high-status academic sources (and especially, NGOs). You might even call them their mouthpiece.
It's been this way since at least WW2 when FDR disempowered the executive branch in favor of the permanent administrative state. We've been living in that reality ever since…
Buddy, the NYT is institutional power. The government listens to them, not the other way around. (Occasionally, NYT does USG a solid, like convincing the public to invade Iraq.)
Oh, and the NYT listens to Harvard, Yale, and other high-status academic sources (and especially, NGOs). You might even call them their mouthpiece.
It's been this way since at least WW2 when FDR disempowered the executive branch in favor of the permanent administrative state. We've been living in that reality ever since…
Yes of course, I was referring to the press in general.
Rupert Murdoch & Co. have a kind of similar influence as well.
They are not held to the same standards of accountability and I don't think people realize how bad it is, that most of our news is narrative.
As the population starts to become aware - the other problem is that truth is hard to come by, it takes work, and also rational readership - the population is really, really easily led astray by basically anything. Combined with Twitter, Social media, it's a hugely serious problem.
So we have the Truth being twisted by institutional sources, 1000's of other outlets with no commitment to the truth, and then millions of individual voices spouting raw inanity.
I wish I knew the answer.
Rupert Murdoch & Co. have a kind of similar influence as well.
They are not held to the same standards of accountability and I don't think people realize how bad it is, that most of our news is narrative.
As the population starts to become aware - the other problem is that truth is hard to come by, it takes work, and also rational readership - the population is really, really easily led astray by basically anything. Combined with Twitter, Social media, it's a hugely serious problem.
So we have the Truth being twisted by institutional sources, 1000's of other outlets with no commitment to the truth, and then millions of individual voices spouting raw inanity.
I wish I knew the answer.
I believe it was Cardinal Richelieu who said "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find a poorly argued, tenuous set of reasons that will appear laughable to reasonable people why that man should be hanged"
Note: obviously Richelieu being of his time and religion only referred to men as being worthy of smearing.
on edit: changed regions to reasons, tired.
Note: obviously Richelieu being of his time and religion only referred to men as being worthy of smearing.
on edit: changed regions to reasons, tired.
I don't know how best to articulate this, but it would be something like "Walter Cronkite never gave you a narrative."
I don't think the fallacy lies in the power of institutions or print but the human desire to attribute deeper meaning, principle, design, intent, or structure where it doesn't exist.
I don't think the fallacy lies in the power of institutions or print but the human desire to attribute deeper meaning, principle, design, intent, or structure where it doesn't exist.
On the flip side, it taught me to be more humble - oftentimes I took things personally or as if any negativity erased put the author in some sort of camp.
I see the same sort of response here, which worries me - the NYT article isn't nearly as negative as I see the in-group worrying about: the only negative part I read is some minor slap of the wrist for staging a cancellation drama because journalists can't ethically agree not to share his name when it's already very public information
I see the same sort of response here, which worries me - the NYT article isn't nearly as negative as I see the in-group worrying about: the only negative part I read is some minor slap of the wrist for staging a cancellation drama because journalists can't ethically agree not to share his name when it's already very public information
> journalists can't ethically agree not to share his name when it's already very public information
Can you elaborate? What is unethical about not sharing someone's name? Even in the published piece, they do not mention that Scott Alexander is ethnically Jewish. Is it unethical not to share the subject's ethnicity?
Can you elaborate? What is unethical about not sharing someone's name? Even in the published piece, they do not mention that Scott Alexander is ethnically Jewish. Is it unethical not to share the subject's ethnicity?
tbh I generally like SSC but I'm not sure I agree with him on the name part. He writes a blog and agreed to an interview. His name was elsewhere. I don't see why he gets to set the rules - it isn't like he's an anonymous person in the midst of a sexual assault case or something.
He said over and over again that he thought it would hurt his psychiatric (I think) practice. I don't really see how that's the NYTimes issue. If I wrote a blog about computer science but also had a day job as a stand-up (or visa-versa) it isn't every single news outlet's job to only write positively about me or to never mention that I have the other job.
If the interview was gotten under false pretense as he said then that is shitty - but I think it is standard practice (and a good standard practice) that a newspaper publishes the identity of impactful people they are writing about.
He said over and over again that he thought it would hurt his psychiatric (I think) practice. I don't really see how that's the NYTimes issue. If I wrote a blog about computer science but also had a day job as a stand-up (or visa-versa) it isn't every single news outlet's job to only write positively about me or to never mention that I have the other job.
If the interview was gotten under false pretense as he said then that is shitty - but I think it is standard practice (and a good standard practice) that a newspaper publishes the identity of impactful people they are writing about.
In my view, leaving people who want privacy to have privacy is what separates journalists from paparazzi. If NYT starts to act like paparazzi, I would no longer give their words any more weight than I do TMZ. In my opinion, NYT broke an ethical rule by damaging someone's privacy. You may say Scott's name was not fully secret before the NYT entered the picture either, so it's OK. But that's like saying it's OK to throw a stone and break someone's window because there already was a small crack on the glass. Privacy is not binary. NYT was taking his privacy from perhaps 85% to 2% and that's gotta count for something. I, for one, have been a reader of his blog for at least 5 years and I had no idea what his real name was until this fiasco happened.
I am not going to write a lengthy comment about this. Scott himself has written on the subject with more depth and eloquence that I could. I just want to add my own anecdote that I am done with NYT. After my Gell-Mann amnesia broke about NYT, I do not see myself ever becoming Gell-Mann amnesiac towards them again.
I am not going to write a lengthy comment about this. Scott himself has written on the subject with more depth and eloquence that I could. I just want to add my own anecdote that I am done with NYT. After my Gell-Mann amnesia broke about NYT, I do not see myself ever becoming Gell-Mann amnesiac towards them again.
The only news articles I've seen that profiled a subject where they didn't reveal the identity were cases of victims of crimes or whistleblowers.
If I ran an influential comedy YouTube channel under a pseudonym, but I was a pre-school teacher on the side, the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. Perhaps I could claim that I would unjustly lose clients if this got published...but if you are at the point of having hundreds-of-thousands of followers and accepting any press then I don't see how this is anyone's doing but your own.
If I ran an influential comedy YouTube channel under a pseudonym, but I was a pre-school teacher on the side, the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me. Perhaps I could claim that I would unjustly lose clients if this got published...but if you are at the point of having hundreds-of-thousands of followers and accepting any press then I don't see how this is anyone's doing but your own.
I believe it is unethical to upend people's lives, except if they have committed a serious crime or done something truly heinous; and being a journalist and doing it in the course of writing an article is not a valid exception. You do not believe this. We have a disagreement in values, so I don't believe we can come to an agreement.
> the NYT absolutely should publish my name along with my pseudonym if they are doing a profile on me.
This is a bad norm. The opposite norm should be in place.
This is a bad norm. The opposite norm should be in place.
?
The entire media industry relies on anonymous sourcing. There are literally laws about it. The news may not exist without it.
So given that context, that they will respect the privacy of probably most of their sources, and won't reveal names while they use the cover of 'privilege' in this regard, I think it's fair to say that individuals who's names are not part of the public discourse should have the option to remain anonymous.
The entire media industry relies on anonymous sourcing. There are literally laws about it. The news may not exist without it.
So given that context, that they will respect the privacy of probably most of their sources, and won't reveal names while they use the cover of 'privilege' in this regard, I think it's fair to say that individuals who's names are not part of the public discourse should have the option to remain anonymous.
huh?
SSC wasn't the source here. He is the subject here.
If I was a politician/content creator/writer etc and the NY Times wanted to write an article about me....what do you mean I should get the option to remain anonymous. I am a public figure. Just because I say "I'm not public" doesn't mean I'm not a public figure. If I have 100k followers then I am a public figure.
It is perfectly acceptable to write about a subject without their consent. The majority of important journalism is writing about people without their consent. That is what separates news from PR statements. This is great. It is great for society that people are reported on whether they like it or not.
I think you can argue that this article was not very interesting - but I think the NYT was perfectly justified in assigning someone to cover a blogger with a considerable following.
SSC wasn't the source here. He is the subject here.
If I was a politician/content creator/writer etc and the NY Times wanted to write an article about me....what do you mean I should get the option to remain anonymous. I am a public figure. Just because I say "I'm not public" doesn't mean I'm not a public figure. If I have 100k followers then I am a public figure.
It is perfectly acceptable to write about a subject without their consent. The majority of important journalism is writing about people without their consent. That is what separates news from PR statements. This is great. It is great for society that people are reported on whether they like it or not.
I think you can argue that this article was not very interesting - but I think the NYT was perfectly justified in assigning someone to cover a blogger with a considerable following.
You are a public figure if you are a public figure.
Star Codex guy is not a public figure.
The press does not write about certain groups (informants) for specific reasons, they shouldn't write about others.
If Star Codex guy had lawfully committed a crime, then fine.
If he was some overwhelmingly influential guy, then fine.
But he's just some blogger that the NYT is bullying for ideological reasons.
Star Codex guy is not a public figure.
The press does not write about certain groups (informants) for specific reasons, they shouldn't write about others.
If Star Codex guy had lawfully committed a crime, then fine.
If he was some overwhelmingly influential guy, then fine.
But he's just some blogger that the NYT is bullying for ideological reasons.
This whole series of events went down with such a stink. My ordinary perception of the NYT is that of a beacon of journalism. They publish hundreds of pieces a day, and while the newspaper is left-leaning, it is also known for its high quality going back at least 100 years. My question is, does their utterly childish reaction to Scott Alexander's wish to be anonymous invalidate the whole newspaper's integrity?
Don't get me wrong, I don't completely agree with the whole 'liberal MSM' disillusionment, but does this mess point to deeper problems specific to the newspaper? I have no idea, and would appreciate it if somebody clarified this for me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't completely agree with the whole 'liberal MSM' disillusionment, but does this mess point to deeper problems specific to the newspaper? I have no idea, and would appreciate it if somebody clarified this for me.
I'm somewhat echoing another comment about this that I saw, but the thing I find so atrocious about the NYT article is that it's actually difficult to call it a "hit piece", because it contains so little substantive information of any kind. Instead, it goes to painstaking lengths to paint pretty much everything with the "alt-right extremists like it too, brush!" that the author's preconceived notions and biases are laid so transparently bare.
The article has two major problems. The first is the one you're describing, that there's barely anything substantive at all. The second is that for what evidence that is linked, if you follow those links and actually read the source material they contradict what the author says in pretty blatant ways (Alexander points this out in his response). For one example he didn't cover, the author deliberately mischaracterizes, again, what Damore said in his memo, saying it claimed it was only biological differences that explain the gender disparities in tech.
>That week, a Google employee named James Damore wrote a memo arguing that the low number of women in technical positions at the company was a result of biological differences, not anything else — a memo he was later fired over. One Slate Star Codex reader on Reddit noted the similarities to the writing on the blog.
There's so much wrong with these two sentences. The first is just flat out false, and that they didn't link to the original material in the piece - but instead to another NYT article, which links to a Vice article which finally has the primary source - is really telling. The second sentence is just ... what? Some redditor noted some similarities? This is breathtakingly embarrassing journalism. Maybe we can attribute it to just lazy prose. Okay, then where is the editor? It's so poorly written that, you're right, calling it a "hit piece" is giving it too much credit.
>That week, a Google employee named James Damore wrote a memo arguing that the low number of women in technical positions at the company was a result of biological differences, not anything else — a memo he was later fired over. One Slate Star Codex reader on Reddit noted the similarities to the writing on the blog.
There's so much wrong with these two sentences. The first is just flat out false, and that they didn't link to the original material in the piece - but instead to another NYT article, which links to a Vice article which finally has the primary source - is really telling. The second sentence is just ... what? Some redditor noted some similarities? This is breathtakingly embarrassing journalism. Maybe we can attribute it to just lazy prose. Okay, then where is the editor? It's so poorly written that, you're right, calling it a "hit piece" is giving it too much credit.
> Some redditor noted some similarities? This is breathtakingly embarrassing journalism. Maybe we can attribute it to just lazy prose.
Some journalists seem to to farm stories off social media.
Some journalists seem to to farm stories off social media.
Is the goal to find an audience that is willing to lend an ear and then simply tell them what they want to hear even if it is not true? Reminds me of the news reporting about Stallman.
This piece may be of interest:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/inside-the-new-york-...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/inside-the-new-york-...
> does their utterly childish reaction to Scott Alexander's
> wish to be anonymous invalidate the whole newspaper's
> integrity?
There is some content I consumed years ago and thought was quite reliable, until recently, something that was published just rubbed me the wrong way. I did some digging and found that I was right, that there was some issue. I then went back and applied this same skepticism to some of the previous publications - and found that some of them also had problems, and that I had overlooked them. At the time, they seemed correct, but I had simply overlooked some issues based on their perceived credibility.
My point is - now you have seen that it is at least possible for NYT to publish biased and outright incorrect content, they have shown their capability to do so, therefore you must consider that other publications may also be incorrect. I would suggest that at least in the immediate future, you perform your own cross-referencing. You need to determine if this was just a slip up, or one obvious misstep in a long line of non-obvious missteps.
Generally, I encourage people to read both a moderate left-wing and right-wing source. Where they conflict is usually where you have to do your own digging. For example, was that Tweet taken out of context? Did that image/video really show that? Is this person really as they claim? I feel like a lot of modern journalism is really hidden in the framing of the evidence.
> wish to be anonymous invalidate the whole newspaper's
> integrity?
There is some content I consumed years ago and thought was quite reliable, until recently, something that was published just rubbed me the wrong way. I did some digging and found that I was right, that there was some issue. I then went back and applied this same skepticism to some of the previous publications - and found that some of them also had problems, and that I had overlooked them. At the time, they seemed correct, but I had simply overlooked some issues based on their perceived credibility.
My point is - now you have seen that it is at least possible for NYT to publish biased and outright incorrect content, they have shown their capability to do so, therefore you must consider that other publications may also be incorrect. I would suggest that at least in the immediate future, you perform your own cross-referencing. You need to determine if this was just a slip up, or one obvious misstep in a long line of non-obvious missteps.
Generally, I encourage people to read both a moderate left-wing and right-wing source. Where they conflict is usually where you have to do your own digging. For example, was that Tweet taken out of context? Did that image/video really show that? Is this person really as they claim? I feel like a lot of modern journalism is really hidden in the framing of the evidence.
I used to respect the NYTimes, and it was a real shock to realize what's happening now, but they've really lost their reputation to me in the last year.
It's really sad. This paper had such honor. Now it's a horror show.
It's really sad. This paper had such honor. Now it's a horror show.
There's an interesting phenomenon called the "Gell-Mann Amnesia" effect. About how we only see the flaws in modern journalism and punditry when it talks about a person, event, or niche that we have personal experience with.
https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
Regarding reputation: All media outlets big and small have the mutually beneficial habit of copying each others' work with essentially reposted articles. The uniformity of narrative on various events and topics that come up - the circular referencing called the "media cycle" - bolsters the appearance that the original outlet is generally right on things.
Retractions are often printed by the New York Times, and to their credit they are very rigorous in doing so. But it is not on the front page, and only a small fraction of those who read the original pieces or their headlines return to see the retraction. When it comes to online work, silent edits are increasingly common. Luckily there is a tracker to see where those are happening and whether NYT does it more than other outlets:
http://newsdiffs.org/
https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
Regarding reputation: All media outlets big and small have the mutually beneficial habit of copying each others' work with essentially reposted articles. The uniformity of narrative on various events and topics that come up - the circular referencing called the "media cycle" - bolsters the appearance that the original outlet is generally right on things.
Retractions are often printed by the New York Times, and to their credit they are very rigorous in doing so. But it is not on the front page, and only a small fraction of those who read the original pieces or their headlines return to see the retraction. When it comes to online work, silent edits are increasingly common. Luckily there is a tracker to see where those are happening and whether NYT does it more than other outlets:
http://newsdiffs.org/
Another questionable thing from today: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1361084482640560129
To me the childish party seems to be Scott Siskind.
If ethical concerns were real, he could just not write about his patients. If he didn't want to be news worthy, he didn't have to try and become a successful blogger. He decided to be part of public discourse. But he wants it strictly on his terms, well, that's childish...
He doesn’t write much about his patients, and never in a personally identifying way. He wished to stay anonymous to prevent any of his patients reading his blog (while knowing it was him) and feeling like they were forming a personal connection with him, which would interfere with their care.
Given that the NYT wasn’t unmasking some villain, I think they are the ones in the wrong. If you can’t write a good article without using a person’s real name, then it’s probably not a good article with the real name either. Should we start writing articles about all the movie stars that use different names?
Given that the NYT wasn’t unmasking some villain, I think they are the ones in the wrong. If you can’t write a good article without using a person’s real name, then it’s probably not a good article with the real name either. Should we start writing articles about all the movie stars that use different names?
No one forced him to write about patients in a public blog nor write a public blog, he is a grown-up and he made that choice. He made efforts to be a public persona, but he can't grasp the fact that once he is a public persona, he cannot choose to be private regarding that public persona.
It's not like the piece went and delved in to his personal life unrelated to his writings. They just said he is writing that blog. This is well within ethical journalism standards. The whole drama around it is a result of Scott rallying his followers to feel as if he has been done some wrong.
You lose your privacy the moment you do things in public.
We should definitely have the right to keep certain things private but not the thing we make public. Expecting otherwise is a very childish expectation. (Childish as in: the world revolves around you, and you get to decide the rules)
It's not like the piece went and delved in to his personal life unrelated to his writings. They just said he is writing that blog. This is well within ethical journalism standards. The whole drama around it is a result of Scott rallying his followers to feel as if he has been done some wrong.
You lose your privacy the moment you do things in public.
We should definitely have the right to keep certain things private but not the thing we make public. Expecting otherwise is a very childish expectation. (Childish as in: the world revolves around you, and you get to decide the rules)
Japanese copyright law has an interesting idea here. The author of a copyrighted piece has a few "moral rights", and one of those rights is the right of "authorship", which is specifically the choice of how their name is connected to the piece (i.e. whether their real name is used, a pseudonym is used, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Japan#Author'...
In Japan, the law might have protected Scott.
I think the japanese law makes a bit of sense. The NYT article was about the pseudonym, "Scott Alexander", not about the real person. Scott has consistently represented the blog as being authored by that pseudonym. The NYT piece was only about the blog and that pseudonym, not about him as a person, so it seems like it's pretty meaningless to bring up his real name in the first place.
In Japan, the law might have protected Scott.
I think the japanese law makes a bit of sense. The NYT article was about the pseudonym, "Scott Alexander", not about the real person. Scott has consistently represented the blog as being authored by that pseudonym. The NYT piece was only about the blog and that pseudonym, not about him as a person, so it seems like it's pretty meaningless to bring up his real name in the first place.
Perhaps it's meaningless, but fully within their purview.
> No one forced him to write about patients in a public blog nor write a public blog, he is a grown-up and he made that choice.
I'm not sure how this addresses the first paragraph of the parent comment. Their point was that he didn't do much of this, and it wasn't the problem Scott raised which was (paraphrasing the comment) about patients developing a personal relationship with him through his ideas expressed on the blog.
I'm not sure how this addresses the first paragraph of the parent comment. Their point was that he didn't do much of this, and it wasn't the problem Scott raised which was (paraphrasing the comment) about patients developing a personal relationship with him through his ideas expressed on the blog.
So why write a blog if this is a problem.
If he is a psychiatrist and considers this an issue, he shouldn't have chosen to become a public persona. But, that is exactly what he chose to do.
He himself says that his blog is only psuedo anonymous and it's easy to find out who he is.
So it's a risk he knowingly took, the fact that his name is known is on him, not NYT.
He himself says that his blog is only psuedo anonymous and it's easy to find out who he is.
So it's a risk he knowingly took, the fact that his name is known is on him, not NYT.
Right, I would agree with this.
The question here is why the NYT felt it necessary to publish his name. They unquestionably had the legal right to do it, much like they unquestionably have the legal right to write a smear piece about HN with your full name, age, and city of residence... but why would they do that?
The world does not revolve around you or I, but in general the people in it operate according to some kind of goal or motivation, and I am baffled by what the author of the NYT article felt he was achieving. He started by writing a story about a man who was consistently right about certain aspects of covid before the authorities, somehow started a fight with his subject, and ended up publishing a poorly written hatchet job with zero info about covid, coincidentally earning Scott quarter of a million dollars. What the hell did he want out of all this? What did he gain, what did he give his readers, what journalistic values did he uphold?
The world does not revolve around you or I, but in general the people in it operate according to some kind of goal or motivation, and I am baffled by what the author of the NYT article felt he was achieving. He started by writing a story about a man who was consistently right about certain aspects of covid before the authorities, somehow started a fight with his subject, and ended up publishing a poorly written hatchet job with zero info about covid, coincidentally earning Scott quarter of a million dollars. What the hell did he want out of all this? What did he gain, what did he give his readers, what journalistic values did he uphold?
Who is 'mola'? She seems to want to air her opinions publicly, yet I can't figure out her real name?! Get NYT on the case!
The NYT themselves recognize the importance of anonymity. They don't consider it childish:
> “We take seriously our obligations to protect sources,” Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said. “Many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be reported if our journalists violated that trust.” [1]
And to be clear, though she said "source", that comment was about the author of an anonymous op-ed published in the NYT. Why does anonymity for authors cease to be important if people bypass the NYT and communicate with the public directly?
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/anonymous-mil...
Edit to clarify once again: This example is the NYT protecting the author of an anonymous op-ed. If sharing an opinion makes someone a source, isn't everyone a source? Or does it only count, and become worthy of protection, if published in the NYT, not on one's own blog?
> “We take seriously our obligations to protect sources,” Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said. “Many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be reported if our journalists violated that trust.” [1]
And to be clear, though she said "source", that comment was about the author of an anonymous op-ed published in the NYT. Why does anonymity for authors cease to be important if people bypass the NYT and communicate with the public directly?
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/anonymous-mil...
Edit to clarify once again: This example is the NYT protecting the author of an anonymous op-ed. If sharing an opinion makes someone a source, isn't everyone a source? Or does it only count, and become worthy of protection, if published in the NYT, not on one's own blog?
In that case they used anonymity to suit them (increase the importance of a person who ended up being way lower ranked then was in implied). Anonymity is a weapon of MSM, they use it to write poorly sourced stories saying whatever they want, and remove it to hurt people they don’t like.
He is not a source, he is the subject of the piece.
Source anonimity is important because otherwise sources in delicate situations will never talk to the press. This has nothing to do with the issue here and I don't understand why would you see it otherwise.
Source anonimity is important because otherwise sources in delicate situations will never talk to the press. This has nothing to do with the issue here and I don't understand why would you see it otherwise.
[deleted]
Of course, if he published by himself, and his name in publicly known, then yes, nyt has no obligation for source unannonimity. The fact that the anonymous source that published an editorial is a very different case.
The anonymous source didn't publish his writings in a personal blog, he would not have publish the op-ed under his name. So the only way to get that op-ed to be published is by ensuring anonymity.
These cases are not related in the slightest.
These cases are not related in the slightest.
At the very least, their statement shows that they recognize the harm that revealing someone's identity can cause.
It also acknowledges that "many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be" discussed without anonymity. Whether that discussion happens on the NYT or not is, IMO, irrelevant. I realize blogs are a threat to their business model, but that doesn't excuse targeting their authors.
It also acknowledges that "many important stories in sensitive areas like politics, national security and business could never be" discussed without anonymity. Whether that discussion happens on the NYT or not is, IMO, irrelevant. I realize blogs are a threat to their business model, but that doesn't excuse targeting their authors.
Here's the other thread discussing...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26128752
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26128752
The following quote is interesting to me. Did everybody not learn the techniques to manipulate people through writing (very specifically the ones listed below), both to do it, and to be able to identify it? It's propaganda.
"The trouble with the NYT piece is not that it makes any false statements, but just that it constantly insinuates nefarious beliefs and motives, via strategic word choices and omission of relevant facts that change the emotional coloration of the facts that it does present. I repeatedly muttered to myself, as I read: “dude, you could make anything sound shady with this exact same rhetorical toolkit!”
"The trouble with the NYT piece is not that it makes any false statements, but just that it constantly insinuates nefarious beliefs and motives, via strategic word choices and omission of relevant facts that change the emotional coloration of the facts that it does present. I repeatedly muttered to myself, as I read: “dude, you could make anything sound shady with this exact same rhetorical toolkit!”
[deleted]
what's a "rationalist" (seriously)?
The meaning relevant in this case is generally the community surrounding the LessWrong website and associated other communities (not necessarily exclusive to those who have actually used the website LessWrong though.)
(There's also a different older meaning in philosophy which is largely unrelated)
a (joke) inductive definition:
base case: Elizier Yudkowsky is a rationalist.
inductive case: Anyone who frequently argues with rationalists is a rationalist.
The community speaks a fair bit about how to deal with psychological bias, and also talks about Bayesian reasoning, decision theory, etc. Also talks about what conversational norms are helpful in facilitating productive discussion especially in the presence of disagreement, etc.
There are also those who would be called "rationalist-adjacent" who, well, people who are socially-near "rationalists", but, fairly similar topics discussed.
There have been some attempts to use the phrase "aspiring rationalist" rather than "rationalist", and to reserve the term "rationalist" to refer to hypothetical idealized practitioners of the ideas.
Also, sometimes people shorten "rationalist" to "rat".
(There's also a different older meaning in philosophy which is largely unrelated)
a (joke) inductive definition:
base case: Elizier Yudkowsky is a rationalist.
inductive case: Anyone who frequently argues with rationalists is a rationalist.
The community speaks a fair bit about how to deal with psychological bias, and also talks about Bayesian reasoning, decision theory, etc. Also talks about what conversational norms are helpful in facilitating productive discussion especially in the presence of disagreement, etc.
There are also those who would be called "rationalist-adjacent" who, well, people who are socially-near "rationalists", but, fairly similar topics discussed.
There have been some attempts to use the phrase "aspiring rationalist" rather than "rationalist", and to reserve the term "rationalist" to refer to hypothetical idealized practitioners of the ideas.
Also, sometimes people shorten "rationalist" to "rat".
0> By the dictionary: "a person who bases their opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response."
1> I guess someone who chooses to label themselves as a rationalist likely holds the opinion that most people are not rationalists.
2> And I guess someone who offers up that label in order to introduce himself, before the topic of rationalism has even come up, must see it as a major part of his self-identity. (which probably implies <1>)
1> I guess someone who chooses to label themselves as a rationalist likely holds the opinion that most people are not rationalists.
2> And I guess someone who offers up that label in order to introduce himself, before the topic of rationalism has even come up, must see it as a major part of his self-identity. (which probably implies <1>)
thanks for clarifying. A fundamental flaw in rationalism makes itself clear:At a certain point one has to stop relying on his own intellect when deciding on a particular action due to the constraints of the brains ability to accumulate enough information. This is an insurmountable obstacle. A rationalist can at best be described as one who will rely on his own certain knowledge when possible.
An anticlimax indeed, but hardly grand.
The NYT piece was a perfunctory, going-through-the-motions rubber hatchet job.
Reading betwen the lines, and looking at his random application of the forms of a hatchet job (out-of-context quotes, misleading connections, scare quotes, etc), Cade what's'isname's heart was not in his work at all; perhaps he only wrote it under duress.
Richelieu[1] it was not.
1. Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
The NYT piece was a perfunctory, going-through-the-motions rubber hatchet job.
Reading betwen the lines, and looking at his random application of the forms of a hatchet job (out-of-context quotes, misleading connections, scare quotes, etc), Cade what's'isname's heart was not in his work at all; perhaps he only wrote it under duress.
Richelieu[1] it was not.
1. Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.I don’t understand why the author insists on being willing to speak with future journalists. He’s a smart person who seems to have come down with a serious case of the dumbs.
It's almost certainly thanks only to this particular author's willingness to speak to journalists that the level of journalistic reporting on quantum computers has, for the most part, crawled out of the sticky swamp of absurd miscomprehension onto the gravelly beach of the barely-acceptable.
Are you confusing Scott Alexander (whatever his real name is) with Scott Aaronson?
Scott Aaronson, quantum computing expert, is the author of this article about Scott Alexander, and the one who insists he will continue to talk to journalists:
> On reflection, then, I’ll continue to talk to journalists, whenever I have time, whenever I think I might know something that might improve their story. I’ll continue to rank bend-over-backwards openness and honesty among my most fundamental values. Hell, I’d even talk to Cade for a future story, assuming he’ll talk to me after all the disagreements I’ve aired here!
> On reflection, then, I’ll continue to talk to journalists, whenever I have time, whenever I think I might know something that might improve their story. I’ll continue to rank bend-over-backwards openness and honesty among my most fundamental values. Hell, I’d even talk to Cade for a future story, assuming he’ll talk to me after all the disagreements I’ve aired here!
Seems like projection to me (but I'm not the shrink).
I read the article, I'm unfamiliar with SSC outside this affair. Alexander sounds like a thoughtful, friendly, guy with some interesting and quirky beliefs. Some of which I think are pretty great, others I disagree with.
That's a pretty normal newspaper article. This is not a PR piece, which seems to be a continuous point of confusion for SV.