The American Press Is Destroying Itself - <AUTHOR> https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself?r=2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=hackernews <comment><USER2> I don't think they are.

I think they are optimizing for survival.

Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. Few people would consume it (or even be capable of doing so), even fewer are ready to pay the real price of it.

So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the highest bidder.

You think it is self destroying, but only if you see it as from the point of view of a body that should inform people. But as a group that needs to survive, it's a working strategy. Certainly easier to implement than finding a novel way to survive doing the right thing.

Infortunaly, this will lead to suffering for the entire society. But that's the way our economical system work. It assumes that the markets balances things out. Unfortunatly, the common good is not something most individuals prioritize, or even conceptualize, when buying things. Often, they actually can't, because their survival depend on more pressing day-to-day matters.

<comment><USER3> _Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market._

I suspect that's correct. It's hard now to find any news outlet now that sticks to "Who, What, When, Where, Why". This is a consequence of pay per click, probably.

The left and the right now both have a checklist of mandatory positions required to avoid punishment. Those positions are in many cases contrary to fact. That's not good. Denial has become a core part of American politics.

<comment><USER4> I'm 48. My family had a newspaper subscription (in my case, the Miami Herald). I've been a consumer of news all my life, mostly print media. (My family rarely watched local news except for when a hurricane was headed our way, but would often watch programs like 60 minutes.)

When was the news ever "Who, What, When, Where, Why?"

It's always had a slant as long as I remember. Here's "the most trusted man in America" calling ror the U.S. to get out of Vietnam:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2RjahTi3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn2RjahTi3M)

What is that if not a partisan political opinion?

The news has always chosen what and what not to report. Just deciding what is and isn't newsworthy is a political decision. Heck, my conservative friend used to read the Wall Street Journal. I'm talking when we were kids (10-12) I'd argue with him about whether Reagan was a good president. I thought even then he had a highly colored view of reality and I'm sure he thought the same of me.

BTW, I don't think the problem is the press. I think it's a lack of open- mindedness, critical thinking, and healthy skepticism. We get what we deserve by not educating our kids better about how to consume information and consider view points outside their own worldview.

<comment><USER5> > What is that if not a partisan political opinion?

What was partisan about what he said? He made no mention of US political parties. He simply said that the war was failing and it needed to end. May I suggest you are projecting your partisanship onto this?

Objective journalism is not about giving both sides an equal voice. It is OK to use rationale and logic to support one side over the other. Should all journalism about evolution also include equal time for creationism?

<comment><USER6> Saying that the USA _should_ get out of Vietnam is an opinion. You do not have to explicitly mention a party to express a partisan position. "Real" journalism reports the facts of what's going on and lets people make their own decisions. They can interview people and report the opinions that other people hold, but they should try to avoid inserting their own biases. Walter Cronkite leveraged his position to express his personal opinion to the nation- that's political.

You don't have to give time to things that are objectively untrue, but a fair journalist should acknowledge when other opinions exist.

Saying, "I think we should get out of Vietnam. People are dying, we're spending too much money, and we're probably going to lose" is bad journalism. Saying, "According to a recent poll, fewer than 40% of Americans support the war in Vietnam. Commonly cited reasons for the lack of support are the death toll, the economic cost, and that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Most supporters of the war say we should continue fighting otherwise all the soldiers that have given their lives will have died in vain" is good journalism.

And yes, a journalist covering the creationism vs. evolution debate should research and interview people from both sides. If you don't then you're writing an opinion piece and not doing journalism.

<comment><USER7> I of course agree completely that a journalist should be open minded, aware of their own bias, conduct thorough research, interview knowledgeable people, and all of that. At the end of this process they are ideally quite an expert in whatever they are writing about.

But I'm not sure I see why journalists should try to be strictly objective. A journalist is in a unique position to identify the BS, provide analysis and context, and help the reader understand what to make of the competing narratives.

I really enjoyed, and highly recommend, a recent podcast on this subject: [http://www.sceneonradio.org/s4-e11-more- truth/](http://www.sceneonradio.org/s4-e11-more-truth/)

<comment><USER6> If you've ever read a journalist's take on a subject that you're an expert in, you'll realize that they do not become experts after researching a story, nor are they any better at identifying BS than other people.

Some journalists that specialize in a particular field become experts, but it takes time to learn. Journalists don't have some secret way to learn faster than other people.

Journalists do get training in interviewing experts and writing. That's what they should stick to. Just like we really shouldn't pay attention to a celebrity's opinion of an issue that they don't have special training in, we really shouldn't be paying attention to a journalist's personal opinion- we should rely on them to talk to experts and convey information, but their ability to form an opinion isn't any better than yours.

<comment><USER8> I think you may have a bias against journalists =p.

It's true that they may not be experts in everything that they report on, even if it's their niche. Eg I think Kara Swisher does a reasonably good job of representing technology related things but there's things she says that are not really true.

However the one thing journalists do cover well and have good expertise in is current event and politics. They are closest to the sources. And thus they become pretty good at identifying BS in those narrow fields at the very least. Given that, I certainly value their "take" on what the current events portray.

<comment><USER9> >However the one thing journalists do cover well and have good expertise in is current event and politics.

They are only "good" at this because so many of them worked on campaigns and there's a revolving door between that campaign work and the politics desk at media organizations. That isn't a badge of honor, or a signal that they know what they're talking about. It's a mark of partisanship, and they try their best to cloak it when they do their reporting ... but then they go back to the campaign when their guy is running.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those in the comments that haven't read the article, I highly recommend you check it out. While the comments are talking about the survival of news media and "tone-deaf" titles, the bulk of the article is about the Overton window[1] shifting to the point where rigerous journalism questioning outrages of the time is becoming untenable, weakening the news overall. It's a very good read.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window?wprov=sfla1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window?wprov=sfla1)

<comment><USER8> I would advise care when reading it. It's not immediately clear but it uses very hand picked facts to paint a very different picture of what's actually going on. I call these kinds of articles disinformation-lite; not outright lies but selectively picking events to portray a hypothetical scenario that doesn't really hold true.

I'll cite a specific example to make this case. See this paragraph:

> Cotton did not call for "military force against protesters in American > cities." He spoke of a "show of force," to rectify a situation a significant > portion of the country saw as spiraling out of control. It's an important > distinction. Cotton was presenting one side of the most important question > on the most important issue of a critically important day in American > history.

What Cotton actually said:

> One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming > show of force to disperse, _detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers_.

(Emphasis mine)

It's very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests, which are painted as overwhelmingly violent in the beginning of the article. The author of the current article is simply using selective words to further his argument.

The other arguments are similar in nature. So while it appears to be a good read, it actually is not.

<comment><USER11> Something that Cotton also said recently on Twitter: "No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters."

Literally, "no quarter" means that combatants are to be killed rather than taken prisoner. Figuratively, it means to give one's full effort to achieve an overwhelming victory. Especially with the inclusion of anarchists, it's hard to reconcile that with the idea that he really wants to cast this as a matter of law enforcement. His is, to put it bluntly, a fascist sentiment.

I know some people feel like the f-word is overused, but it's pretty well accepted that one of the elements that separates a genuinely fascist movement from mere authoritarianism is the normalization of extrajudicial violence against political opponents. Not to put too fine a point on it: historically, anarchists were often specifically targeted for such fascist violence.

I can't tell you that Tom Cotton is a fascist in his heart, but he is _very definitely_ speaking their language.

<comment><USER12> "No quarter" also means [0]:

> _no pity or mercy —used to say that an enemy, opponent, etc., is treated in > a very harsh way_

It's plausible that he meant this in the way you describe, but I think it's more likely he was using fancy language to emphasise that the city and police shouldn't tolerate things like the CHAZ or rioting and looting. Essentially, he's trying to criticize the local governments for tolerating these things and not putting a stop to it. (Easy way to try to score political points.)

[0] [https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter)

<comment><USER8> Cotton isn't some rando posting a comment on Facebook. This is a US Senator whose essay was reviewed by his editorial staff before being sent to the times. He is saying exactly what he meant to say. If he meant something different there were other ways to express it.

<comment><USER13> "No quarter" wasn't in the essay. It was a tweet. Does "his editorial staff" review everything he tweets?

And should everything anyone says be given the worst possible interpretation, or should we, as in the Hacker News guidelines, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

<comment><USER8> > Does "his editorial staff" review everything he tweets?

Most Senior Government officials do, yes.

And Occam's razor applies: I would argue that using an alternate interpretation of what he said rather than the well known one is going absolutely against the spirit of that hacker news guideline.

<comment><USER13> Between the colloquial meaning listed in dictionaries, and the technical meaning found in military law books, which is "the well known one"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Thing is, when the New York Times was "the newspaper of record", everyone read it. When they only print what will pass muster with the howling mob, for fear of losing their jobs if they offend, then only the howling mob will read it. But the howling mob doesn't have enough members to support the New York Times.

That is, catering to the most vocal segment of the Right Thinkers is a ticket to an ever-shrinking readership, because 1) everyone who isn't a card-carrying member of the Right Thinkers leaves, and 2) the Right Thinkers shrinks as the majority repeatedly throws out people for not being right thinking enough.

<comment><USER15> People also seem to be unaware that howling mobs _move on_...you just have to wait them out. Stand firm and they'll quickly find another target to bully.

<comment><USER16> Case in point: remember last year when the governor and the AG (I think?) of Virginia were caught in blackface 30 years ago and the lieutenant governor was revealed to have raped a woman in college 20 years ago? And they all refused to resign? Everyone forgot about that a month later.

<comment><USER17> > And they all refused to resign?

Which is why a system based on policing corruption through public outrage is doomed to fail. You need to have a system that has actual mechanisms-- investigations, prosecutions, and convictions--to keep a lid on corruption. Public shaming doesn't work because the public has only so much attention span, and there is soooo much corruption.

<comment><USER16> In this case two of them hadn't committed crimes and the third had a statute of limitations that had passed so there wasn't really corruption involved, just a refusal to listen to protests.

<comment><USER17> Like I said, mechanisms, not animus. Get laws on the books (or into the constitution of your state if necessary) that provide avenues for removal. Spell out standards of behavior and consequences for violating them and _enforce_ those standards. The mob is not the solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Counterpoint, from Ezra Klein of Vox ([https://www.vox.com/2020/6/10/21284651/new-york-times-tom- co...](https://www.vox.com/2020/6/10/21284651/new-york-times-tom-cotton-media- liberal-conservative-black-lives-matter)):

> _There have always been boundaries around acceptable discourse, and the > media has always been involved, in a complex and often unacknowledged way, > in both enforcing and contesting them. In 1986, the media historian Daniel > Hallin argued that journalists treat ideas as belonging to three spheres, > each of which is governed by different rules of coverage. There's the > "sphere of consensus," in which agreement is assumed. There's the "sphere of > deviance," in which a view is considered universally repugnant, and it need > not be entertained. And then, in the middle, is the "sphere of legitimate > controversy," wherein journalists are expected to cover all sides, and op-ed > pages to represent all points of view._

<comment><USER19> But I think Klein is failing to engage with the core issue, that many of the positions now outside the bounds of acceptable discourse in newspapers are held by a majority of Americans and considered reasonable by a supermajority. If newspapers systematically refuse to represent views that most people hold, how can we trust their objectivity?

<comment><USER20> It gets even worse. If you ignore the problem by not talking about it and only fringes discuss it - people will go to the fringes to hear what they have to say. And you may get big surprises at the voting booth.

<comment><USER8> Well not all extremist views are the same. White nationalism and UBI may both be fringe views (maybe the latter isn't but let's assume so). I think it's fine to not mainstream extremist views that call for extermination or discrimination of certain sections of society even if the views have a chance to affect the polls. These fringe views have existed throughout the life of the US and it's only when they get mainstream attention that they get energized. Every so often they flare up into the mainstream but then get killed by the rottenness of the people that espouse them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is the most important story in the last 4 years. The press has gone wild. They think they have a moral duty to bring down Trump instead of reporting the news. Because of this they distort headlines and flat out lie in many instances.

I no longer trust the media. I hate Trump as well, but you don't do it through lies and distortion. You do it by presenting the truth. Reporters have crossed the line in the last several years and it shows. They are the worst propaganda machine in decades since the 80s and it truly is destroying itself, like Taibbi says.

<comment><USER22> Trump is merely the momentary target of the process. The process is dying organizations always go hard left on the way out. Something to do with ease of entryism when no one else wants in, or if there's no monetary or social reward left in an industry there's always the left wing rewards of boastful humility and self congratulatory echo chambers.

<comment><USER23> This is a process I've never heard described before, but sounds interesting. Do you have any examples or further reading?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The content of 'Buildings Matter Too' article is worth reading, if you haven't seen it you definitely should. To me the editor resigning is not good.

[https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/floyd-protest-center- cit...](https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/floyd-protest-center-city- philadelphia-lootings-52nd-street-walnut-chestnut-street-20200601.html)

<comment><USER25> The content had nothing to do with the editor resigning. It was entirely about the headline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Taibbi at this point should start a new news co. He, and to some degree, Glenn Greenwald, have been the only two members of the press who seem to be unable to see the emperor's new clothes in the parades of the last several years.

<comment><USER27> Why not Tucker Carlson?

Just for the record, I subscribe to The Intercept and am a fan of Glenn Greenwald.

<comment><USER28> [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=tucker-c...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?speaker=tucker- carlson)

<comment><USER27> Alright, so he was wrong 8 times out of ~10,000 statements in the last 4 years? Or, am I missing something?

<comment><USER29> > Says the Potomac River "has gotten dirtier and dirtier and dirtier and > dirtier. I go down there and that litter is left almost exclusively by > immigrants."

I think you're missing something.

<comment><USER27> Help me understand what is wrong with that statement.

If he fishes there regularly and sees (what he believes) are immigrants dumping trash, then isn't that statement true? How do you what he saw? This seems like splitting hairs.

<comment><USER30> You yourself said "what he believes". Not "what he knows". That's not an insignificant detail. That seems like slander, really. Also, without proof, how can anybody say whether it even did or didn't happen? There are so many credible sources with proof of large companies polluting water, why not use that as an example?

<comment><USER27> I get what you are saying and agree there is a difference between knowing something and believing something.

However, when someone believes something is true, that can mean multiple things, I take it to mean they think there is a high probability of something being true. He's basically guessing. That means the only thing we have to go off of is Tucker's word because he was there. And, as I ballpark estimated above, he's generally correct when he says something according to the fact checking website, so I think he's got credibility.

Also, Tucker talks about fly fishing every so often on the show, it's a passion of his, so it's very possible he has seen people, who he thinks are immigrants, dumping stuff.

Again, this feels like we are splitting hairs. He's pretty consistent about his view regarding immigrants (depends on situation). You may disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Looking back reading Manufacturing Consent at a young age was one of the most important things I did. It sets you up for a liberating life of zero expectations for media.

<comment><USER32> Q. Why do they call it a medium?

A. Because it's neither rare nor well done.

It was amusing to see Chinese tabs pull a tar-baby on Trump a few weeks ago, with regard to the trade treaty. When communists have tabloid journalism and hedge funds, it gets difficult to tell them apart from the capitalists. At least "having too few political parties" still seems a reasonable tell for repressive states.

(to be fair, ad-supported journalism has had a much longer run than I'd thought it would)

Edit: older than I'd thought:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade- china/chinese-a...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade- china/chinese-advisers-call-for-talks-on-new-trade-deal-with-u-s-global-times- idUSKBN22N1XC)

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade- trump/tru...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade-trump/trump- not-interested-in-reopening-u-s-china-trade-deal-after-report-of-beijing- discontent-idUSKBN22N2UY)

<comment><USER33> China has been communist only in-name for the past 35 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm getting to the point of just switching off.

Whatever your opinion, there will be many others who deeply and vehemently disagree with you and do so with passionate, fiery, certain-to-be-correct righteous indignation.

Carry your true opinions in your head and share them with no one.

<comment><USER35> Failed to take a knee or prostate yourself in front of whatever? Fired, cancelled etc

Having grown up during perestroika. I remember saluting the red banner and blood soaked monster Lenin portet while reading Archipelago Gulag at home.

Never though US will get here

<comment><USER36> Seriously?

Kids in the US would get in all kinds of trouble for not respecting the Pledge of Allegiance back in the... 90s, not the 70s.

It's only been in the past decade that anything that's not complete and vehement agreement with the "support the troops" mantra has been tolerated by the mainstream.

It's things like these that make me very skeptical of the intentions of the article. The idea of the American public being tolerant of ideas outside the norm is a new conservative narrative that has no correspondence with reality.

People were __pissed off__ when the Simpsons began to air. Openly admitting to doing drugs was (and still is, to a much lesser degree) a way to be fired an ostracised in many middle class circles.

I am really not seeing anything new.

<comment><USER35> Did they purge Tankies, Maoists, Trotskyist etc from universities? Because when O went to Uni half of social science department was some sort of -ist in the 90s

See how fast you get fired if you don't take a knee when department head tells you to for BLM.

<comment><USER36> McCarthy certainly did, I don't know if you're being facetious but that's exactly what happened. These sectors of the left didn't come to dominate some sectors of academia; they were driven out of everywhere else and that's the only area where their radical ideas were tolerated.

Meanwhile the rest of society has been tolerating everything else in mainstream public institutions: the racist and regressive corporate bosses, the Evangelicals who considered anything that's not in agreement with their doctrine to be an affront to God, the gun nuts who consider walking around in public with an assault weapon to be a perfectly valid expression, and on it goes.

American society is dramatically more tolerant of these extremist right wing positions, and that Overton window shift has always existed in the US.

It is only because of the inflammatory discourse of Trump and his allies that people have decided that the fringe left is dramatically less dangerous and tolerant than these literal fascists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> >I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?... Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it's going to be national news, but if a Black man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of… It's stuff just like that that I just want in the mix.

Because the dominant media narrative has a fetishized view of violence, racism and victimhood. Combine this with their overarching savior complex. If they were genuinely concerned, they wouldn't silence this man. Logical consistency has no place in this emotionally charged environment. The loudest voices don't care about their hypocrisy. They want to score political points at any cost. Divisive identity politics, feel-good-guilt-projection, blame games, no price is too high when it comes to partisan politics.

I expect this to continue and intensify as we approach the November elections.

<comment><USER30> I don't think I see the logical consistency you're talking about. In one case, there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely that race was a motivating factor. In the other case, there is a white man killing a black man. Without further knowledge if the situation, we can't say whether race was involved here either - but in so many recent cases we have seen that race is near the root of such killings. Arbery is such an example, where the killers made racial slurs at him indicating their views towards black people.

I don't think your quote is logically consistent; the man is talking about actions taking place in a vacuum where race isn't a factor, which doesn't apply to the current environment.

<comment><USER38> Woberto says>" _there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely that race was a motivating factor._ <

I dunno! Maybe that black man is statistics-savvy and reads the FBI's UCR [Uniform Crime Report} statistics each year:

[https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in- the-u.s.-...](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in- the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls)

(see the upper-left corner of the spreadsheet)

So he knows that a black man is ~10 times more likely than a white man to kill him. When he encounters a white man in an alleyway at night he might give that white man a "pass" but if, under the same circumstances, he meets a black man...well, what are the odds?

So possibly, even in the case of black on black murder, race can matter very much. Especially if blacks are more highly educated (and read crime statistics or grok them). BTW white men read the same stats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> If this is your introduction to Matt Taibbi, it's worth knowing he has a dog in the race when it comes to "cancel culture": [https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros- wh...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-who- terrorized-women-correspondents-in- moscow/2017/12/15/91ff338c-ca3c-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html).

<comment><USER40> Have you always followed russian tabloids, or is this more of recent phenomenon?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> First, they came for the journalists and nobody knows what happened next.

</comment><comment><USER42> What I find most reprehensible about this whole situation is that more and more members of the left regulate political discourse, no make that any discourse, by defining any opposing view as illegitimate, bigoted, and now violence.

As in, they are taking the position that their moral superiority is without question and anyone who does not ascribe to this has no rights and we are nearing the point of the same having no protection from retribution of any sort.

I seriously doubt people understand what is happening to their rights because if this type of moral superiority takes hold you will be on the receiving end more often than not. Welcome to 1984.

<comment><USER43> I'm not following this logic. People are expressing themselves and others are responding as they see fit: agreement, condemnation, silence, etc. It sounds like a marketplace of ideas in a free society. No one is having their basic human rights taken away from them because someone else called them a bigot.

If you're uncomfortable with someone's ideas making them a pariah, you're describing a basic social dilemma that many can sympathize with, but not an Orwellian future being pushed upon us by the political left.

<comment><USER44> > _People are expressing themselves and others are responding as they see fit: > agreement, condemnation, silence, etc. It sounds like a marketplace of ideas > in a free society._

So to you, a marketplace of ideas is one side dictates what is allowed to be said, and anyone who deviates from this deserves to be a pariah? What about that is free or a marketplace of ideas?

> _No one is having their basic human rights taken away from them because > someone else called them a bigot._

You are _literally_ calling for the removal of basic human rights when you say that silencing people is a reasonable response to them saying something you don't like. Do you even realize what you're suggesting?

> _I'm not following this logic._

Not surprising. The operative word is free. People are allowed to hold opinions they want, not ones you or your group approve of. You are completely within your rights to dislike any thoughts and speech you see fit. But that is where your free speech rights end - you're not allowed to use those rights to limit the rights of others. That is cowardly anti-intellectualism and it's a hallmark of internet 'liberalism'.

<comment><USER45> Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. This thread is managing to stay barely on the ok side, and your comment here crosses noticeably closer to flamewar hell. Please step the other way instead. You'll make a better argument that way, have a greater chance of persuading others or at least connecting with them, and maybe even feel better too.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan was separated from New York Magazine. He quickly found a platform in other magazine. While I disagree with Andrew a lot, I dont think he should have been censored.

<comment><USER47> Where are you seeing that Sullivan has left New York Magazine?

(Sullivan should shut up about this particular controversy; he has not covered himself in glory on this issue in the past, and has no extra credibility here to burn).

<comment><USER48> Sullivan is on some kind of weird double secret probation and quite unhappy about it.

I do not understand the comment about his not having credibility to burn. Opinion columnists aren't jockeying to run for class president. They're supposed to take various opinions in order for ideas to be more fully fleshed out.

If the only purpose of the opinion section is to say things that reflect well on you or cover you in glory, we can pretty much skip the entire exercise and just lay-off all these people right now.

It's odd, and I don't direct this at you, but for some crazy reason people think that they should like all of the opinions that various press outlets run. I wonder if they have any idea the various opinions places like the NYTs have allowed folks to express, and quite rightly, too. When I have to like or agree with an opinion columnist, I'm missing something about where the value in the transaction is. I already know what I like and believe in. I don't need to read it over and over again.

<comment><USER47> He can say whatever he wants, of course, but should not be surprised when he takes comparatively more flak for venturing forth on issues involving race. New York Magazine is a business, and can make their own decisions about whether that flak is worth absorbing. Certainly, his ideas on these topics don't seem to be worth much on their own merits.

<comment><USER49> It's always amazing how you (and all others parroting this line) can freely switch back and forth between "he who has the gold makes the rules and that's okay" and "corporations need to support this cause I support", depending on exactly who is getting hurt in each situation.

Come on - you must realize that you don't actually believe your argument as a principle, you're just using it as an excuse because you want Sullivan silenced.

<comment><USER47> No, I believe the argument as a principle. The alternative, that certain people somehow have a right to employment at private companies, doesn't make any sense.

Labor has market power as well, if it chooses to employ it. Somehow, I don't think a guild of columnists is going to amass to protect Sullivan, though.

As an aside: do you think it has ever once been persuasive to write something like "you must realize you don't mean what you say, but rather this other thing I'm convinced you think"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I love Taibbi. He is fearless and pays the price for pointing out groupthink.

<comment><USER51> I find the proposition of lionizing someone because they fight the "groupthink", however you define that, quite an odd thing to do. Thinking like that will occasionally result in you supporting absolute cranks, because the heuristic you're using is unrelated to actual correctness or other useful characteristics.

Seek out people who seek to be _right_ and back up their arguments consistently with logic and data, not people who are disliked by people you dislike.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> On a side note, does anyone subscribe to any good news/information site? I would like to subscribe to something good and know I'm supporting it.

<comment><USER53> I've recently discovered The Hill ([https://thehill.com/](https://thehill.com/)). It's very refreshing. No sensationalized language in titles and I haven't been able to detect a bias for the left or right. They seem to present information pretty objectively.

<comment><USER54> > I haven't been able to detect a bias for the left or right

Allsides.com is an interesting attempt to evaluate media sources for bias, and agrees with you. Through some fairly detailed surveys they "found that The Hill maintains a Center bias, though on the border of Lean Left." [https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill-media- bias](https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill-media-bias)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Parallels to McCarthyism anyone?

</comment><comment><USER56> The US seems to have fallen into a game-theoretic local minimum where each party lets their crazy cousin go throw dumb rocks at the opposition because it seems to be the optimal way to drum up fanatic support for their side, all the while whistling as if in ignorance of what's going on. At least that's how it seemed to start, now it's just devolved to outright scat slinging that's co- opted our system of government into a soap opera. It would almost be funny if the poo slingers weren't the very people that make and enforce the laws that we all have to live by.

Our political parties need to _clean their damn houses_. It's not the right's job to deal with the radical left, and it's not the left's job to deal with the radical right. Both sides need to take out their trash so we can actually get something done.

We need a way to argue against a steelman opposing argument instead of always a strawman. We need to be capable of updating our opinions without risking career suicide. We need something that allows us to deal with the meta problems like fallacies and trolls and half-refutations paraded around as victories. We need to be able to hold arguments with _depth_ and _nuance_.

<comment><USER57> That's assuming both political parties actually want "something done".

<comment><USER58> Correct. And they definitely do not. The Democrats are not "left". They'd barely pass for center across the pond. They are just another flavor of The Party of oligarchy and cronyism in control of this country. There are some significant differences in the platforms, but it's mostly around wedge issues by design.

<comment><USER50> I share your opinion.

My own theory (without any real evidence) is that the oligarchs use race to divide the white working class from the non-white working class. A specific example is the video on systemic racism going around. It correctly points out redlining (a truly horrific practice), but also talks about black students having to attend underfunded schools. I attended predominantly black, underfunded, public schools my entire childhood. By this logic, I was at the same schools and was a "victim" of systemic racism. Which immediately implies that it was actually systemic classism at play against the working poor, rather than being purely race-based.

If a party chose to ignore the corporate overlords and focus on issues that working class people of all ethnicities cared about, they would get a lot of votes, and very few super PAC donations.

<comment><USER59> Using race to divide labor is a time-proven capitalist tactic. Go back to Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, where the system was made explicit after the mixed- race uprising again the oligarchs of the time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion)

<comment><USER50> "The alliance between European indentured servants and Africans (many enslaved until death or freed), united by their bond-servitude, disturbed the ruling class. The ruling class responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705."

Fascinating. I grew up in rural Virginia. A little Known fact is that the vast majority of white settlers there were indentured and/or bonded, often convicts. The first Africans in 1619 were indentured as well. Horrifically, in the 1650s when the first African slaves were brought over, the elites pushed further changes in social norms that resulted in a significant worsening of treatment of the African indentured servants who had long since become free landowners and farmers. A formerly indentured, free black man had a prosperous farm a few miles from where I grew up. The courthouse there dates to the 1600s, and the records are there that show jealous white neighbors gradually stealing his land with impunity, starting at the time that slaves started becoming common. It is chilling looking at those documents standing in that building.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is another clear example of 20th century scale.

They made everything "so big", that they have to fill the pipeline with inferior products/drivel just to keep it at capacity.

21st century scale doesn't suffer from the same weakness, but that should come as no surprise.

</comment><comment><USER61> The Chait article[0] Taibbi cites may be a slightly more effective version of a similar argument, not least because he goes to a good deal of trouble to emphasize how much worse the problem is on the political right.

[0] [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for- liberalism-...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism- tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html)

<comment><USER50> Nobody is arguing that the right wing media is not a giant echo chamber. Of course it is. Watching Sean Hannity speak would be amusing if not for the fact that you know there's a bunch of people in their living rooms taking him seriously.

But we on the left need to recognize how crazy this s __* is getting.

If anyone questions the insane dogma that has taken over the newsrooms pushed by the far left, then they are labeled a right-winger or worse. Never mind the fact that it causes the left to lose elections when we let our fringe elements take over.

there are tens of thousands of people at any given moment talking about how crazy the right wing is, especially Fox news and Breitbart. But where are you when the New York times is completely going off the rails? You're just defending them as your tribal instincts take over.

Also let's be honest here:

Kneeling before people you've never met to atone for the sins of of other human beings who happen to share your skin color might be something that's normal to you. It is utterly alien to the vast majority of the American public. Defunding police might have nuance to it but it is lost to the American public. If we want to win this next presidential election and Congress in the Senate, we need to be aware of the fact that these ideas are insane to most of America. I can't think of anything that will push a Midwestern voter to pull the lever for Trump faster than watching Minneapolis disband its police department as a councilwoman interviewed on CNN states that calling the police on an intruder is an act of privilege.

If Trump wins in 2020 this will be why. I don't want him to win in 2020. Do you?

<comment><USER62> > If anyone questions the insane dogma that has taken over the newsrooms > pushed by the far left

So...out of curiosity, just what do you see as being this "insane dogma" "pushed by the far left"?

Because so far as I can tell, America _still_ doesn't have anything that could reasonably be called a "far left" that's being taken seriously by any mainstream media.

The most extreme positions I've heard recently that have gained any media traction are along the lines of "we should overhaul our police so that they don't regularly kill, brutalize, and otherwise traumatize innocent civilians".

<comment><USER50> Just want to point out:

The media doesn't ever report the numbers on police violence. They report the emotion.

Including both armed and unarmed people, just over 1000 people were killed by US police in 2019.

What percentage of those were black?

Approximately 24 percent. Did you know that? Did it surprise you? I assumed it was 75 percent. 24 percent is very bad, since black Americans are 13 percent of the population. However, it also indicates that race is one of, not the only, independent variable driving this. The media is deliberately not reporting these numbers. Simultaneously, they trot out chart after chart of covid19 infection statistics.

When I saw the data, I was very angry that my own perception was so skewed due to biased, incomplete reporting in the media.

Source:

[https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/](https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/)

<comment><USER63> I was also going through the numbers recently and it does appear that there is no place for contrast in the media, both within the phenomenon of police killings itself as you point out, as well as how it relates to other unfortunate and troubling causes of death.

For example ; ~ 250k people a year die from medical errors in the US [0]. From this one could argue that doctors are far more dangerous than cops, possibly on a per encounter basis as well. Certainly something should be done about this. I don't know if a mega riot will do it though.

Also, just what proportion of those police related deaths were actually justified by any standard ? Like how many of those people actually pointed a gun at the cops before ending up as a stat ? Regardless of race. That would be interesting to know. Obviously some heads have to roll when something like that happens, but maybe we should still keep the baby.

[0] [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us)

I'm usually not quick to side with the cops on any given day, but I like to side with the actual facts on any given day. Policing is a hard, dangerous and ungrateful job. Certainly it has its ( grave ) problems, but just doing away with the whole thing based on relatively few ( albeit horrible ) incidents, is not a rational reaction to this real issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Expression and suppression of ideas have been happening ever since the onset of language in human, as far as I can tell. Any explanation that is time dependent, i.e this is happening because of so and so happening currently seems a bit inadequate to me. Any type of "look how crazy the other side is" rhetoric also feels like cliche to me because who am I do decide what's insane and what not?

As for the core of the problem itself, I have no idea what the core of the problem is. Vaguely, it seems that people take a side of issue that's phrased to have two side and they duke it out with the other side. It seem to be part of underlying mechanism of how humans behave because I see similar ideas played out in sports and such.

Maybe the problem isn't any one specific idea but rather how ideas get parsed by our brain. Or maybe I am the one complicating things and it's a simpler idea. But this whole business of right or wrong ideas, sides, values etc seems exhaustive. I'll just wait for someone else to figure it out for me.

</comment><comment><USER65> I would highly recommend his 2019 book Hate Inc.

</comment><comment><USER66> Taibbi is one of the best journalists in America. Very thankful to have people like him doing this.

<comment><USER67> Entirely removed from the merits and demerits of Taibbi's treatment of the topic at hand, I shudder at your unqualified praise of the man. Without so much as a single source to buttress your point or to qualify how you arrived at that conclusion.

Thats like saying Judge Richard Posner is one of the best jurists in the country without adding anything else.[1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner)

<comment><USER21> Have you even read any of the other articles he has written? He really is one of the best journalists of this current era, he is truth-seeking instead of motivated by dogma.

<comment><USER67> You just proved my point.

You expect people to somehow know and lionize these left-wing hacks as if their eminence should be self-evident and known to all, despite their bent (which is revealed in the 2nd paragraph where the author calls a sitting President a 'clown').

That's the problem with unself-aware people like you, who expect everyone to read the same people you do. Left-leaning people have been accused of living in their own self-made bubbles of comfy self-reinforcing left-leaning talking points.

Thats how you get to a point where a presidential candidate feels comfortable & self-assured in calling those who won't vote for her "a basket of deplorables" or a current 2020 presidential candidate saying "if you have a problem figuring out if you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" to black voters[2].

You're not helping with this thinking of yours or your entitlement in feeling that a journalist of your liking will be liked by all or considered even- keeled by all.

[1] Basket of deplorables

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables)

[2] Biden tells voters 'you ain't black' if you're still deciding between him and Trump – video

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/may/22/joe- bi...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/may/22/joe-biden- charlamagne-you-aint-black-trump-video)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lmdnm2vgmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lmdnm2vgmI)

[https://i.imgur.com/nvFiIJi.png](https://i.imgur.com/nvFiIJi.png)

<comment><USER21> Lol your response is utterly nonsensical.

This "left-wing hack" just excoriated the entire media and left-wing movement for essentially being fascists. Did you even bother reading the article?

<comment><USER67> You almost never judge based on one piece of writing.

You judge based on the oeuvre of their lifetime work.[1]

People like him are particularly adept at changing their tone based on which way the political winds blew at that particular time.

The whole of the Left is filled with such noxious people who wouldn't think twice before throwing one of their own under the bus, if it suits their cause.

That's how they've abandoned Noam Chomsky who was once the Left's darling and could do no harm. They're a sickly bunch and a death cult and cannot be trusted with anything resembling power.

[1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#The_eXile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi#The_eXile)

[2] Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy

How elites on both sides of the political spectrum have undermined our social, political, and environmental commons.

[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky- neoli...](https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky- neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> A further discussion of some of the details. If true Taibbi's piece loses some of its sting: [https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-the-american- left...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/06/has-the-american-left-lost- its-mind)

I don't agree with all the opinions in this article. But it would be good to understand better what the actual facts are. Too tired to dig further myself, and that's the problem, isn't it? But maybe someone else can already set things straight?

</comment><comment><USER69> American Television has been been held hostage since the 70s by the "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property," it's not like this is new or unique to leftists.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Defen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Defense_of_Tradition,_Family_and_Property)

</comment><comment><USER70> I think this piece rambles on against the far-left a bit to much to be useful.

The political dialogue is currently in territory that is Important. Normal families are under significant financial pressures, the legitimacy of major institutions (police, presidential elections, government solvency) is open to questioning. Global conditions are tense, let alone America's internal problems.

This is a time for sober discussion of the issues, not calling people "great reality-show villain" or "Twitter Robespierres".

There is a real problem that the atmosphere on the left is stifling alternative ideas for one, ironically experimental, orthodoxy. That needs to be discussed. Lots of other issues also need to be discussed.

And answering the headline; I fully expect all the narratives in all major US press outlets to be proven false at some point in the future. What passes for 'good journalism' these days is being vaguely correct about what the issues are. I wouldn't be surprised if not a single quote from a political figure has been presented in context in the last 2 years. I refuse to believe anything in the media about who said what without cross-referencing against a primary source. It is impossible to have an honest political discussion in that environment.

<comment><USER71> > I think this piece rambles on against the far-left a bit to much to be > useful.

The NYT is far-left? Self-censorship in there is one of the core topics of the article. And many other mainstream left (and some not even political) journals are mentioned. It doesn't feel like you've read the article in any depth if that's your takeaway.

<comment><USER72> NYT cannot be far-left, being a huge capitalist institution. It just an oxymoron. It clearly is a far-democratic, whatever the DP agency is, at a particular moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> This wouldn't be a problem if Section 230 was repealed

[https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet- speech/comm...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet- speech/communications-decency-act-section-230)

<comment><USER74> I understand how dangerous it is to have news organizations operating in bad faith. Even if I recognize it and avoid their venue, my neighbors may not. In 2020, these online platforms can reach a billion+ people. Misleading statements, or flat-out lies can create a mob very quickly.

I'd still rather have the ability to dissent online, rather than losing the platforms that may be held liable for what I post.

Section 230 is a good thing. Removing it would (in my opinion) only lead to de-platforming people the state disagrees with.

"Think of the children!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I have read many of Taibbi's past articles with enthusiasm and he makes some interesting arguments in the present article, but to be clear, he has an axe to grind on this very issue. He himself was essentially cancelled for some pretty indefensible and egregious "journalism" early in his career.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros- wh...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-two-expat-bros-who- terrorized-women-correspondents-in- moscow/2017/12/15/91ff338c-ca3c-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html)

Furthermore, hes engaged here in some light cherry-picking. For instance, Taibbi references a called-out UCLA professor, who is white, and whose primary offense seems to not be reading MLK's treatise but using the n-word in the process- that seems like a detail worth mentioning?

</comment><comment><USER76> I read this yesterday, superb analysis.

I pay $5/month to Taibbi to get email updates. This one had a note that it could be shared.

Press is now just a business to make money and to occasionally push agendas on the owners' wishes.

</comment><comment><USER77> In addition to the lies I listed in my other comment, Taibbi also lies about what he calls the "now-discredited Steele dossier" in this piece.

Here are the facts: not a single significant conclusion in the Steele dossier has _ever been discredited or proven false_ to date. Not one.

Anyone who read Taibbi during the W Administration, and who reads him again now, can readily discern that someone got to him. It's not the same guy. He's flown off the handle and spouts readily-falsifiable information at a truly alarming rate. You can Google for 30 seconds and find lie after lie. It's the same with Glenn Greenwald, who Taibbi is now allied with.

<comment><USER78> > It's the same with Glenn Greenwald, who Taibbi is now allied with.

Greenwald equated Michael Flynn's plea deal with the plight of poor folks being forced into bad deals by disinterested public defenders/overextended court systems on a recent episode of The Intercepted podcast. I no longer recognize the person I used to look forward to seeing as a guest on Democracy Now.

<comment><USER79> Much has been made in the media that he plead guilty so therefore there could be no possibility that his prosecution was unfair, unreasonable or political. But we know that many people plead guilty for reasons other than guilt. Facing a biased judge and prosecutors out for blood is certainly one of them. Fighting in such a case, even if you're right, is very risky.

You may gain a sense of schadenfreude that even one of the formerly powerful could be forced into that same grim calculus faced by a poor person railroaded by the system. But this is not justice in either case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Of the points the author is bringing up, all of them sound like comments that had they been made on here would be flagged and downvoted for 'flame bait' because they are purposefully incendiary.

I don't disagree. Some of the reactions have been over the top but everyone is pretty wound up right now.

I don't think the editor of nyt opinion should be fired for running the Tom Cotton piece, but some real reflection of intent and purpose needed to be checked. Same with the reporter in Oakland.

<comment><USER81> And the previous duplicate of this was flagged presumably for that exact reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> No shit. The American right showed the way. The left is finally optimizing to match the working model.

</comment><comment><USER83> This was amazing. The fourth estate, news media is so important...

</comment><comment><USER84> > The American left has lost its mind

That quote stands out. For all the talk about demanding inclusiveness, American leftwings seem to be quite an exclusive group. They demand some conflicting moral standards and drown out debate by shouting down different opinions.

It's quite disconcerting to see this jump over to Europe and spread in the fashion it has. Identity and group belonging are becoming more important than reason.

</comment><comment><USER85> I think the real idea is that America is destroying itself. Not just on the surface, but it's like looking at a democratic will to self-un-democratize.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's a little rich seeing Matt Taibbi, of all people, raising the alarm about "moral manias".

<comment><USER86> What are you referring to?

<comment><USER47> Matt Taibbi's hyperbolic demagoguery is so notorious CJR actually published a piece asking people to stop dunking on him so much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> From an outsider's (not living in the US) perspective, the adherence to identity politics there has really gone to the extremes. It is a paradox in itself: if every group emphasizes its uniqueness, its needs to be viewed, heard and treated differently from the status quo, then how would it be possible to arrive at an endgame of "everybody being treated equally"?

From an European perspective, identity politics is quite puzzling. In France for example, there is simply no item called "ethnicity" in the population census. As long as you're "French", you're supposed to enjoy the same rights and have the same duties, and should be able to communicate with each other based on a fundamental set of values and cultural understanding. The idea of "skin color" is very much de-emphasized instead of strengthened, which IMO makes sense if you want to reach a true state of "equality for all". In a sense it is similar to the idea of "let us ignore the 'sex' of a person when evaluating their abilities and agreeing on their duties, just treat all sexes as the same and equal, instead of arguing about which sex should enjoy more privileges on which fronts".

Of course, I understand that everything has historical and societal roots. The US society has always been divided along ethnic lines. After all, the vast amount of African Americans' sole purpose of existence, until less than 2 centuries ago, was to be slaves to a superior master class, not to mention the various comparisons between the US and Rome, even up to the present. Even after the liberation, the social-economic organizational structure hasn't really changed. Of course, this is not to say that similar problems don't exist in Europe. France also had a long history of colonization, and the group identity of Northern Africans is always a tricky issue in their society. However, in general, and especially in Northern European countries which didn't get to partake in much colonization, for example, most migrants are relatively recent economic migrants. This makes it much harder for a historically discriminatory social-economic structure to form against them, and makes it quite easier for the society to de-emphasize the skin color and regard everybody equally as much as possible. Of course, there is still a long way to go before any form of racism truly doesn't exist even in those countries, that's for sure. I just feel that the current situation in the US is incredibly polarized, nobody is listening to what the others are talking about, and only insists on pushing their own narratives, which is just not conducive to eventually solving the problems. No matter whether you're on the left or on the right, a dogmatic adherence to ideology and the need to bash anybody who in your eyes dares to think slightly differently is an extremely dangerous thing to do.

</comment><comment><USER88> As humans, we love to create and live in a humanistic world. The newspaper stances, which this article criticizes were trying to be human (for well-being of human in their best judgement, and with open motivation) at different points in time.

This article has serve as great whataboutism if you don't the humanistic philosophy, while you are pursuing the truth.

</comment><comment><USER89> Former hero of mainstream journalism no longer fits in with mainstream journalism so of course it's destroying itself.

Perhaps Matt Taibbi is used to being a visibly elite journalist who isn't on board with a new status quo that won't benefit him the same.

People are sick of yesterday's politics and looking to remake things. The media is always going on about it's important role in our political system. It needs a good kick in the ass.

Post post modernism has us deconstructing post modernism. No more believing we're just detached observers living on rails. We aren't feeling obligated to saying grandpa and grandma and are searching for a new normal from bottom up, as too many are facing existential entropy given the status quo.

Taibbi is 'fraid that what was familiar is no more. Good. That means journalism is being disrupted in a real way. It's not if it's just feeling normal to the old experts.

Our social institutions may really be changing.

<comment><USER90> Tying all reporting of facts to a need to push virtuous political narratives is braindead.

By the way, Taibbi is doing fine, financially. So I hardly think this is a grudge article.

<comment><USER91> > By the way, Taibbi is doing fine, financially. So I hardly think this is a > grudge article.

Just because he's doing fine financially doesn't mean he hasn't lost status, and he's well into the financial range where more or less of that unlessnit radically changes station is essentially meaningless, but status and acclaim often remain quite meaningful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> Earlier thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23505400](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23505400)

<comment><USER93> Which has been marked as [flagged] and has fewer comments than this one. IMO, the dupe flag should be removed from this one, or merge the two and boost them back up.

<comment><USER94> Yes, or at least be honest that the reason this was removed is because it is flagged, not because it was a dupe.

<comment><USER45> 83 points and dozens of comments is well over the threshold for considering a repost a dupe ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)), whether or not it was flagged, and generally speaking that threshold should be tightened if an article was flagged, not loosened. Otherwise flagging doesn't mean very much.

I made the call to take the flags off this one and merge the comments from the previous thread in here, because the discussion has been managing to stay (barely) on the ok side, and the article seems to me to be about an interesting new phenomenon (a la [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)).

<comment><USER94> Thank you for doing so.

If you don't mind some feedback for the way posts are marked, read on. :)

There is no doubt that the post is technically a dupe.

I realize now (from your comment) that a post can be flagged either for its content or the content of the conversation. I was only thinking of the former, and under that system it would make a lot more sense for things to get marked consistently (ie if a link is flagged, it is flagged if it gets reposted). That allows us to understand better what things are allowed here and what are not. A dupe flag tells me that there is nothing wrong with the link or the type of content it contains (or the conversation that took place under it, for that matter.) If somebody had not posted the link to the original, I would have never known that the article had been removed for its content (again or the conversation). I would have thought I simply missed the discussion.

In fact, that's precisely what happened to me. Since I was enjoying it, I clicked through to the older post, only to get whiplash as I discovered that it was a conversation that was apparently not allowed here.

I hope that explains why I felt so frustrated and misled by the [dupe] flag, and that it t is a help to you in your moderation work.

Edited to add: To be clear, my point was not to allow the conversation to continue (though I'm glad you did). My point was that the second removal should get marked the same way so it's clear what is going on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> The New Yorker depiction of this very site (or was it the Atlantic) was particularly egregious.

<comment><USER96> To restate a popular maxim, the lesson to take from this is that the media depiction on almost everything is egregiously bad, not just those things where you personally know better.

The question then is why do we expend so much time and money engaging with and propagating discourse which we know is so fundamentally misrepresenting reality?

<comment><USER97> That article doesn't seem to me particularly wrong, and in fact many parts of it ring true...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> He touches on the symptoms but barely figures out the disease.

The problem is that elites and institutions have been stripped naked.

When the printing press was invented, no one could have foreseen that the tsunami of information could have undermined the catholic institutions to such an extent, that it would lead to a devastating conflict ( 30 years war) fought over the pretext of very minor religios diffferences.

But to anyone paying attention, the underlying current was there: the general populace had been profoundly dissilutioned by the elites, with the information tide leaving the elites stripped naked at the beach.

Fast forward to the 1980s and the internet.

The tsunami of information has come again, and left every institution and elite exposed.

From the top down, presidents ("wmd's in Iraq", hillary's "deplorables" and "tell 1 thing to bankers and something else to public" ), senators ("pocahontas" story), reporters ("under enemy fire while reporting", sex scandals) or NYTs "Fake but real" headline apology, institutions (FBIs "collusion"), academia like medicine (lancet "covid report"), or economics "2008 no one could have foreseen coming", all the way down to mayors and councilmen.

We see failures and lack of respect in every corner of elites.

The tide has left the lies and manipulation of every institution naked.

We must hope that more people like taibbi realize this, and move quickly to descentralize power from old institutions because the other solution is to burn everything down and that usually turns out much worse.

</comment><comment><USER99> > _It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact, but > the American left has lost its mind_

I add to that, that without that deviation from reality, a candidate like Trump would have never gotten his nomination, even less the presidency.

</comment><comment><USER100> Is the left losing their minds of their own accord? Or are people becoming more reactionary due to the unprecedented level of insanity that the right has displayed and wielded with actual political power of late? Calls for liberals to be be rational when a trump administration rules the country is a bit odd, since reasoned debate does no good there, or with the current GOP senate. what is left? throw a fit is about all that is left.

<comment><USER101> Unfortunately, throw a fit is the tip of the iceberg. You see, instead of watching the news, I've been speaking with people, and not online. Some people are starving. Some people are afraid of starving shortly. Some people are being evicted. Some people are about to be evicted. There is currently an international once-in-a-lifetime (hopefully) plague. Some people didn't receive their stimulus checks. Some people didn't get unemployment when they got fired. Some people live in states where max unemployment is $365/week, but like ~$60/week if you were minimum wage. This some people number is approaching a critical mass.

Then cops are killing people.

Are people meant to keep their minds? If ethical behavior is material, then are we not incentivizing unethical behavior by not providing the means to basic material when it is well within our own means to do so? And what king- of-kings thrives clad in white, righteous anger against the unethical? If we chastise those in pain, we will all know despair.

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> > _I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes > it?..._

I mean, Lacy does have a point that this kind of question in the context of the protests is nothing more than distracting.

The protests are about _systematic_ discrimination of black people. No one questioned that black people can also be perpetrators - it's just irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Would nazis running concentration camps be absolved by finding that "well but some inmates commit violence too"?

<comment><USER103> > The protests are about _systematic_ discrimination of black people. No one > questioned that black people can also be perpetrators - it's just irrelevant > to the topic at hand.

 _And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother 's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?_

There is something to be said for asking someone to start by getting their own house in order.

<comment><USER104> I'm not sure I understand your comment correctly.

Are you saying that black communities should be reasonably crime-free before they can expect institutions not to systematically discriminate them and enact retributionless, extralegal violence upon them?

<comment><USER103> What I'm saying is that when black people kill more than ten times more black people than cops kill black people, somebody is not wrong to ask why the focus should only be on the cops.

<comment><USER105> Again, the focus isn't _only_ on cops. There's plenty of time, effort, money, etc. spent on minimizing "normal" violence and crime. Society is quite capable of doing more than one thing at once, even if the media likes to focus.

<comment><USER103> You can't realistically claim that the focus isn't on the police right now.

And they're not even wrong. Policing in the US is in serious need of reform.

But you're doing the thing you're saying you're not doing. If we can do both things at once, then why shouldn't we do both things at once? Why are we dismissing people who want to do the other thing?

<comment><USER105> As far as I'm aware, none of the efforts to curb normal violence and crime ("Problem A") have declined. The only thing that's changed is that more people are joining the chorus to fix policing ("Problem B").

Nobody is going to dismiss you for wanting to fix Problem A. But that's a very different thing than intruding on conversations about Problem B to tell people to focus on Problem A instead.

The Black Lives Matter movement is explicitly about dealing with systemic racism and state violence against Black people. If you want to contribute to solving other issues (and there are many other issues), go for it, but I don't see what that has to do with Black Lives Matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Great article but it's so depressing that it starts with disinformation by claiming Trump said it is a great day for Floyd due to unemployment numbers (actually discussed completely separately in that speech). He said it's a great day due to increasing equality. [0]

Twisting someone's words to make them look worse in a piece that rightly blames others for doing so is just sad. So I am asking again - Why do even the sensible ones do this? Why can't we have some honesty and objectivity?

0\. [https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-press- conf...](https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-press-conference- transcript-on-jobs-report)

<comment><USER96> There is a very long history of mainstream media taking a Trump quote, not just out of context, but actively rewriting it to mean the exact opposite of what he is saying.

From Charlottesville to this, you can safely bet that anything reconciliatory that Trump says will be twisted into something divisive through intentionally misreporting what was said.

This is the actual quote. The fact is that he made this remark during a press conference which also discussed jobs numbers;

"Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race, color, gender, or creed," Trump said. "They have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it. We all saw what happened last week. We can't let that happen. Hopefully, George is looking down right now and saying, 'This is a great day that's happening for our country.' It's a great day for him. It's a great day for everybody. This is a great day for everybody. This is a great day in terms of equality. It's really what our Constitution requires and it's what our country is all about."

When I read this quote I hear Trump praising the protests and supporting the cause of equal treatment under the law and ending police brutality. The mass media reported the statement as, among other things, "revolting". [1]

[1] - [https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us- news/202...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us- news/2020/jun/05/trump-george-floyd-comments-economy-unemployment)

<comment><USER63> The best account of the current trajectory of the media landscape I have found is in what was meant to be a sci-fi story called American Goldmine by Paolo Bacigalupi published here ;

[https://www.sfsite.com/fsf/toc1909.htm](https://www.sfsite.com/fsf/toc1909.htm)

It's exactly where this is going. Honestly worth the short read. Scary stuff. The 1984 of mainstream media, and it's ( also ) right around the corner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> This looks a lot like a racist piece to me.

</comment><comment><USER108> And it is destroying the country. The death of Floyd was no doubt a hideous crime, which should be punished harshly but the narrative of systemic and widespread police racism is unsupported by data and incredibly, irresponsibly manufactured by the media. We are close to a civil war, in the middle of a pandemic, we are all out of our minds with rage and indignation and, for the most part things were better than ever, including the level of police brutality. I beg all of you, do not let yourself be manipulated, no matter how righteous it might feel. Check the actual facts. More whites are killed by police than blacks, in absolute terms as well as per crime committed [1]. Sam Harris discusses all of this in his latest podcast, just hear him out [2]. America is not perfect, for sure, there is still racism, for sure, and the police could do far better, for sure, but we are burning the country down in a middle of a plague, when we should be working together to solve all of this. And its largely the fault of the media.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to- de...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us- police-by-race/)

[2] [https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93YWtpbmd1cC5saWJ...](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93YWtpbmd1cC5saWJzeW4uY29tL3Jzcw/episode/MWNhMjQ1MjItOWRmMS00ODMyLWIwMDMtMGFmODAzOTY2MTEy?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjezI27iIDqAhW- TDABHf58DnMQieUEegQIAxAE&ep=6)

</comment><comment><USER94> Moderators, it is disingenuous to mark this as [dupe] when in fact what you've done is [flag] silence the article—something that ironically enough proves its point.

<comment><USER45> That was just standard moderation, which is a large part of what makes HN the way it is. If we did otherwise, HN would quickly become a completely different forum.

That said, it's also standard to turn off flags sometimes, for example if an article is particulary interesting and able to support a substantive HN thread. I did that in this case.

Please see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23512983](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23512983), and if you still have a question that I haven't answered, let me know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> I knew to take the entire article with a grain of salt with the first sentence:

 _" Sometimes it seems life can't get any worse in this country."_

Yes, there are astonishingly brash, illegal actions being taken by police departments. Yes, we're still in the middle of a pandemic.

But that statement is absurd, and childish.

</comment><comment><USER110> This is a strategy to move politics acceptable lines: present extremely radical thinkers in the media, as editorialist, then the originally radical ones will seems moderate.

To be fair, the conservative started this, at least in France. Now the liberals adopted this around 2017, helping first the regular right then the "center right" getting elected when the regular right got caught red-handed stealing money (i'm simplifying here).

The communists use it now, it is only fair. And i hope anarchists will start too. That's why i'm sneering at "defund the police": it is not extreme enough. "Abolish the police" should have been the initial demands, with defunding an acceptable compromise. But anarchists are not organized enough to make good media strategies.

</comment><comment><USER111> What i found today in Academia, News and even Tech companies that question the left has resulted in banning but never in a civil discussion. Movements like Antifa, BLM won't sit and have a talk because in principle they believe that speech and civil discussion hasnt led to any advancements in their political requests. While some of them apply to past times, today is important to have discussion and freedom of speech A good case is Cadence Owens, she is person that represents the right and when invited to Joe Rogan it was a joke that all her claims were not backed up with science, other example was Milo too. They were put in front of a very smart person and lose credibility on the spot. Is important to keep freedom of speech in all areas and with both left and right

</comment><comment><USER77> "The American press is destroying itself."

...says Matt Taibbi, who has _actually_ been destroying himself and his reputation continuously for about 10 years now.

In this piece, Taibbi straight-up lies about the fascist op-ed from Tom Cotton in the NYT. I guess he thinks we're all too stupid to notice when he completely skips over everything that made Cotton's piece so offensive, including Sen. Cotton calling for "no quarter" against protestors, which is effectively state-sanctioned murder.

Taibbi also skips over the key problem with the now-fired NYT editor's conduct: the fact that he admittedly _did not even read_ Cotton's op-ed before approving it."

There is a reasonable debate to be had over whether the Cotton op-ed should have been run or not, with many reasonable folks on both sides, but Taibbi's take is one of the worst I've seen and does not honestly portray the issues involved.

</comment><comment><USER112> This honestly just reads to me like more media-class self absorption. How you manage to use the phrase "Twitter Robspierre" and then pivot to defending Cotton's editorial on populist grounds is beyond me. I'm sure the guy managing the Olive Garden in Upper Arlington, Ohio is up at night worrying that the Times Op-Ed page is going to be taken over by the reincarnation of Danton.

</comment><comment><USER113> Might as well listen to Rush Limbaugh - you'll get the same arguments, and the same lack of substance, as this article, but with far more entertainment.

In any case, the point he was trying to make is all well and good - the media should ask the tough questions and sometimes society impacts the flow of free thought. But it seems to Mr Taibbi only the left has this problem.

<comment><USER114> And you believe your response has substance to it? Where's your argument? Anything going through your head other than "Uoogh, he same as other guy I don't like!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> Before reading this I had a feeling it was related to the James Bennet situation at the Times. I've been following the narratives unfolding around news rooms and I would offer this article as a counter narrative to the one being portrayed in this piece.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/new- york-t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/new-york-times- washington-post-protests.html)

If you look at the James Bennet situation specifically, he willingly published a piece that he said could be dangerous. He tweeted the following

"We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton's argument painful, even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate."

While this sounds like a noble undertaking of the advancement of public discourse, black journalists have publicly condemned this act because it will put their lives in danger. The problem is that Bennet and many other journalists believe it is ok to push dangerous, even racist narratives in pursuit of "objectivity". For many non-black journalists these debates are exciting and stimulating, but for black people these debates are validating toxic ideologies by giving them a platform to spread.

<comment><USER116> > he willingly published a piece that he said could be dangerous.

That's rich. No, he did not say that. He said some readers may find it dangerous. It does not mean he himself finds it dangerous.

<comment><USER115> I agree, he does not believe it to be dangerous. That's kind of my point. He does not believe it to be dangerous, but many of his readers and even black journalists have acknowledged it is. At this point you either accept that black journalists are saying this piece is dangerous or you reject it, you can't pretend it to be indifferent.

<comment><USER116> Oh dear. You have falsely ascribed words to the guy and did not even acknowledge it when I brought it to your attention.

To the contrary you doubled down: this time you are saying that the editor was indifferent to raised concerns, despite the fact the he actually did acknowledge them and communicated that in his opinion other considerations overrule. That's not indifference, that's disagreement.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Valve Unveils 13 Steam Machines, With Specs And Prices - <AUTHOR> http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/01/valve-unveils-13-steam-machines-with-specs-and-prices/

<comment><USER2> One of those, the Origin PC Chronos, looks to be using a Silverstone GD05 chassis, which is the exact one that's been housing my HTPC/"Steam Machine" this past year. It's nice to see some vindication for the choice (although I've been thinking about moving to something more compact and console-like, as it's basically a full mATX case on its side, and has non-optimal airflow). Cooling is definitely an issue; there is no way it can dump the heat of 2× NVidia Titans and a 4770k, as it can just about handle my single GTX 460.

</comment><comment><USER3> Alternate links. [http://www.valvesoftware.com/news/](http://www.valvesoftware.com/news/)

If you want to read the press sheet its here. It shows pictures of what the designs will look like. [http://media.steampowered.com/store/steammachines/SteamMachi...](http://media.steampowered.com/store/steammachines/SteamMachinesBroc_WEB.PDF)

Most of them seems to be simular to existing designs.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sony and Microsoft must be laughing their arse's off right now. The whole point of a console is that its cheap and you get revenue from games. You lower the barrier to entry to allow mass market.

The re-badging PC gaming as console gaming without altering anything else is not going to usher in a new era of console gaming. I don't see the advantage of this over having a PC for gaming plus an existing console. Where is the USP?

<comment><USER5> Larger numbers of units of a specific model sold bring greater stability to the user. When you buy one of the official steam boxes, you (hopefully) suffer less from the usual PC weirdness. Kind of like buying a HP or Dell machine compared to a "supermarket PC".

Also, I imagine you plug it in and you can start installing games, without having to go through the thousand and one steps that are neccessary to make a Windows PC useable (Is that still the case today? Been a while since I set up a Windows box).

<comment><USER6> I was hoping there would be something "more to it" than just Linux boxes from tons of manufactorers that will be sold in small volume and changed often. I hoped Valve had a "secret weapon" like universal compariable ratings, or... something. But, right now it looks like they made a Linux disto and a controller... which is cool, but isn't going to rock the industry without some incredible marketing (read: exclusives, which they said they won't do).

RE: 1000+1 Steps, depends on the brand. A computer sold at Best Buy will likely still come with a good bit of crapware, but even there execptions happen.

But, a decent group of manufactors now offer "Microsoft Signature"... which is no crapware and higher standard on drivers... very much feels "Apple Inspired".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was really hoping for some interesting case designs to use for an HTPC/steam machine.</comment>


Bitcoin at 11k in 2019 versus Bitcoin at 11k in 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sfox.com/bitcoin-volatility-11k-8f6a4b0978b9 <comment><USER2> Here come the articles trying to pump the price up even higher. Buyer beware.

<comment><USER3> The article is written by a company, which pitches Bitcoin. I mean, you have to be an idiot to trust such source. I love the new wave of pitching: "institutional buyers". Ha, the volumes are on unregulated Chinese exchanges, which nobody sane trusts as they keep faking volumes and manipulate the price. Why nobody names those "institutional buyers"? Well, because they don't exists! Stay off this Chinese scam!

<comment><USER2> Buying just because the market is going up fast is a bad idea for anything so if you didn't already hold bitcoin buying now because the market is going up is foolish. You'd be buying in at the highest price for a year. Doesn't really matter what the underlying driving force is.

Either way the article is pretty worthless and anyone holding BTC would obviously like to encourage others to buy and drive up the price.</comment></comment></comment>


Uganda's Tarantino and his $200 action movies - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32531558

<comment><AUTHOR> jobs, green screens, props, sets, computers all built by the director/producer</comment>