he has to be aware of what he is doing...he’s deceiving the public because he wants to.
To be clear, your theory of mind is that Metz hates Scott alexander for some (what?) reason, doesn’t think Scott is accepting of racism, but chooses the manipulate facts to portray him as a racist and would not include the comments expected by the editorial policy at the NYT, despite claiming to have made his decisions (including to reveal Scott’s identity) based on NYT policy?
I find that exceptionally unlikely. It conflicts with his behavior (he talked to Scott about it the better part of a year before the article came up, looking through his other publications, they regularly include comments, as expected by NYT’s editorial policy, and even Scott said he suspected the article would have been in the spirit it was stated). I think the more likely explanation is that Metz believed that Scott was at least sympathetic to Murray’s racial views, and would have included that implication while following his employer’s policies.
It would not fit Metz’s purposes to write accurately
Why? He wants to keep his job, be read, and have people willing to work with him.
This is quokka readoning
It is how journalists work… Like, do you read any journalistic publications? They constantly include comment when publishing criticisms of persons, especially when they aren’t publishing breaking news.
Giving him an extra opportunity to be honest won’t help, but it might hurt if Scott says something that can be taken out of context.
It isn’t “giving him an opportunity to be honest” it is “providing comment which, under editorial standards at the NYT (as well as more general codes most publication follow) he is required to reflect in the publication.”
Yo be clear, your theory of mind is that Metz hates Scott alexander for some (what?) reason, doesn’t think Scott is accepting of racism, but chooses the manipulate facts to portray him as a racist and would not include the comments expected by the editorial policy at the NYT, despite claiming to have made his decisions (including to reveal Scott’s identity) based on NYT policy?
Metz is ideologically opposed to the tech industry and thinks (sincerely) that they are fascists and racists, so he wants the audience to know that. He doesn’t have proof that they are, so he tries to make his audience think that by using literal truths that insinuate things he sincerely believes, but which don’t have any proof.
As for NYT policy, 1) the Times is ideologically on Metz’s side, so they won’t enforce any policy that is inconvenient for Metz here, and 2) the claim that the policy requires Scott’s name was already shown to be a lie (or at least enforced based on ideology), because sympathetic article subjects had their identities hidden, so more policy lies won’t be unusual.
Metz is ideologically opposed to the tech industry and thinks (sincerely) that they are fascists and racists
Skimming his writing, this does not seem remotely true, he seems to have some sympathies with sections of the industry while being critical of others. Do you have any evidence of this? And, in any case, I wouldn’t think Scott is part of “the tech industry.”
the Times is ideologically on Metz’s side, so they won’t enforce their policy
Do you have any evidence of this? This just doesn’t seem to understand how editorial departments work. They clearly did enforce their policy—he tried to comments from Scott on what he was saying about him and informed Scott of what he intended to publish and what his basis was and requested comment.
(such as the claim that the NYT policy does not allow hiding Scott’s name).
Our aim—and again, the irony is that your aim is similar—is to tell people the truth, and have them understand it. If we start holding stuff back, then that quickly falls apart.
I think this is a bullshit excuse. I believe there are plenty of true facts that if you told Metz, he would decide not to publish them.
For example, someone could tell him a story of David Gerard’s decade-long crusade against the rationalist community in general, and Scott Alexander specifically. How David is the person who made “Roko’s basilisk” popular, how he created SneerClub (an entire subreddit dedicated to bullying Scott and related people), how he abused his privileges as an administrator of Wikipedia to push his point of view as the official Wikipedia perspective, including the “citogenesis” of “write it on RationalWiki, give an interview to a journalist, insist that the journalist quotes the part from RationalWiki, now update the Wikipedia page to quote the reliable unpartial journalist”, and how ultimately David got banned from editing the Wikipedia article about Scott Alexander but still keeps editing other articles related to the rationalist community.
If telling the truth about Scott Alexander is so super important for the NYT, this should obviously be, too. But I am 90% sure that Metz would find an excuse not to publish any of this.
I agree, it is sort of BS but the reasons you are giving isn’t it. There is a difference between not doing an article on a piece you aren’t interested in and not allowing fair comment or withholding information relating to story you publish. He is talking about the latter, not publishing information that is readily available and relevant to a story you are writing. Where i think it is BS is there is always obvious information that gets left on the editing room floor, part of their job is going through the information and identifying what is of the greatest public interest, what context is relevant and what isn’t worth publishing. I think he (and quite likely the NYT broadly) misjudges the importance of full names and undervalued the harm publishing Scott’s full name could do.
To be clear, your theory of mind is that Metz hates Scott alexander for some (what?) reason, doesn’t think Scott is accepting of racism, but chooses the manipulate facts to portray him as a racist and would not include the comments expected by the editorial policy at the NYT, despite claiming to have made his decisions (including to reveal Scott’s identity) based on NYT policy?
I find that exceptionally unlikely. It conflicts with his behavior (he talked to Scott about it the better part of a year before the article came up, looking through his other publications, they regularly include comments, as expected by NYT’s editorial policy, and even Scott said he suspected the article would have been in the spirit it was stated). I think the more likely explanation is that Metz believed that Scott was at least sympathetic to Murray’s racial views, and would have included that implication while following his employer’s policies.
Why? He wants to keep his job, be read, and have people willing to work with him.
It is how journalists work… Like, do you read any journalistic publications? They constantly include comment when publishing criticisms of persons, especially when they aren’t publishing breaking news.
It isn’t “giving him an opportunity to be honest” it is “providing comment which, under editorial standards at the NYT (as well as more general codes most publication follow) he is required to reflect in the publication.”
Metz is ideologically opposed to the tech industry and thinks (sincerely) that they are fascists and racists, so he wants the audience to know that. He doesn’t have proof that they are, so he tries to make his audience think that by using literal truths that insinuate things he sincerely believes, but which don’t have any proof.
As for NYT policy, 1) the Times is ideologically on Metz’s side, so they won’t enforce any policy that is inconvenient for Metz here, and 2) the claim that the policy requires Scott’s name was already shown to be a lie (or at least enforced based on ideology), because sympathetic article subjects had their identities hidden, so more policy lies won’t be unusual.
Skimming his writing, this does not seem remotely true, he seems to have some sympathies with sections of the industry while being critical of others. Do you have any evidence of this? And, in any case, I wouldn’t think Scott is part of “the tech industry.”
Do you have any evidence of this? This just doesn’t seem to understand how editorial departments work. They clearly did enforce their policy—he tried to comments from Scott on what he was saying about him and informed Scott of what he intended to publish and what his basis was and requested comment.
NYT policy was to publish the identity of sources in most cases (if in published material) and had high burdens in place for keeping sources anonymous. As far as I saw, he didn’t say “I am not allowed to not say it” but just that it was the NYT policy to provide identification. And in interviews he explicitly said he was in agreement with the NYT editorial policy that indicated their identity should be published. Indeed, he actively defended the policy of not withholding identies in cases like Scott’s, telling @Zack_M_Davis, “His name—when I sat down to figure out his name, it took me less than five minutes. It’s just obvious what his name is. The New York Times ceases to serve its purpose if we’re leaving out stuff that’s obvious. That’s just how we have to operate. Our aim—and again, the irony is that your aim is similar—is to tell people the truth, and have them understand it. If we start holding stuff back, then that quickly falls apart.”
I think this is a bullshit excuse. I believe there are plenty of true facts that if you told Metz, he would decide not to publish them.
For example, someone could tell him a story of David Gerard’s decade-long crusade against the rationalist community in general, and Scott Alexander specifically. How David is the person who made “Roko’s basilisk” popular, how he created SneerClub (an entire subreddit dedicated to bullying Scott and related people), how he abused his privileges as an administrator of Wikipedia to push his point of view as the official Wikipedia perspective, including the “citogenesis” of “write it on RationalWiki, give an interview to a journalist, insist that the journalist quotes the part from RationalWiki, now update the Wikipedia page to quote the reliable unpartial journalist”, and how ultimately David got banned from editing the Wikipedia article about Scott Alexander but still keeps editing other articles related to the rationalist community.
If telling the truth about Scott Alexander is so super important for the NYT, this should obviously be, too. But I am 90% sure that Metz would find an excuse not to publish any of this.
I agree, it is sort of BS but the reasons you are giving isn’t it. There is a difference between not doing an article on a piece you aren’t interested in and not allowing fair comment or withholding information relating to story you publish. He is talking about the latter, not publishing information that is readily available and relevant to a story you are writing. Where i think it is BS is there is always obvious information that gets left on the editing room floor, part of their job is going through the information and identifying what is of the greatest public interest, what context is relevant and what isn’t worth publishing. I think he (and quite likely the NYT broadly) misjudges the importance of full names and undervalued the harm publishing Scott’s full name could do.