With exceptions, they don’t see such manipulation (whether for ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ causes) as their job.
Explain Cade Metz (without saying “if it’s a counterexample it must be an exception”).
If you believe that a journalist is so maliciously opposed to you that they are going to actively try to twist any communications to try to get the public to oppose you, then they would probably be doing that anyway
Their mission can be made easier or harder even if they were going to do it anyway.
Their mission can be made easier or harder even if they were going to do it anyway.
When it comes to the practices of major outlets, you are often actually making it easier for them by refusing to talk. I will discuss this with the example you give.
Explain Cade Metz (without saying “if it’s a counterexample it must be an exception”).
First, I have to ask what problem do you have with saying he is an exception? There are going to be exceptional, bad actors, in any space—that is not a good standard for judging all participants in the space.
I would say Metz’ depiction of Scott Alexander (I cannot claim to be familiar with the complete body of his work) was exceptionally (and obv. wrongly) uncharitable, biased and lacking context. Even then though, I would be dubious of the claim he saw manipulating the facts as his job.
A big part of the reason I would actually say Metz piece came off so badly is because they cut contact because they disagreed about privacy (to be clear, I think Scott was right and Metz/NYT is in the wrong, but I can understand their policy and reasoning[1] as not being totally unreasonable). I think Scott is quite possibly correct that “[i]t probably would have been a very nice article.”
If lines of communication were kept open, Metz would (as is practice at major outlets like the NYT) includes references to what Scott Alexander has to say about the portrayal.
To give a hypothetical example (of course, we will never know what might have been) the article’s reference to Scott and Murray likely would have included a line referencing how Scott responds. That is, instead of what we got Metz writing:
In one post, [Scott] aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and IQ in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”
Metz would have included Scott’s own responses, which may have rendered it something like:
In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and IQ in “The Bell Curve.” Scott says he was only aligning himself with Murray’s view on poverty, and not Murray’s “offensive views on race.” In the past, Scott pointed out that Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people.”
Does something this still give a somewhat negative impression? Yes, some readers will distrust anyone who is willing to associate themselves with views espoused by Murray even on innocuous subjects. However, it is much more sympathetic in the implication then if Scott denying he was aligning with Murray’s racial views is not referenced.
Metz basic reasoning (assuming the decision was entirely his) appears to have been that the NYT tries to avoid relying on anonymous sources for reporting, Scott’s identity was established with public information and—in Metz’s view—was of public interest (getting to his credibility or whatnot). I disagree as the public interest was minor at best and it being publicly identifiable does not justify publicizing it when publicizing it is liable to cause outsized harms.
Even then though, I would be dubious of the claim he saw manipulating the facts as his job.
In general (and this specific case is full of them), if a joutnalist lies by telling the literal truth, he has to be aware of what he is doing. It wouldn’t even be possible to do that without having in mind something to say, being aware that the facts don’t support it (if he thought they did, he would say it directly), and choosing to insinuate it indirectly anyway.
To give a hypothetical example (of course, we will never know what might have been) the article’s reference to Scott and Murray likely would have included a line referencing how Scott responds.
This is quokka readoning. It would not fit Metz’s purposes to write accurately, so he doesn’t. Metz isn’t deceiving the public because Scott failed to talk to him; he’s deceiving the public because he wants to. 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.
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.
Explain Cade Metz (without saying “if it’s a counterexample it must be an exception”).
Their mission can be made easier or harder even if they were going to do it anyway.
When it comes to the practices of major outlets, you are often actually making it easier for them by refusing to talk. I will discuss this with the example you give.
First, I have to ask what problem do you have with saying he is an exception? There are going to be exceptional, bad actors, in any space—that is not a good standard for judging all participants in the space.
I would say Metz’ depiction of Scott Alexander (I cannot claim to be familiar with the complete body of his work) was exceptionally (and obv. wrongly) uncharitable, biased and lacking context. Even then though, I would be dubious of the claim he saw manipulating the facts as his job.
A big part of the reason I would actually say Metz piece came off so badly is because they cut contact because they disagreed about privacy (to be clear, I think Scott was right and Metz/NYT is in the wrong, but I can understand their policy and reasoning[1] as not being totally unreasonable). I think Scott is quite possibly correct that “[i]t probably would have been a very nice article.”
If lines of communication were kept open, Metz would (as is practice at major outlets like the NYT) includes references to what Scott Alexander has to say about the portrayal.
To give a hypothetical example (of course, we will never know what might have been) the article’s reference to Scott and Murray likely would have included a line referencing how Scott responds. That is, instead of what we got Metz writing:
Metz would have included Scott’s own responses, which may have rendered it something like:
Does something this still give a somewhat negative impression? Yes, some readers will distrust anyone who is willing to associate themselves with views espoused by Murray even on innocuous subjects. However, it is much more sympathetic in the implication then if Scott denying he was aligning with Murray’s racial views is not referenced.
Metz basic reasoning (assuming the decision was entirely his) appears to have been that the NYT tries to avoid relying on anonymous sources for reporting, Scott’s identity was established with public information and—in Metz’s view—was of public interest (getting to his credibility or whatnot). I disagree as the public interest was minor at best and it being publicly identifiable does not justify publicizing it when publicizing it is liable to cause outsized harms.
In general (and this specific case is full of them), if a joutnalist lies by telling the literal truth, he has to be aware of what he is doing. It wouldn’t even be possible to do that without having in mind something to say, being aware that the facts don’t support it (if he thought they did, he would say it directly), and choosing to insinuate it indirectly anyway.
This is quokka readoning. It would not fit Metz’s purposes to write accurately, so he doesn’t. Metz isn’t deceiving the public because Scott failed to talk to him; he’s deceiving the public because he wants to. 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.
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.