Hacker News Reader

Comment by caminante | Hacker News Reader

> Probably worth noting this story was first published by the New York Post. Take that for what you will.

Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle, please describe how the paper's political leanings could bias its reporting here.

At face value, it's workplace sexual assault allegations with a power imbalance.

I think there is a general consensus that the New York Post has a credibility gap, so it is not "ad hominem dogwhistle". From it's Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post):

"In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[65]

The Post commonly publishes news reports based entirely on reporting from other sources without independent corroboration. In January 2021, the paper forbade the use of CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as sole sources for such stories.[66]"

65: Jonathan Trichter (June 16, 2004). "Tabloids, Broadsheets, and Broadcast News" (PDF). Pace Poll Survey Research Study. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 23, 2004. Retrieved June 7, 2007. 66: Robertson, Katie (January 13, 2021). "New York Post to Staff: Stay Away From CNN, MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 1, 2021.

I don't know about the New York Post. Maybe it is guilty of publishing false and dishonest reporting.

But I would also point out that a lot of people here on HN (in past discussions) and elsewhere have noted that the New York Times and the Washington Post also publish creatively interpreted news (or outright creative writing) at times.

Despite this news articles from these sources are considered independently without outright dismissal due to past reporting.

It's a tabloid and it is not left-leaning... and it published true and embarrassing things about the Biden family up to the last US presidential election. It also regularly publishes true things about crime (and about who commits it). This is more than enough to explain why some people distrust it.

In my book, it is much more reliable than the New York Times and the Washington Post.

In my book it’s slightly more reliable simply because it’s a tabloid and any political leaning takes the backseat in favor of headlines and blood.

The New York Times has always been very political and utterly unreliable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

Of course I'll take a tabloid that might be slightly right of center over that.

>takes the backseat in favor of headlines and blood.

Great phrasing. Reporting dirt on a faction will drive clicks to FROM all factions, including the smeared faction.

I'm struggling to see how that would be relevant to the assertion the New York Post is not a credible publication. Seems like whataboutism to me.

Calling for a consistent standard is not whataboutism.

This has to be one of my biggest peeves online. It's such a pervasive tactic to shut down discussion of a topic that's disadvantageous for the "other side". To use a topical example I see pretty much all the time: say there is a reddit thread that has the title "1 in 4 women experience X". There is a pretty heavy implication, and it's there no matter how much people want to deny it, that by extension men don't experience X either at all or to such a degree. Yet, if you point it out that "men experience X just as often though?", you won't be refuted or shown statistics that show they don't, you'll just be accused of "whataboutism" ("what about the men?" - well, the fact that it takes an article like this to start some people saying "woah woah woah... this hasn't been proven yet!!" should tell you something) when what you were pointing out is that aforementioned subtext that men DON'T experience it.

I absolutely despise the word now, to the point I'll cringe a bit even when it's used legitimately.

Let me get this argument straight.

When someone cites [x, y, z], that someone is not credible instead of being not credible along with [x, y, z]?

Besides, the parent's whole point is that NY Post is the source, here!

> Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle

I don't think that's what "dogwhistle" means. IIUC, dog-whistling is surreptitiously sending a message to some readers, but having plausible deniability and/or non-recognition for the rest of the readers.

To me, all these new terms that have no actual meaning to what they are trying to describe is very annoying. Terms like "phishing", "gaslighting", "bike shedding", "yak shaving", "dog whistle", "gatekeeping" are extremely confusing to understand because there's no direct connection to what they are trying to imply. You literally have to memorize what it means and it's generally unguessable.

Terms like these are often not intended to be understood from just context. They're short references to complex topics that it is assumed the listener is already comfortable with, and will need to be explained if they are not. Just like understanding technical terminology improves your ability to share complex ideas in a technical space, political/social terminology improves your ability to share complex ideas in the social space.

That's what language is though.

Think of the word melancholy it has a complex definition and connotations but how could you guess what that means.

Try this:

>I'd like to point out that CoastalCoder wrote this comment. Take that for what you will.

See? Highlighting with this phrasing aligns exactly with your definition. The framing is defaulting to negative-neutral.

I don't think this is a case of dog-whistling, because AFAICT the author isn't trying to conceal his point.

I.e., he intends every reader to recognize that he's saying that the publisher might be biased. He's not being explicit about what that bias is, but presumably he expects curious readers to look into it themselves.

It's flawed (by your own definition) to say that just because you don't detect a dogwhistle that it's not a dogwhistle.

>the author isn't trying to conceal his point

False. The parent asked you to draw your own conclusions!

The OP said previously he wasn’t talking about political leanings.

I’ll would add he was referring to the positioning of paper’s history of being more “low street”, sensationalist with lower journalistic standards as opposed to the high standards gold standard harbinger of Truth publications like the NYT. The reason this description looks so out of place now, it’s because the others suck so much and the Post continues being the Post.

I think OP might be pointing out the New York Post is seen as tabloidy

Ambiguous at best.

Tabloidy/political/all the same.

Frankly, I read this article this morning when it broke on the NYP. The NYP stays in my feed but when I read their stuff I almost always cross it with other sources. There are none though because all that exists of this story right now is the docket. Miller, Google, and Olahan aren't talking.

How victims are portrayed in the media matters a great deal. Media can skewer a case by either poking holes in it or by flatly not investigating. The latter is what I feel is going on here. They could've interviewed potential witnesses at these NYC events, they could've interviewed some Googlers to find out if this "your team is too male" attitude actually exists in any contingent. They didn't do that though, instead, they plugged the hottest claims of the docket which all come from the plaintiff.

My statement was ambiguous on purpose. It says two things simultaneously:

1. If you don't believe this article, wait for better reporting.

2. If you believe this article, wait for better reporting.

I was hoping that might remind some people to temper their expectations until more information is known, which is why the last sentence is the way it is, and why I cited each of the allegations.