>"Why would anybody trust a NYT article about internal drama at the NYT? Does HN not understand bias?"
>links to a blog post from the union
>links to a blog post from the union
- bias cannot be eliminated, merely mitigated;
- the truth is not the average of all opinions;
- some sources are important even if their point of view is subjective.
Unfortunately, the whole internet seems to be engulfed in a nihilistic tribal war where everything is black or white. This kind of argument is a hammer you can use at any point when you don’t like an argument, because there is no objective source. Then, the conversation shifts to a discussion of the various point of views and all contact with reality is lost.
Why? The piece is written by "Katie Robertson", which according to her profile is "a reporter covering the media industry for The New York Times". That dosen't sound like new york times company management to me. She (and therefore the article) is at least more distanced away from this story than the union itself.
The idea that a company must only do what brings shareholder money immediately is a meme that is widely propagated by a certain class of people who stand to profit from it, but the law does not impose that behaviour.
I was broadly agreeing with this in the parent post:
> Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined?
I am not saying that we should not seek other sources, just that quoting the union on one side of the dispute is not better than a reporter paid by the journal on the other side. Even worse, because a journal has some incentives to keep a reputation for being truthful, while communications from a union are purely partisan. (That’s not some criticism and unions play an important role; journalism is just not it)
The point is, two wrong points of view do not magically average out to something right. Ideally someone reporting with some distance would be better.
Ironically, the NYT's apparent belief in this exact thing is the main reason I'm no longer a subscriber.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/04/nyt-tech-workers-strike-ahe...
And before you start. The problem affecting article quality in reporting ISN'T a direct conflict of interest, it's bias. A direct conflict of interest just implies bias.