I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.
Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.
Journalism isn't a profession. Even nurses and some managerial employees are held to a higher standard of duty. You will have an easier time holding someone who is responsible for fixing ice cream machines to an objective standard of professionalism than you will a journalist.
Some journalists have tried to conjure up "professional standards" that aren't binding, but the fact that they are not binding is why it's not a profession and why those "standards" are just suggestions. Unfortunately, the accumulated cruft of decades of wrongly decided cases grants this pseudo-profession many special rights and no formal duties to counterbalance those.
Leak why? This isn’t exactly controversial to say hey this sector that’s becoming insanely integrated into our society and economy deserves a critical lens. In fact I’d argue that’s exactly their job.
Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts?
> it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership
Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it?
A reporter in a position to know is a great source. The news business runs on "a source close to... said" and "a high-placed source said..."
If what the source said seems to contradict other evidence, that's a different matter.
This question can be easily answered with a search for NYTimes and green energy in tech or when Elon initially helped Ukraine using Starlink or any of the multitude of articles on advances in robotics or how new advances in computing help solve problems in healthcare.
I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all.
It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly.
The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose it."
Ads often mention the price of the product. The article goes on and on about the supposed benefits of giving your kid a smart watch, specifically the Apple brand of smart watch, contrasting it favorably to buying them a phone instead.
At the very least, it's not negative coverage of Apple. Even if you think it neutral coverage (I don't), it's a counter-example to the supposed directive that all tech coverage have a negative tone. And they categorized it as tech news, not business news.
The article is promoting this product as a better alternative than buying a smartphone for your kids. $279 is cheaper than most smartphones. And it's not too hard to find overt Apple ads that list much higher prices. Listing the price of a product in an article singing praises of that product does not constitute the article being critical of Apple.
Perhaps we've exhausted this topic. I view it as mildly positive and very weak journalism, not balanced. Your view is more drastic.
A balanced article would have found some parents who all said, "Hell, no, I'm not buying that for him. He'll lose it inside of a month." There are probably a lot of such parents.
As for "singing praises of that product" -- I think that is totally legitimate. It IS a product that does a lot of stuff and some people might like it for that. Do you expect them to invent some faults with it?
I'd also expect a real journalist to get some numbers on their sales, not just find one user who likes it.
(On the other hand, Walt Mossberg would have tried it for a week and given it a grade, idk what.)
It’s always read as the Luddite paper of record to me. Not only does it hate all over tech as an industry compulsively, it hates all over technology in general ritually. I can’t imagine how such a directive could change the paper visibly.
There's a difference between "things that can be proven in a court of law" and "things that are generally considered true."
For the former, some shop owner has to risk his life testifying, or the cops have to have recordings. A newspaper does not and cannot hold to this standard.
Which is why I included persecute, which is what people do in many cases online. I think it's good practice to not persecute others until you have sufficient evidence.
That can mean not making judgement based on things which are generally true in cases where it can damage another's reputation or result in the internet mob descending on them.
There's two people claiming it. This one and the one discussed yesterday. Hopefully more will come out, but at this point I'm inclined to give them the benefit of believing it.
Or maybe we just run every NYT tech story for the past 24 months through a sentiment analysis
Even within what’s said I’d be curious for the exact quote. NYT doesn’t exist in a vacuum, if the exact quote had been “plenty of other outlets have fawning coverage, let’s focus our efforts on casting a critical eye on the industry” that… doesn’t really seem scandalous at all to me?
