"Fake News": The Emergence of a Post-Fact World

[SomeGuy]

Quote:I not an RS apologist because, frankly, I've always avoided the rag.  I don't read the Village Voice either, but I do consider it to be a member of the media.  If we allow for the broad concept that "reporting", in any form, puts one under the journalism heading, then OK, you win.  Maybe the media have allowed their own label to get hijacked.  I'm not part of the media in any form, so, to me, its really academic.

I WIN!! HOORAY FOR ME!!  THE FORCES OF RIGHTNESS HAVE TRIUMPHED ONCE MORE!

Ok, sorry, needed to get that out of my system.  Yeah, I don't read the thing either, but I was aware of the thing, because I started seeing it crop up in things I like do (or did) read.  Yeah, I think the problem you're describing is that things in the media have been drifting in a less (more?)... "truthy" direction for a while now, and consequently the credibility and prestige of the "old" media has been bleeding away with their jobs for a while.

Most of the mainstream outlets I read explicitly, and in so many words, abandoned their role as "nonpartisan" arbiters of information this election cycle, and had been moving in that direction for a while.  Look at CNN reposting an unsubstantiated report from Buzzfeed, of all places.  Look at the media with the OJ trial, or CNN again with that plane thing in the India Ocean.  It's why I have trouble taking this whole "fake news" thing seriously, the overall media had been turning into a trashy, partisan joke for a while, and the fact that this time they are "shocked, shocked" has less to do with any qualitative difference than it does that their preferred (but not beloved) candidate lost.

But your mileage may vary.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:The assassination was the edge-event between an era of innocence and everything since. It's hard to even describe that time between WWII and the assassination because it was so different in so many ways. Take it at face value or not.

I'm looking forward to the next 1T.  Several people in a position to know assure me I would have really liked the '50s.  As long as it isn't a "PC" high, I might just get my chance.

[TeacherinExile]

All apologies to those of you who disdain "block quotes" when a simple link might suffice to pique the reader's interest...but I view them as "teasers" of a sort, much like TV programs that announce upcoming segments before cutting to two minutes worth of 30-second commercials (Aargh!).  I laughed at one this morning (paraphrasing here): "When we return from break, the NBA and other sports leagues are looking into ways to cut game times, as Millennials increasingly tune out overlong games because of their short attention spans..." (Sheesh, talk about painting an entire generation with a broad brush.)

I ran across this article from the Columbia Journalism Review today: "The Real History of Fake News"
http://www.cjr.org/special_report/fake_news_history.php

Some excerpts appear below:

In an 1807 letter to John Norvell, a young go-getter who had asked how to best run a newspaper, Thomas Jefferson penned what today would make for a fiery Medium post condemning fake news.

“It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly [sic] deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood,” the sitting president wrote. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

That vehicle grew into a commercial powerhouse in the 19th century and a self-reverential political institution, “the media,” by the mid-20th. But the pollution has been described in increasingly dire terms in recent months. PolitiFact named fake news its 2016 “Lie of the Year,” while chagrined Democrats have warned about its threat to an honest public debate. The pope compared consumption of fake news to eating feces. And many of the wise men and women of journalism have chimed in almost uniformly: Come to us for the real stuff.

“Whatever its other cultural and social merits, our digital ecosystem seems to have evolved into a near-perfect environment for fake news to thrive,” New York Times CEO Mark Thompson said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club...

A little bit of brake-tapping may be in order: It’s worth remembering, in the middle of the great fake news panic of 2016, America’s very long tradition of news-related hoaxes. A thumbnail history shows marked similarities to today’s fakery in editorial motive or public gullibility, not to mention the blurred lines between deliberate and accidental flimflam. It also suggests that the recent fixation on fake news has more to do with macro-level trends than any new brand of faux content...

“The existence of an independent, powerful, widely respected news media establishment is an historical anomaly,” Georgetown Professor Jonathan Ladd wrote in his 2011 book, Why Americans Hate the Media and How it Matters. “Prior to the twentieth century, such an institution had never existed in American history.” Fake news is but one symptom of that shift back to historical norms, and recent hyperventilating mimics reactions from eras past...

Take Jefferson’s generation. Our country’s earliest political combat played out in the pages of competing partisan publications often subsidized by government printing contracts and typically unbothered by reporting as we know it. Innuendo and character assassination were standard, and it was difficult to discern content solely meant to deceive from political bomb-throwing that served deception as a side dish. Then, like now, the greybeards grumbled about how the media actually inhibited the fact-based debate it was supposed to lead...

In his 1897 book critiquing American news coverage of the Cuban War of Independence, Facts and Fakes about Cuba, George Bronson Rea outlined the stages of embellishment between minor news events outside of Havana to seemingly fictionalized front-page stories in New York. Cuban sources wanted to turn public opinion against Spain, while American correspondents were eager to sell newspapers.

“But the truth is a hard thing to suppress,” Rea wrote, “and will sooner or later come to light to act as a boomerang on the perpetrators of such outrageous ‘fakes,’ whose only aim is to draw this country into a war with Spain to attain their own selfish ends...”

[I'm not so sure the "boomerang" effect to which Rea refers to here is really operable anymore.  Substitute the word "Iraq" for "Spain," and ask yourself, "Who has really paid a political price in the George W. Bush administration for hyping "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom clouds" as a pretext for war?"  No one that I can discern.  Rather than shamefully going into a self-imposed exile from the public eye, they get to write their memoirs for seven-figure advances, or else appear as paid commentators on cable news.  And lest I be accused of partisanship, why wasn't Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, while serving in the Obama administration, ever indicted for committing perjury for his mendacious testimony before Congress?] 

Public trust of the media has been in decline for decades, though the situation now feels particularly cataclysmic with the atomization of media consumption, partisan criticism from all corners, and the ascension of Donald Trump to the White House. Just as Watergate gave the media a bright story to tell about itself, fake news provides a catchall symbol—and a scapegoat—for journalists grappling with their diminished institutional power.

[And the first sentence of the paragraph is the very point I made in my second post to this thread.  (By the way where did it go, Dan?) My point being that the atomization of the media and our endemic polarization are feeding off one another in a way that poses a real threat to the legitimacy of the Fourth Estate, and by extension to our republic.]  

It’s telling that the most compelling reporting on fake news has focused on distribution networks—what’s new—even if those stories have yet to prove they’ve exacerbated the problem en masse. In the meantime, let’s retire the dreaded moniker in favor of more precise choices: misinformation, deception, lies. Just as the media has employed “fake news” to discredit competitors for public attention, political celebrities and partisan publications have used it to discredit the press wholesale. As hard as it is to admit, that’s an increasingly unfair fight.

[Warren Dew]

(01-16-2017, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 04:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting that you bring up WMD.  The belief in WMD was largely fueled by a series of New York Times articles published in the leadup to the Iraq War.  I think that's what Someguy is referring to.  Look up Judith Miller on Wikipedia for more details.

OK, except she's a FoX commentator now.  If she sucked then, and I agree she did, why is she OK now?

This wasn't an isolated occurrence at The New York Times, given it was not the first time it occurred there.  The problem was the culture at that paper that facilitated and promoted sloppy reporting and false claims as fact.  That culture continues to persist, making that paper worthless as a news source.

I don't watch Fox, or any television, so I have no way of judging what she's up to now.  That said, one can do less damage as a commentator than as a reporter, since it's generally recognized that commentators exist to provide opinion, not fact.

Name any source you feel is reliable, if the NY Times is not, and let me add my eyeroll to the comments made by you and others that avoiding television is somehow ennobling.  Sorry, but the TV eye reveals what can easily be hidden inside the printed word.  It's not perfect, but it has had merit over the years.  When Nixon and Kennedy debated, readers scored Nixon the winner, but TV viewers went with Kennedy.  Considering how scummy Nixon turned out to be, maybe those viewers got it right the first time.

But Kennedy got us into the Vietnam war where Nixon got us out, and the Bay of Pigs wasn't so great either.  I suspect Kennedy would have turned out to be a mediocre president had he survived.

No single source is fully reliable; one has to read multiple sources with multiple perspectives and do investigation one one's own to have a chance of getting the facts these days.

538 is pretty good with sports and politics statistics; they have a strong editorial slant and cherry pick the numbers on other topics but they are pretty reliable with respect to data reporting in their two core areas.  Stratfor is pretty good on foreign affairs.  Everything else seems to be glorified opinion blogging these days.

[SomeGuy]

(01-16-2017, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 04:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting that you bring up WMD.  The belief in WMD was largely fueled by a series of New York Times articles published in the leadup to the Iraq War.  I think that's what Someguy is referring to.  Look up Judith Miller on Wikipedia for more details.

OK, except she's a FoX commentator now.  If she sucked then, and I agree she did, why is she OK now?

This wasn't an isolated occurrence at The New York Times, given it was not the first time it occurred there.  The problem was the culture at that paper that facilitated and promoted sloppy reporting and false claims as fact.  That culture continues to persist, making that paper worthless as a news source.

I don't watch Fox, or any television, so I have no way of judging what she's up to now.  That said, one can do less damage as a commentator than as a reporter, since it's generally recognized that commentators exist to provide opinion, not fact.

Name any source you feel is reliable, if the NY Times is not, and let me add my eyeroll to the comments made by you and others that avoiding television is somehow ennobling.  Sorry, but the TV eye reveals what can easily be hidden inside the printed word.  It's not perfect, but it has had merit over the years.  When Nixon and Kennedy debated, readers scored Nixon the winner, but TV viewers went with Kennedy.  Considering how scummy Nixon turned out to be, maybe those viewers got it right the first time.

But Kennedy got us into the Vietnam war where Nixon got us out, and the Bay of Pigs wasn't so great either.  I suspect Kennedy would have turned out to be a mediocre president had he survived.

No single source is fully reliable; one has to read multiple sources with multiple perspectives and do investigation one one's own to have a chance of getting the facts these days.

538 is pretty good with sports and politics statistics; they have a strong editorial slant and cherry pick the numbers on other topics but they are pretty reliable with respect to data reporting in their two core areas.  Stratfor is pretty good on foreign affairs.  Everything else seems to be glorified opinion blogging these days.

Here here. I am a subscriber to the one and a (semi)-regular reader of the other.

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-16-2017, 11:53 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: I'm looking forward to the next 1T.  Several people in a position to know assure me I would have really liked the '50s.  As long as it isn't a "PC" high, I might just get my chance.

The 1T is saecular spring, man.  I do hope as well that all of the special snowflakes melt away in the spring thaw and  thusly destroy the PC movement.

And... yes, the early 1960's as a wee one, were very nice.

[Eric the Green]

ITs are OK if you like conformity and unawareness of everything hip, repressed, independently-thought and spiritual, but it's fun to gradually see what's hip begin to come out of the closet.

I would expect that PC would be quite well-established, with many sanctions for breaking with it by then.

[Eric the Green]

(01-16-2017, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 04:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting that you bring up WMD.  The belief in WMD was largely fueled by a series of New York Times articles published in the leadup to the Iraq War.  I think that's what Someguy is referring to.  Look up Judith Miller on Wikipedia for more details.

OK, except she's a FoX commentator now.  If she sucked then, and I agree she did, why is she OK now?

This wasn't an isolated occurrence at The New York Times, given it was not the first time it occurred there.  The problem was the culture at that paper that facilitated and promoted sloppy reporting and false claims as fact.  That culture continues to persist, making that paper worthless as a news source.

I don't watch Fox, or any television, so I have no way of judging what she's up to now.  That said, one can do less damage as a commentator than as a reporter, since it's generally recognized that commentators exist to provide opinion, not fact.

Name any source you feel is reliable, if the NY Times is not, and let me add my eyeroll to the comments made by you and others that avoiding television is somehow ennobling.  Sorry, but the TV eye reveals what can easily be hidden inside the printed word.  It's not perfect, but it has had merit over the years.  When Nixon and Kennedy debated, readers scored Nixon the winner, but TV viewers went with Kennedy.  Considering how scummy Nixon turned out to be, maybe those viewers got it right the first time.

But Kennedy got us into the Vietnam war where Nixon got us out, and the Bay of Pigs wasn't so great either.  I suspect Kennedy would have turned out to be a mediocre president had he survived.

No single source is fully reliable; one has to read multiple sources with multiple perspectives and do investigation one one's own to have a chance of getting the facts these days.

538 is pretty good with sports and politics statistics; they have a strong editorial slant and cherry pick the numbers on other topics but they are pretty reliable with respect to data reporting in their two core areas.  Stratfor is pretty good on foreign affairs.  Everything else seems to be glorified opinion blogging these days.

David has a point about Kennedy; sometimes dignity and high-mindedness shines through in a picture, in ways words alone can't reveal. Kennedy didn't really get us into the Vietnam War; Eisenhower started the process, and LBJ got us all in. Kennedy was thinking of pulling out; he would not have done what Lyndon did. And Nixon kept it going unnecessarily and cruelly for four years, so he got no credit for "getting us out."

Warren is right about getting the facts, but..... maybe you haven't looked as far as you think Warren 

But Nixon was heads above today's Republicans, who are totally worthless. Despite his horribly corrupt and ruthless power-madness, Nixon did some things right; for whatever reason he sometimes stumbled uncontrollably into the truth, as his supporter John McLaughlin used to say about one of his fellow pundits. He founded the agency that Trump's appointee Pruitt wants to destroy, the EPA; and backed environmental protection. He encouraged black capitalism, despite his southern strategy, his war on drugs and "law and order" baiting. He opened relations with cold war enemies and lessened tensions, despite his earlier red baiting. He experimented with wage and price controls. Despite his militant approach against his opponents, he was basically a moderate in the mold of his mentor Ike.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 10:25 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Well, if it makes you feel better, the press is still gearing up to play that rigidly partisan role you've been hoping for.  Of course, that's just as true for the other side as it for yours.  Hope you're happy. 

Reportage needs to be honest and untainted by opinion (if that's even possible).  Otherwise, POV is acceptable.  I view many sources, and don't accept any 100%.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 10:55 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: That was the point, it was posted in reportage, rewritten to become "analysis", and yet not moved to the commentary section where it belonged.

...

Yes, THAT is the function of the press.  It's supposed to INFORM the public, not propagandize it.  If you honestly think the role of the press in a free society is to tell people WHAT to think (in the "public interest", of course), than you might as well just nationalize all of it and call it "The Department of Truth".

Analysis occupies more space in a typical newspaper than straight reporting.  Surprise!  But let's agree that analysis is not commentary.  There are few stories simple enough to be reported with no added context.  Once you add context, you've added some analysis.  As complex as the world is today, I don't see any alternative.

... which is hell-and-gone from the Ministry of Truth.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 10:57 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Happy?  No.  Do you see another option?  Reagan killed the Fair Reporting Act, so things went this way pretty fast.  Balanced reporting is now gauche -- ask any successful reporter.

You get what you reward.

*shrug*
The press in this country got started as partisan organs, we somehow managed to avoid slipping into fascism or what-have-you.  We can probably survive another "yellow press" a lot better than we can survive the top-down state propaganda you're apparently pining for.

I prefer an unfettered and independent press. I'm concerned that the tin-foil-hat crowd has far too much to say and far too many opportunities to say it, but the real problem lies with the basic knowledge base of the average citizen. It's easy to lie to people who have no concept of the truth.

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 11:53 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:The assassination was the edge-event between an era of innocence and everything since. It's hard to even describe that time between WWII and the assassination because it was so different in so many ways. Take it at face value or not.

I'm looking forward to the next 1T.  Several people in a position to know assure me I would have really liked the '50s.  As long as it isn't a "PC" high, I might just get my chance.

The '50s had a lot of both good and bad.  Tailgunner Joe and the HUAC fall squarely in the 'bad' category, but things as bland as the Hayes Code had real negative impacts too.  The 'good' is easy: modernity as we understand it today.  In its own way, it was PC without needing to actually be PC.  There were norms, and they just "were".  There was also prejudice and a narrow-mindedness that was both pervasive and unexceptional.  You knew your place, but the sky was the limit!  Contradictory?  Sure, but no one seemed to mind ... until they did.  That's why the 2T was so explosive.

[SomeGuy]

(01-17-2017, 12:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 10:55 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: That was the point, it was posted in reportage, rewritten to become "analysis", and yet not moved to the commentary section where it belonged.

...

Yes, THAT is the function of the press.  It's supposed to INFORM the public, not propagandize it.  If you honestly think the role of the press in a free society is to tell people WHAT to think (in the "public interest", of course), than you might as well just nationalize all of it and call it "The Department of Truth".

Analysis occupies more space in a typical newspaper than straight reporting.  Surprise!  But let's agree that analysis is not commentary.  There are few stories simple enough to be reported with no added context.  Once you add context, you've added some analysis.  As complex as the world is today, I don't see any alternative.

... which is hell-and-gone from the Ministry of Truth.

All I see is that you didn't bother to read the links and as such are continuing to talk out of your hat.  Please, if you want to keep talking, actually read the thing, look at the side by side, and tell me how that counts as "analysis". 

[SomeGuy]

Quote:I prefer an unfettered and independent press. I'm concerned that the tin-foil-hat crowd has far too much to say and far too many opportunities to say it, but the real problem lies with the basic knowledge base of the average citizen. It's easy to lie to people who have no concept of the truth.

That's what unfettered and independent looks like.  That's not what you are asking for.

As for the average knowledge base, at the end of the day, dude, lots of people are dumb and/or not interested in things outside of their immediate circumstances.  That's just life.  There is plenty of knowledge out there for people who want to acquire it.  Honestly, teaching people to check sources, look at competing points of view, and recognize cant when they hear it is a lot better than some grand high poobah of journalism, "totally disinterested in anything other than the public interest", selectively spoonfeeding them the opinions and facts that they think they should have.

[Warren Dew]

(01-17-2017, 12:46 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 12:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 10:55 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: That was the point, it was posted in reportage, rewritten to become "analysis", and yet not moved to the commentary section where it belonged.

...

Yes, THAT is the function of the press.  It's supposed to INFORM the public, not propagandize it.  If you honestly think the role of the press in a free society is to tell people WHAT to think (in the "public interest", of course), than you might as well just nationalize all of it and call it "The Department of Truth".

Analysis occupies more space in a typical newspaper than straight reporting.  Surprise!  But let's agree that analysis is not commentary.  There are few stories simple enough to be reported with no added context.  Once you add context, you've added some analysis.  As complex as the world is today, I don't see any alternative.

... which is hell-and-gone from the Ministry of Truth.

All I see is that you didn't bother to read the links and as such are continuing to talk out of your hat.  Please, if you want to keep talking, actually read the thing, look at the side by side, and tell me how that counts as "analysis". 

Time or past time for a quote, I think.  The original version of your first link was a perfect example of just the facts in a case like, contrary to David, the vast majority of cases where no analysis is required.  It was changed to something that is clearly not analysis - since the facts were removed, which wouldn't happen with analysis - and that could only charitably be considered even commentary.  Propaganda would be a closer description.

But hey, that's why people read The New York Times - they don't want the facts about how the world actually is, they just want propaganda about what they would like the world to be like.

[SomeGuy]

(01-17-2017, 12:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 11:53 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:The assassination was the edge-event between an era of innocence and everything since. It's hard to even describe that time between WWII and the assassination because it was so different in so many ways. Take it at face value or not.

I'm looking forward to the next 1T.  Several people in a position to know assure me I would have really liked the '50s.  As long as it isn't a "PC" high, I might just get my chance.

The '50s had a lot of both good and bad.  Tailgunner Joe and the HUAC fall squarely in the 'bad' category, but things as bland as the Hayes Code had real negative impacts too.  The 'good' is easy: modernity as we understand it today.  In its own way, it was PC without needing to actually be PC.  There were norms, and they just "were".  There was also prejudice and a narrow-mindedness that was both pervasive and unexceptional.  You knew your place, but the sky was the limit!  Contradictory?  Sure, but no one seemed to mind ... until they did.  That's why the 2T was so explosive.

Yeah, I expect something similar in the 2030s or so.  Unless things go very wrong, we'll probably end up with some version of the yuppie progressive belief system (anti-<bad-ism>,environmentalism, probably a larger public sector working arm in arm with a still vibrant private sector, a geeky fixation on tech, etc.), hopefully with the sharp edges rubbed off the lunatic fringe.  It's not my ideal, but I can live with that and focus in on the parts I like, and the internal contradictions should hopefully hold until the next 2T.  At which point, I should finally get the opportunity to be the crotchety old man my mother has been accusing me of being since I was 6.

Yeah, I'm staying optimistic. 

[David Horn]

(01-16-2017, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: But Kennedy got us into the Vietnam war where Nixon got us out, and the Bay of Pigs wasn't so great either.  I suspect Kennedy would have turned out to be a mediocre president had he survived.

Our entry into that stupid war started with a decision by Eisenhower to allow the French back into Indochina.  Up to that point, the Viet Minh were allies.  The problem was compounded by our backing the French in 1956, by supporting the "temporary" split between the North and South.  We had military on the ground in the '50s.  The first US service death came in 1956.  The first deaths due to hostile action in 1959.  Kennedy was inaugurated in January of 1961.

[SomeGuy]

Warren,

Agreed.  Here is the original article all in one (I think I got it right, it took a little bit of doing to paste it all together):

Quote:Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief
By MIKE ISAAC


Ellen Pao, the interim chief executive of Reddit, resigned from the online message board on Friday after a week of ceaseless criticism from scores of angry users over the handling of an employee departure.

Ms. Pao will be replaced by Steve Huffman, who, along with Alexis Ohanian, started Reddit from a two-bedroom apartment in a suburb of Boston a decade ago. Ms. Pao said she would remain as an adviser to Reddit’s board for the remainder of the year.

Her exit, which the company described as a mutual agreement between her and Reddit’s board, follows a week of unrest in the Reddit community, which is made up of more than 160 million regular users who use the site to talk about anything from current events to viral cat photos.

Ms. Pao characterized her departure as a result of a disagreement with Reddit’s board on the future of the company.

“It became clear that the board and I had a different view on the ability of Reddit to grow this year,” Ms. Pao said in an interview. “Because of that, it made sense to bring someone in that shared the same view.”

Sam Altman, a member of Reddit’s board, said he personally appreciated Ms. Pao’s efforts during her two years working at the start-up. “Ellen has done a phenomenal job, especially in the last few months,” he said.

Reddit, now based in San Francisco, is composed of topic-based forums, known as subreddits, where discussions take place on subjects like news and technology. The company has 70 to 80 employees and relies largely upon its thousands of dedicated power users to govern the site.

That tight-knit community erupted into upheaval when the news broke that Victoria Taylor, a prominent and well-liked Reddit employee, had been abruptly dismissed from the company this month with no public explanation. Many Reddit users blamed Ms. Pao directly in the hours after Ms. Taylor’s firing, flooding Reddit’s forums with vitriolic messages — often racist and misogynistic — calling for Ms. Pao’s ouster.

Reddit users circulated an online petition calling for her removal that garnered more than 200,000 signatures.

Ms. Pao apologized to the site’s members for the episode earlier this week. Reddit’s management made errors, “not just on July 2, but also over the past several years,” Ms. Pao said in a post on one of the site’s forums on Monday. “The mods” — moderators — “and the community have lost trust in me and in us, the administrators of Reddit.”

Ms. Pao has long been a figure of controversy in Silicon Valley. In March, she lost a gender discrimination lawsuit against the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, where she had previously worked. The trial, which involved big-name Silicon Valley investors such as John Doerr, mesmerized Silicon Valley with its salacious details while also amplifying concerns about a lack of diversity in the technology industry.

And here is what it became, same link.

Quote:Comparing: It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit
By MIKE ISAAC and DAVID STREITFELD

Ellen Pao became a hero to many when she took on the entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley. But sentiment is a fickle thing, and late Friday the entrepreneur fell victim to a shrill crowd demanding her ouster as chief executive of the popular social media site Reddit.

Ms. Pao’s abrupt downfall in the face of a torrent of sexist and racist attacks, many of them on Reddit itself, is likely to renew charges that bullying, harrassment and ugly behavior are out of control on the web — and that Silicon Valley’s well-publicized lack of interest in hiring anyone who is not male and white is contributing to the problem.

The debates over diversity in technology and invective on the Internet have been simmering for a long time, but they boiled over in the last year. One reason was Ms. Pao’s lawsuit against her former employer, the venerable venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

Her gender discrimination case, years in the making, failed to sway a jury, but did reveal a community that casually tolerated an atmosphere where male aggression was prized and women always seemed to be relegated to secondary roles.

The dispute at Reddit, which arose from the dismissal of a well-liked employee earlier this month, drew much of its intensity from Ms. Pao’s lawsuit — and her gender.

“The attacks were worse on Ellen because she is a woman,” said Sam Altman, a member of the Reddit board.  “And that’s just a shame against humanity.”

More than 213,000 people signed a petition demanding Ms. Pao’s resignation. After her departure was announced, Reddit users celebrated in the usual over-the-top fashion. “Rejoice internet brethren,” wrote one. “The great evil has been slain.”

Ms. Pao wrote in a Reddit post on Friday that in her eight months as chief executive, “I’ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly.” She added that, “the good has been off-the-wall inspiring, and the ugly made me doubt humanity.”

“It was definitely a hard week,” Ms. Pao said in an interview, characterizing her exit as a mutual agreement with the board after having differing views of the future of the company. She began working at Reddit two years ago. Reddit is usually one of the highest trafficked sites on the Internet, with more than 160 million regular monthly visitors.

Mitch Kapor, a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, noted that Reddit users were predominantly male and 18 to 29 years in age.

“In my view, her job was made more difficult because as a woman, she was particularly subject to the abuse stemming from the pockets of toxic misogyny in the Reddit ecosystem,” said Mr. Kapor, now a partner at Kapor Capital.

Ms. Pao’s departure from Reddit was prompted after the tight-knit community of the online message board erupted into upheaval when news broke that Victoria Taylor, a prominent and well-liked Reddit employee, had been abruptly dismissed from the company this month with no public explanation.  In protest, Reddit users shut down hundreds of sections of the online message board.

Ms. Pao apologized to the site’s members for the episode earlier this week. Reddit’s management made errors, “not just on July 2, but also over the past several years,” she said in a post on one of the site’s forums on Monday. “The mods” — moderators — “and the community have lost trust in me and in us, the administrators of Reddit.”

The ouster was another setback for Ms. Pao, who rejected a seven-figure settlement offer from Kleiner last fall to end her claims that she had been discriminated against at the venture firm because she was a woman.

Kleiner maintained that Ms. Pao, who joined the firm in 2005 as chief of staff to its best-known partner, John Doerr, was simply not very good as an investor. The case drew attention around the world, in part for its salacious details

In the wake of the trial, Kleiner said Ms. Pao owed it nearly $1 million in court fees but offered to waive the bill if there was no appeal. Ms. Pao countered that the sum was excessive. Judge Harold Kahn agreed and reduced Kleiner’s costs to $276,000. He noted in his ruling that “Ms. Pao has significant economic resources.”

Ms. Pao declined in interviews to detail what her next move was, but an appeal in the Kleiner case is quietly moving forward. The court reporter has been ordered to prepare transcripts, which is the next stage of the process. Ms. Pao does not need to give her basis for appeal for many months.

If she eventually succeeds in convincing a three-judge panel that the trial was unfair, Kleiner — and Silicon Valley — would be on trial again. Ms. Pao’s lawyers did not return calls for comment on Friday. A lawyer for Kleiner declined comment.

At Reddit, Ms. Pao will be replaced by Steve Huffman, the chief technology officer at Hipmunk, a travel search site. Mr. Huffman will have his hands full. Adam Goldstein, chief executive of Hipmunk, said that the engineer will continue to oversee product and engineering at the site on a part-time basis. Mr. Huffman will also remain on Hipmunk’s board.

Mr. Huffman and Alexis Ohanian started Reddit in a two-bedroom apartment in a suburb of Boston a decade ago. Users go to the site to talk about everything from current events to viral cat photos. The company, based in San Francisco, has 70 to 80 employees and relies largely upon its thousands of dedicated power users to govern the site.

Reddit is a private company, a majority of which is owned by Advance Publications, the parent company of Condé Nast. Last October, Reddit raised $50 million in venture capital from investors including Andreessen Horowitz, Mr. Altman and the rapper Snoop Dogg.

Ms. Pao said she would remain as an adviser to Reddit’s board for the remainder of the year. As for her immediate future, she said, “I plan to get a lot of sleep.”

Vindu Goel contributed reporting from San Francisco.

Does that really read like "fact-checking" to you? 

[David Horn]

(01-17-2017, 12:46 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-17-2017, 12:17 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-16-2017, 10:55 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: That was the point, it was posted in reportage, rewritten to become "analysis", and yet not moved to the commentary section where it belonged.

...

Yes, THAT is the function of the press.  It's supposed to INFORM the public, not propagandize it.  If you honestly think the role of the press in a free society is to tell people WHAT to think (in the "public interest", of course), than you might as well just nationalize all of it and call it "The Department of Truth".

Analysis occupies more space in a typical newspaper than straight reporting.  Surprise!  But let's agree that analysis is not commentary.  There are few stories simple enough to be reported with no added context.  Once you add context, you've added some analysis.  As complex as the world is today, I don't see any alternative.

... which is hell-and-gone from the Ministry of Truth.

All I see is that you didn't bother to read the links and as such are continuing to talk out of your hat.  Please, if you want to keep talking, actually read the thing, look at the side by side, and tell me how that counts as "analysis". 

Rewrites are par for the course.  Why is this surprising, especially under the deadline pressure that's baked into the 24/7 news cycle.  The real questions: did the change also change the meaning and intent of the piece, and did real information get expunged, or was it a case of error correction?

I saw nuance and context added, but nothing expunged that was solid.  By your standard, only the perfect gets reported, which is to say, nothing gets reported.

[David Horn]

(01-17-2017, 12:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:I prefer an unfettered and independent press. I'm concerned that the tin-foil-hat crowd has far too much to say and far too many opportunities to say it, but the real problem lies with the basic knowledge base of the average citizen. It's easy to lie to people who have no concept of the truth.

That's what unfettered and independent looks like.  That's not what you are asking for.

When lies, not errors mind you, get the same press protection afforded to all other material, then we've crossed a line. I remember Carol Burnette suing the National Enquirer for slander. As a public figure, she was fair game, but she won anyway. Some press actions are beyond the pale.

SomeGuy Wrote:As for the average knowledge base, at the end of the day, dude, lots of people are dumb and/or not interested in things outside of their immediate circumstances.  That's just life.  There is plenty of knowledge out there for people who want to acquire it.

We send students through 12 years of primary and secondary education. At the end of that process, they should have been expected to acquire a working knowledge of the world they inhabit. That's not really true anymore. It was when I went to school, so I understand the difference. That's not the same as expecting in-depth knowledge of or even an interest in the subject matter.

SomeGuy Wrote:Honestly, teaching people to check sources, look at competing points of view, and recognize cant when they hear it is a lot better than some grand high poobah of journalism, "totally disinterested in anything other than the public interest", selectively spoonfeeding them the opinions and facts that they think they should have.

There is no need for a press overlord, or any other version of censorship, if the press is merely held to the standards of our slander laws. Lying with the intent to do harm is a form of assault. Causing harm by lying with no regard to the truth is a form of gross negligence. A lot of the alt-right press, and, as you noted, some of the MSM need a bit of slapping. Whether they get it depends on whether we still value truth as a public good or just a nice thing to have around.