Re:Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed
by icedistilled on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @07:43PM
(#23981888)
To claim those plots in the second tweet show NYT became partisan like the author does makes no sense. Given the events over the past few years, all of those trends are logical and do not mean NYT made a conscious choice to become partisan.
If using terms like 'feminism' more frequently is proof of something becoming partisan, then it's time to look oneself in the mirror and think hard. I would be ashamed if I'd made that tweet.
Re:Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed
by fluidcruft on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:12PM
(#23982090)
Coronavirus would also spike on google trends which is the control mentioned in the tweet.
Re:Sorry New York Times, I decline to be interviewed
by yongjik on Tuesday July 28, 2020 @08:49PM
(#23982331)
That doesn't follow, because people normally don't search for "male privilege" or "inequality" or "victimization" - even those people for whom these words are parts of their daily discourse. When was the last time you searched for "pointer"?
So, of course the graphs aren't going to match. Not to mention the graphs themselves are all over the place. (What insights are we supposed to get from the decreasing trend of "general motors"?)
If you plot the word frequency of "coronavirus" it will show a quantum jump on 2020. So what? Journalists report on what's happening around them, so if people keep talking about "male privilege" then of course NYT will pick it up, whether you (or NYT) are for or against the concept.
If you want to argue that NYT or the larger journalism caused the rise of terms like "male privilege", you need a better argument than cute pictures. Using a 10x10 grid of cute pictures cherry-picked to maximize outrage is precisely what people are complaining about modern journalism, or so I have thought?