Personally when I look at the tech section I want to hear what's new in technology (I guess you'd call this marketing), not politics and gossip about what some rich meathead said. Put politics in the politics section, and the gossip in the tabloids.

That boat sailed a long time ago. And while yes, there is a lot of interesting tech news out there, we've had tech companies become the largest corporations on the planet gobbling up every bit of information on every person, well it gets political really quick.

Information technology companies have a lot of information you say? And I guess you mean a long time ago measured in months. These are soap operas to hook a million or so like-minded people, not real news. Certainly not going to change the minds they want to change.

Generally I think that's a problem with modern society, everyone thinks the biggest "problem" that needs fixing is each other and wastes their "civic improvement" energy on fighting to change rules back and forth. Step away from it all for 6 months and it will look small and childish.

Step away from it for 6 years and I think it will look incredibly unnerving to anyone concerned with healthy public discourse, or who values a shared sense of community.

Shouldn't good investigative journalism just tell you what's true regardless of whether it makes the subject look good or bad? I don't mean that every story must convey the totality of the subject, but the body of reporting should try to resemble the subject - some good, some bad.

> Shouldn't good investigative journalism just tell you what's true regardless of whether it makes the subject look good or bad?

GP already covered that:

> Should an investigation into political corruption talk about what good that politician did? Maybe if its directly related to the corruption, but otherwise no.

I don't think investigative journalism is actually useful if it's purely negative; if you can't tell the difference between a journalist and a teenager with oppositional defiant disorder, why believe the story? And to investigate, they actually need good sources, but tech people who would be the sources mainly seem to believe NYT writers don't know what they're talking about.

Although in this case, the NYT wasn't doing "investigative journalism", Matt is talking about a literal actual editorial mandate to write negative stories.

https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192

I think the one I remember is when they wrote a story about LinkedIn doing unauthorized human experiments on the newsfeed, by which they meant A/B tests.