NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage should be critical

Re:NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage... by pbourke on Friday November 04, 2022 @06:10PM (#33474582)

> I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital.

It certainly seems like you wouldn't have any bias when discussing this topic as well.

> They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian sources. Maybe from a strict mathematical definition that is still a "majority" but it's certainly not what anyone imagines when they hear the word.

What non-strict, non-mathematical definition of the word majority do you propose?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage... by tensor on Friday November 04, 2022 @06:16PM (#33474671)

I'm not a journalist and my comments are not an attempt to be. On what word to use, I would use "54%" or maybe "roughly half." Either paint an accurate picture to the reader of the reality.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NYT reporters had a top-down directive that tech coverage... by chomp on Friday November 04, 2022 @06:21PM (#33474727)

How about “Although a majority of funding came from Canadian sources, nearly half (46%) came from foreign donations.”

Seek the whole truth, don’t settle for media narratives.

[ Parent | on HN ]