And what they write about me rarely feels adversarial. I can think of maybe two cases where it felt unfair or unfriendly, though there might be more I’m forgetting. And meanwhile there’s also the upside chance of them writing whole articles explaining your ideas to a large audience.
My own sense of what's going on here is that you're simply not registering the snark that is there
It's meant to be plausibly deniable, but still for those in the know the whole time is "these people are laughable out group and a safe target to be mocked" while ostensibly holding to the principles of good journalism
it is meant to be registered only to the core readers of these sorts of news outlets, who get the benefit of being able to be superior because they are readers of said publication
It's the equivalent of someone repeating your ideas while wearing a clown suite and stating them in a high pitched mocking tone
It's meant to be plausibly deniable, but still for those in the know the whole time is "these people are laughable out group and a safe target to be mocked" while ostensibly holding to the principles of good journalism
The fact that the New Yorker article introduces Eliezer as "a bearded guy with a fedora" who "dropped out of school after eighth grade" read to me as an insult with plausible deniability.
Journalists try to communicate the facts that are important for their readers.
For an average reader, the most important fact about a person is whether they are considered high-status or low-status. Is it safe to mock them? Should I be afraid of them?
Here the journalist correctly informs their audience that Eliezer is harmless, and that it is perfectly safe to mock him. (He won't sue you, won't try to get you fired from your job, won't try to ruin your company.)
I do not believe journalists are acting in the public interest by describing their subjects in a mockable way like this, even if it's what readers want.
My own sense of what's going on here is that you're simply not registering the snark that is there
I mean, I don't think this is a good reason to not talk to journalists?
Would you rather people be exposed to your views from a factually correct, if critical and snarky, source or not introduced to your views at all? Generally, I would say being seen in a major publication (for reasons that aren't someone doing a crime or something) is likely to lead to the general public taking you more seriously, even if that exposure is from someone critical of you.
It's meant to be plausibly deniable, but still for those in the know the whole time is "these people are laughable out group and a safe target to be mocked" while ostensibly holding to the principles of good journalism
I think you are vastly misjudging the motives of the average journos. Pretty much none set out to be some sort of underworld actors manipulating a small core group through dog-whistles and snark.
Journalists like to think of themselves more along the lines of Hunter S. Thompson, Carl Bernstein, Edward R. Murrow etc. They rarely do not think of themselves as partisan hacks, even when they are (there are of course some willful grifters, but that is not the norm and even that is malicious in a slightly different way than you describe).
Would you rather people be exposed to your views from a factually correct, if critical and snarky, source or not introduced to your views at all?
Journalists are masters at using factually correct statements to get people to believe false things.
So the answer is "not introduced".
Pretty much none set out to be some sort of underworld actors manipulating a small core group through dog-whistles and snark.
The journalist believes he is convincing people of the truth. The fact that the "truth" is not supported by the facts is just considered an inconvenience by the journalist.
1The journalist believes he is convincing people of the truth.
I think this portrays a common but just largely mistaken image of how most journalists work and see themselves.
At an implicit level, yes, they are trying to give people the 'truth' but they don't see that as "subtly twist facts to ignore my subject and manipulate my audience." With exceptions, they don't see such manipulation (whether for 'right' or 'wrong' causes) as their job.
Journalists are masters at using factually correct statements to get people to believe false things.
If you believe that a journalist is so maliciously opposed to you that they are going to actively try to twist any communications to try to get the public to oppose you, then they would probably be doing that anyway (if you are an active, public person), regardless of whether they talk to you.
I don't see any of the provided articles as really that malicious and most of the profiles I have seen read as somewhat sympathetic to many of the viewpoints being expressed.
With exceptions, they don’t see such manipulation (whether for ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ causes) as their job.
Explain Cade Metz (without saying "if it's a counterexample it must be an exception").
If you believe that a journalist is so maliciously opposed to you that they are going to actively try to twist any communications to try to get the public to oppose you, then they would probably be doing that anyway
Their mission can be made easier or harder even if they were going to do it anyway.
Their mission can be made easier or harder even if they were going to do it anyway.
When it comes to the practices of major outlets, you are often actually making it easier for them by refusing to talk. I will discuss this with the example you give.
Explain Cade Metz (without saying "if it's a counterexample it must be an exception").
First, I have to ask what problem do you have with saying he is an exception? There are going to be exceptional, bad actors, in any space--that is not a good standard for judging all participants in the space.
I would say Metz' depiction of Scott Alexander (I cannot claim to be familiar with the complete body of his work) was exceptionally (and obv. wrongly) uncharitable, biased and lacking context. Even then though, I would be dubious of the claim he saw manipulating the facts as his job.
A big part of the reason I would actually say Metz piece came off so badly is because they cut contact because they disagreed about privacy (to be clear, I think Scott was right and Metz/NYT is in the wrong, but I can understand their policy and reasoning[1] as not being totally unreasonable). I think Scott is quite possibly correct that "[i]t probably would have been a very nice article."
If lines of communication were kept open, Metz would (as is practice at major outlets like the NYT) includes references to what Scott Alexander has to say about the portrayal.
To give a hypothetical example (of course, we will never know what might have been) the article's reference to Scott and Murray likely would have included a line referencing how Scott responds. That is, instead of what we got Metz writing:
In one post, [Scott] aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and IQ in “The Bell Curve.” In another, he pointed out that Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people."
Metz would have included Scott's own responses, which may have rendered it something like:
In one post, he aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and IQ in “The Bell Curve.” Scott says he was only aligning himself with Murray's view on poverty, and not Murray's "offensive views on race." In the past, Scott pointed out that Murray believes Black people “are genetically less intelligent than white people."
Does something this still give a somewhat negative impression? Yes, some readers will distrust anyone who is willing to associate themselves with views espoused by Murray even on innocuous subjects. However, it is much more sympathetic in the implication then if Scott denying he was aligning with Murray's racial views is not referenced.
- ^
Metz basic reasoning (assuming the decision was entirely his) appears to have been that the NYT tries to avoid relying on anonymous sources for reporting, Scott's identity was established with public information and--in Metz's view--was of public interest (getting to his credibility or whatnot). I disagree as the public interest was minor at best and it being publicly identifiable does not justify publicizing it when publicizing it is liable to cause outsized harms.
Even then though, I would be dubious of the claim he saw manipulating the facts as his job.
In general (and this specific case is full of them), if a joutnalist lies by telling the literal truth, he has to be aware of what he is doing. It wouldn't even be possible to do that without having in mind something to say, being aware that the facts don't support it (if he thought they did, he would say it directly), and choosing to insinuate it indirectly anyway.
To give a hypothetical example (of course, we will never know what might have been) the article’s reference to Scott and Murray likely would have included a line referencing how Scott responds.
This is quokka readoning. It would not fit Metz's purposes to write accurately, so he doesn't. Metz isn't deceiving the public because Scott failed to talk to him; he's deceiving the public because he wants to. Giving him an extra opportunity to be honest won't help, but it might hurt if Scott says something that can be taken out of context.
he has to be aware of what he is doing...he's deceiving the public because he wants to.
To be clear, your theory of mind is that Metz hates Scott alexander for some (what?) reason, doesn't think Scott is accepting of racism, but chooses the manipulate facts to portray him as a racist and would not include the comments expected by the editorial policy at the NYT, despite claiming to have made his decisions (including to reveal Scott's identity) based on NYT policy?
I find that exceptionally unlikely. It conflicts with his behavior (he talked to Scott about it the better part of a year before the article came up, looking through his other publications, they regularly include comments, as expected by NYT's editorial policy, and even Scott said he suspected the article would have been in the spirit it was stated). I think the more likely explanation is that Metz believed that Scott was at least sympathetic to Murray's racial views, and would have included that implication while following his employer's policies.
It would not fit Metz's purposes to write accurately
Why? He wants to keep his job, be read, and have people willing to work with him.
This is quokka readoning
It is how journalists work... Like, do you read any journalistic publications? They constantly include comment when publishing criticisms of persons, especially when they aren't publishing breaking news.
Giving him an extra opportunity to be honest won't help, but it might hurt if Scott says something that can be taken out of context.
It isn't "giving him an opportunity to be honest" it is "providing comment which, under editorial standards at the NYT (as well as more general codes most publication follow) he is required to reflect in the publication."
Yo be clear, your theory of mind is that Metz hates Scott alexander for some (what?) reason, doesn’t think Scott is accepting of racism, but chooses the manipulate facts to portray him as a racist and would not include the comments expected by the editorial policy at the NYT, despite claiming to have made his decisions (including to reveal Scott’s identity) based on NYT policy?
Metz is ideologically opposed to the tech industry and thinks (sincerely) that they are fascists and racists, so he wants the audience to know that. He doesn't have proof that they are, so he tries to make his audience think that by using literal truths that insinuate things he sincerely believes, but which don't have any proof.
As for NYT policy, 1) the Times is ideologically on Metz's side, so they won't enforce any policy that is inconvenient for Metz here, and 2) the claim that the policy requires Scott's name was already shown to be a lie (or at least enforced based on ideology), because sympathetic article subjects had their identities hidden, so more policy lies won't be unusual.
Metz is ideologically opposed to the tech industry and thinks (sincerely) that they are fascists and racists
Skimming his writing, this does not seem remotely true, he seems to have some sympathies with sections of the industry while being critical of others. Do you have any evidence of this? And, in any case, I wouldn't think Scott is part of "the tech industry."
the Times is ideologically on Metz's side, so they won't enforce their policy
Do you have any evidence of this? This just doesn't seem to understand how editorial departments work. They clearly did enforce their policy--he tried to comments from Scott on what he was saying about him and informed Scott of what he intended to publish and what his basis was and requested comment.
(such as the claim that the NYT policy does not allow hiding Scott's name).
NYT policy was to publish the identity of sources in most cases (if in published material) and had high burdens in place for keeping sources anonymous. As far as I saw, he didn't say "I am not allowed to not say it" but just that it was the NYT policy to provide identification. And in interviews he explicitly said he was in agreement with the NYT editorial policy that indicated their identity should be published. Indeed, he actively defended the policy of not withholding identies in cases like Scott's, telling @Zack_M_Davis, "His name—when I sat down to figure out his name, it took me less than five minutes. It's just obvious what his name is. The New York Times ceases to serve its purpose if we're leaving out stuff that's obvious. That's just how we have to operate. Our aim—and again, the irony is that your aim is similar—is to tell people the truth, and have them understand it. If we start holding stuff back, then that quickly falls apart."
Our aim—and again, the irony is that your aim is similar—is to tell people the truth, and have them understand it. If we start holding stuff back, then that quickly falls apart.
I think this is a bullshit excuse. I believe there are plenty of true facts that if you told Metz, he would decide not to publish them.
For example, someone could tell him a story of David Gerard's decade-long crusade against the rationalist community in general, and Scott Alexander specifically. How David is the person who made "Roko's basilisk" popular, how he created SneerClub (an entire subreddit dedicated to bullying Scott and related people), how he abused his privileges as an administrator of Wikipedia to push his point of view as the official Wikipedia perspective, including the "citogenesis" of "write it on RationalWiki, give an interview to a journalist, insist that the journalist quotes the part from RationalWiki, now update the Wikipedia page to quote the reliable unpartial journalist", and how ultimately David got banned from editing the Wikipedia article about Scott Alexander but still keeps editing other articles related to the rationalist community.
If telling the truth about Scott Alexander is so super important for the NYT, this should obviously be, too. But I am 90% sure that Metz would find an excuse not to publish any of this.
I agree, it is sort of BS but the reasons you are giving isn't it. There is a difference between not doing an article on a piece you aren't interested in and not allowing fair comment or withholding information relating to story you publish. He is talking about the latter, not publishing information that is readily available and relevant to a story you are writing. Where i think it is BS is there is always obvious information that gets left on the editing room floor, part of their job is going through the information and identifying what is of the greatest public interest, what context is relevant and what isn't worth publishing. I think he (and quite likely the NYT broadly) misjudges the importance of full names and undervalued the harm publishing Scott's full name could do.
of course, snark is seen as virtuous, it's important to let people know who's good and who's bad, goes the thinking
i'm not really sure about your question, i think it's actually quite a hard one and depends a bunch on specific tactical questions about your message and how to spread it
but, regardless, you should KNOW that snark is being employed, not think that they're giving a neutral account, not sharing a snarky account naively as a positive or neutral story, etc
of course, snark is seen as virtuous, it's important to let people know who's good and who's bad, goes the thinking
Mostly agree with two notable caveats.
First, it isn't just snark, their goal is not to delineate the good people and the bad people, think about the examples I gave for some people commonly revered by different journalists. Murrow was 'snarky' with regards to McCarthy, but what Murrow did was fundamentally a (at least mostly) an honest, good faith attempt to portray who McCarthy was, what he was doing and his stated beliefs.
Second, everyone does this to some extent (and worth being mindful of). When discussing ideas we feel are silly and bad everyone tends to use more dismissive and critical language.
but, regardless, you should KNOW that snark is being employed, not think that they're giving a neutral account, not sharing a snarky account naively as a positive or neutral story, etc
I would say you should go into any conversation with a journalist (or anything public at all, for that matter) with that attitude that anything you say is liable to be used by a critical audience. That is not to say they are negative to you, but anything you say is likely to pass in front of someone who is negative towards you, you should be honest and frank in your beliefs while aware that those reading them might not be inclined to read what you said charitably.
I am not convinced that the articles that were cited are universally negative, the language you read as 'snarky' is pretty common in describing people positively in press articles, treating people in a humanizing 'quirky' way as describing honestly what they said and how they acted often leaves a more positive picture (which isn't to say they are particularly positive pieces either, just the language you read as snarky and negative doesn't necessarily indicate as much).
That's Cade Metz' article that caused so much trouble. By any non-Eliezer standard, it is lying with the literal truth. Amd people keep talking to him.
Your description does not fit reality.
Its entirely possible that you are in fact meeting different journalists, people interested in writing about AI/tech will often share a similar culture with you. That predicts lower adversarial risk independent of your demeanour.
Were your bad experiences from more tech outsider journalists?
I've written before about being deliberate when talking with journalists, but that comes from seeing them (and attention more broadly) as a scarce resource, rather than antipathy. Journalists are looking to tell a story that their readers will want to see more of (which will be those that are broadly similar to the rest of what they write), as well as fulfilling their individual desires, and we want coverage of those issues of ours that have the potential to gain momentum (principally AI risk).
Being yourself around journalists is appealing to them; so is discussing what the movement is already known for. Both of these should be easy to talk to them about; it's what they're expecting. Too much surprise or focus on pet issues makes it harder for them to write the article that both us and them would want them to write. Getting to know the journalist and what they've written previously could also help; if they're engaged by connections to their past interests, they'll like you more, which should help you get more coverage. (This could very well have played a part in @KatjaGrace's experiences.)
A common view around me seems to be that journalists are frequently dishonorable and dangerous, and talking to them is a risk to be avoided unless you have a very specific piece of information that you seek to publicize. Then you should carefully ensure that you are as off the record as practical, and prepare to aggressively pivot the topic back to your agenda.
My own attitude is different: journalists are to be talked to as much as possible, and ideally in a relaxed fashion. If a journalist wants to observe you in some unusual circumstance, say yes. Don’t have an agenda much more than in the rest of life; basically listen to their questions and say what you think. (Note: I don’t have strong reason to believe this is safe for others or even for me.)
As evidence of the commitment with which I act in this way, this New Yorker piece describes me as ‘an oversharer’, before detailing some of my incompetent and substance-involving preparations for a dinner party at my house. (To be clear, I consider that accurate and agreeable coverage.)
I’ve talked to a lot of journalists, so how do I survive such recklessness? Well, in my experience, journalists are usually delightful: smart, sincere people trying hard to understand important topics and convey them to the public. And I’m impressed by how well they do. When I meet them, they are usually spending a tiny number of days diving into a complicated and wild situation, and while their summary isn’t perfect, I think it’s pretty good!
And what they write about me rarely feels adversarial. I can think of maybe two cases where it felt unfair or unfriendly, though there might be more I’m forgetting. And meanwhile there’s also the upside chance of them writing whole articles explaining your ideas to a large audience.
How is it that I and other people can have such divergent views here? Policies for interacting with journalists are hardly abstract philosophy—the people with the other views presumably also get to repeatedly experience talking with journalists.
One theory is that we have different expectations. What seems to me like imperfect summarization maybe seems to others like lies. What seems to me like accurate summarization maybe seems to others like ‘making me look weird’. I’ve noticed some weird-to-me expectations about the nature and constraints of journalism—like, thinking it would be better if a New Yorker article was about a technical paper and didn’t contain personal anecdotes. These expectations seems wrong about where the value of such an article comes from.
Another possibility is that we have different risk tolerances. The same low (but real) risk of a journalist writing a hit piece or randomly otherwise misusing their powers might be a deal-breaker for someone else, while I’m not very emotionally troubled by it. (My feelings: “You’re saying they could lie about me? That seems like a them problem? Can’t they lie about me anyway? Is my input that helpful? I’ll just say they lied about me, and we can have a public disagreement about it, and then maybe other journalists will come to talk to me.”) If I had more information I really needed to hide, this might be different.
Another class of theories is that we are different people, and either journalists treat us differently, or we come in contact with different journalists.
For instance, maybe people trying to learn about expert surveys of AI researchers tend to be in a cooperative mindset. But I’ve talked to journalists about my dating life, AI destroying the world, and all manner of other AI-related questions (as well as about accidentally getting into a physical altercation with nationalistically enthusiastic protesters, and probably oleander trees, and I bet some other stuff, but it’s less clear I would remember if I didn’t like the coverage in those cases.)
Someone suggested the other day that maybe I’m just a likable person, or likable to journalists. Similarly, my demeanor might just discourage being an asshole to me somehow—perhaps I seem unusually cooperative or too naive to be taken advantage of without feeling bad.
Perhaps journalists are responding to these different attitudes themselves. Probably journalists are like everyone else: they can somewhat tell if you are on their side or seeing them as an enemy to be thwarted and steered and then escaped from unscathed. And perhaps seeing the latter causes them to suspect you and find it more likely that you are weird and troubling, and shouldn’t have your words quoted without qualification or your behavior described uncritically.
If I recall, I have basically always had the attitude I have here, and it has only been strengthened by my experience talking to maybe hundreds of journalists. I think I’m also attracted to this attitude beyond pragmatism. So if journalists were responding to the attitudes, I would have had a different experience from the start.
I don’t really know what to make of this. I feel reasonably good about my policies for myself, but I don’t know if I can recommend them, because I don’t understand why they go fine for me. I can still record what I’ve experienced here, and send it out for other people to see. Which is maybe what talking to journalists is all about.