My small corner of the blogosphere is aflutter about the recent New York Times piece, by Cade Metz, about Slate Star Codex, Scott Alexander's former blog. Those of you familiar with that blog and the controversy know that last summer, Alexander shut down his blog because he feared the Times was going to dox him (that is, reveal his true identity) in a story about the Alexander's ability to successfully predict the covid-19 crisis. Alexander later re-posted his blog online for public viewing--it had been offline for only about a month or so, if I recall--and a month or so ago, he created a new blog, Astral Star Codex.
I agree with almost all the criticisms I've read of the Times article. E.g, Scott Aaronson, Cathy Young, Alan Jacobs. It was shoddy reporting. It made arguments by innuendo and association. You can read those critics I just linked to for more details. One thing I'll add that I haven't yet seen other commentators say is this. Metz seems to suggest that Alexander's taking his blog offline was some sort of nefarious action, perhaps akin to a criminal preparing to skip town before they're served with a subpoena. (See what I did there: Metz said none of that, but I teased out something nefarious, Metz-style, from what actually was said.) Metz does mention, later in the article, that Alexander re-posted his blog. But the mention is so far away that we're left with a sense of "Alexander tried to escape responsibility for his actions."
That said, I don't believe, as Alan Jacobs seems to, that this necessarily represents a decline in journalistic standards. True, if the New York Times or if Mr. Metz observed higher standards--if they showed their work and stuck to demonstrable facts--the piece would have been better. But I think even the most conscientious journalist, working for the most conscientious news organization, will distort anything by writing about it. The journalist needn't be a liar and the news organization needn't be vindictive for that to happen. It will get things wrong because the reportage is at least one step removed from that which it is reporting. That's the definition of reporting. Even a putatively sympathetic account of Slate Star Codex will probably portray it in a misleading light. (I'm also not saying Metz is a liar or that the Times is vindictive, though I do suggest their behavior with that article is not up to snuff.)
I was a fan of Slate Star Codex and I'm a fan of Astral Star Codex. I'm glad Alexander has returned to the blogosphere.
No comments:
Post a Comment