Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I apologize. I took it on faith that when The Information said they were running a "complete interview" with you, that it was in fact both complete and an actual interview. It seems very clear how this piece misrepresented you; the entire elided question you cite is particularly damning. I retain some of my misgivings (which have much more to do with the industry than with YC), but the "interview" clearly wasn't a good lens through which to consider them. I was nevertheless ready to do that too quickly, so the fault is as much mine as the magazine's.



I had high hopes for The Information that their business model would lead to better quality reporting… Their page states:

The Information recently sat down with Mr. Graham. We covered a wide range of topics including “mass producing” startups, Mr. Graham’s controversial statements on founder accents, his wife and YC's secret weapon Jessica Livingston (link) and some little-known stories about YC alum Airbnb.

https://www.theinformation.com/YC-s-Paul-Graham-The-Complete...

…which implies that it was a formal interview. I don't have a subscription but something still doesn't quite mesh there. If I were PG I would be writing to them to demand that they change that lead-in to the story.

edit: Another part of this saga that stands out to me is how very few people commenting on it actually have a subscription to the supposedly first hand source at The Information. It was a bit strange that we had a scandal caused by a news report about a news report that most people don't have access to.


> I had high hopes for The Information that their business model would lead to better quality reporting

The only differences between The Information and The Register [1] are that the latter acknowledges its tabloid nature, and lacks the breathtaking presumption to peddle its tripe for four hundred dollars a year.

[1] http://theregister.co.uk


It's a little scary how powerful newspapers are at shaping public opinion. At least their reputation will be irreversibly damaged by breaking people's trust.


I don't think it's so much about shaping public opinion as it is playing up people's fears. The threat of discrimination is still present in our society and is a very important topic across multiple demographics. You can't blame someone for feeling strongly about something they fear. However, journalists who write in a blaming tone to play to these fears should be blamed for mislaying trust instead of being lauded for raising awareness.

Nitasha Tiku made several negative blaming statements in her story. The one that stuck out to me as an obvious tell of a blaming statement was "That archetype, of course, is usually attached to a penis." In all fairness, I don't think that anyone wants to be addressed via 'being attached' to their private parts.

Here's a link on NVC if anyone is interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication. It's powerful stuff.


At least their reputation will be irreversibly damaged by breaking people's trust.

I would love it if this were true, but I think it's way too optimistic.


It's not reputation that makes the media successful at programming people. It's the repetition and omnipresence of the repetition.


What everyone should, once again, learn from this is that you cannot take anything you read or hear at face value. Not even from people you trust, because things may be misrepresented by accident. Often it doesn't really matter, but if you get emotional about a subject and wish to comment on it, you should better be sure you have the facts straight and always temper your responses based on the possibility you don't know everything.


I want to echo what tptacek is saying here, though I didn't write much here on HN about the issue. I have been talking with colleagues and friends and the comments in the article seemed well intentioned but a little tone deaf. I am relieved to hear not only that they were false, but also that PG and YC are actively working at some of the misgivings I share concerning our industry.


I'm impressed with both your response as well as pg's. Definitely refreshing to not see the pitchforks come out for everyone.


Thank you, but it's sad that the bar is so low on "impressive".


I'm really pleased to see someone make an apology. No idea what you personally said, I'm sure it was very far from the worst, but I clicked on this thread with my comment already formulated, questioning whether anyone would actually apologise and, well, was pleasantly surprised given how these things usually go.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: