I have little sentiment for Google, but this article seems to be arranged as part of a campaign. The statements of a small number of x-Googlers is taken as a generalization of the company’s sentiment as a whole and is used to seed doubt, while acknowledging very little specific mistakes.
Unfortunately it feels like this is pretty common for the NYT today: they decide on a conclusion they want to make, and then interview enough people so they can cherry-pick the comments that support their conclusion, and don't bother to present any dissenting viewpoints.
It's really a shame; I feel like this transformation happened in the last 5 years or so. Most articles from NYT that I see posted here have this slant.
> they decide on a conclusion they want to make, and then interview enough people so they can cherry-pick the comments that support their conclusion, and don't bother to present any dissenting viewpoints.
I've said this exact thing in the past about NYT. This seems to be their MO these days and is especially apparent in their international reporting.
Along his goals of "doubling digital revenue" and maximising subscriber numbers, the place obviously turned towards clickbait and left-wing cheer-leading.
Give the customers what they want - and they definitely don't want to be told their worldview is wrong or that their opinion of certain issues has valid counterpoints. So it's been a huge cratering of credibility and honest reporting.
I don't mind the slant if it's clear they understand the issue, but it's clear that's not always the case based on what I've seen shared on Hacker News.
