A journalist from a major publication interviewed me a few times and has interviewed a whole bunch of my friends. One of my friends thinks it's gonna be a hit piece. I think this is less likely but I'm not sure.
She seems lovely, similar background, unflustered by my weirdness. I've had two conversations/interviews with her. She's talking to a lot of my friends, much more than I expected. This is my first profile on me directly, so maybe this is normal?
I'm used to publications being nice to me because I'm a sex worker, but as time goes on it seems much of the focus in her questions so far is on tech and rationality, which has a more controversial reputation in reporting. Shes intending to attend a rationalist meetup that I'm co-running at lighthaven.
I have never had issues with reporters being uncharitable to me before and am optimistic here. Again, she seems great! But in general, people around me utter doom about journalists, so I can't tell if I should be more paranoid.
The journalist in question seems to be a mildly liberal reporter in her other published articles.
If this piece comes out at all, will it be a hit piece? I'll count it as a hit piece by asking my closest friends "what % hit piece is this piece"; if their answers average over 75%, I'll resolve this question yes.
If no article is published by end of 2025 I'll resolve this na (tho I expect it to get actually published much sooner)
1,000
3.00Major publications don't do hit pieces on people whose image is defined by left-leaning vibes (and "internet porn person" (or whatever variant you prefer) is very much left leaning). At worst it might be an attempt at a "balanced" article if they find out about your more controversial or right leaning statements.
Congrats on well deserved coverage!
I advise people on this professionally. Happy to give my take if you want to share more details, but on priors you should expect trouble for any journalism focusing on rationality because many reporters take a postmodern perspective. In that perspective, making a truth claim is an assertion of power, but saying you're doing it objectively, like the rationalists say they do, is being underhanded about it and (again, all this from that perspective) the right thing to do is to acknowledge your bias, not to try to pretend you can have a less biased way of seeing the world. This means reporters come at the topic with "what's the hidden agenda" as a main question.
I hope it turns out well, but IMHO you do your friends no favors giving people like that access
@YonatanCale I don't follow if the resolution question is "What percent of this is a hit piece?" v "What percent credence do you have that this is a hit piece?"
I.e., the Scott Alexander profile was 100% a hit piece, but some parts of it were fair and factual