The sole purpose of this market is to establish a conditional probability for a different market: https://manifold.markets/MichaelDickens/will-at-least-one-journalistic-outl
1,000
3.00🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ240 | |
| 2 | Ṁ23 | |
| 3 | Ṁ4 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 |
Curious whether this will count as coverage. It does show an example of the NYT talking about Scott Alexander neutrally and giving a fair summary of his article, so I think for what this market was trying to measure it should count YES. But they certainly don't talk about Scott at length. I wish the description had provided more clarity in advance.
In retrospect, I don't think this market made much sense, it should have been something like "Will at least one journalistic outlet quote https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological?" which would have been more relevant
@MichaelDickens Does this link work for you? https://web.archive.org/web/20230224203924/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/17/opinion/ai-chatbot.html
@Conflux yes, thanks!
I'm not sure whether this counts, it depends on whether NYT opinion pieces are beholden to (NYT's) journalistic ethics standards, see my comment here https://manifold.markets/MichaelDickens/will-at-least-one-journalistic-outl#lAkoBheWuaAVh9EeLLsr I think they are, but I'm not sure.
@MichaelDickens I found this website https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html# which seems to state that NYT opinion writers are beholden to journalistic standards, including "the exactness of quotations". The wording is a little indirect, but is that enough to resolve this market?
@Conflux It also says 'These guidelines generally apply to all members of the news and opinion departments whose work directly affects the content of the paper"