back
40 comments
I totally understand this. I lived in warzones for about 7 years, taking substantially less risks than he did almost all of the time (the most dangerous things I did were transit, and I got exceptionally good at selling to people who owned aircraft and would let me ride on missions...), and maybe felt 1% of this. I bailed in 2007 after one-too-many close calls (just didn't go back after a planned 1 week trip), and was glad I had that luxury; ended up going back a year later anyway -- it's distressingly addictive given enough recovery time.

Of course, things must be even worse for actual civilians living in war zones. People who didn't choose it at all, who might have started from a less-than-ideal position, and who had nowhere to go.

Will you tell us more about what you were doing while you were there?
I worked with some Iraqi expats setting up an internet exchange in 2003/2004; it got too dangerous and too chaotic, so pivoted to satellite ISP. I ended up moving into a base, and then set up my own satellite ISP, and did backhaul for cellular, did various radio stuff, etc. Left in 2007. 2008-2010 I worked for a company doing medical imaging (radiology PACS) in hospitals across CENTCOM; worked with the satellite stuff but mainly linux servers in hospitals, which was my first exposure to the medical industry.
I'd stopped seeing Chivers' field work, and I'd wondered why. Sad to hear.

I highly recommend it to HN readers; articles where he talks about the features of armament supply chains and their political effects are fascinating. Some examples:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/whats-inside-a-tal...

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/taliban-gun-locker...

On the contrary - I'm glad to hear that he'll remain safe, hopefully, from here on out.
His history of the AK-47, "The Gun", is also an excellent read. I actually had no idea he was a war reporter as well.
Excellently written, and the part about his PTSD-like feelings was tough to read. Reminds me of my friends who've seen some shit.
Agreed, especially the part about his son - that had me in tears. Once you have kids, stories like that hit you in unexpected ways.
It's more addictive than anything else, being in and around all that chaos. There's a weird experience of liberation and freedom and a sense of taking hold of your own destiny in carrying a weapon in a warzone. Every single day I think of how much I want to go back, at the same time I wish I never went. You really do leave a piece of your soul over there. I can't imagine being a civilian, born and raised in those places.
You go into the forest long enough, you become a forest creature.
Well written and harrowing. Can't blame him for quitting.
Great article. Reminds me of the books I read about folks who had fought in Vietnam -- all consuming total immersions in being overwhelmed.
I see HN's ongoing War On Linkbait has resulted in the title of this being changed from the one presented on the article itself, "Why the Best War Reporter in a Generation Had to Suddenly Stop." Which feels a little insulting to the reporter in question, the New York Times' C.J. Chivers, since it results in him getting demoted to just "a war reporter."

But the edit also manages to make the article sound much less interesting than it actually is! So mission accomplished, I guess?

I like this actually. Keep expectations low. Hyperbolic titles are the worst.
I don't agree that the edit makes the article sound less interesting, nor that it is insulting to take out superlatives, which we do routinely.

It does make the title less catchy, of course; that's one reason we do it.

I agree with you dang, but the title is a bit vague. A random war reporter quitting isn't interesting. I clicked on the link to scan over it, and was surprised to see it was CJ Chivers, and ended up reading the entire article.

Maybe a better title would be "Why War Reporter CJ Chivers Had to Suddenly Stop"

but I suppose the name doesn't add anything if you don't think people will recognize his name.

Ok, we'll use your title. Thanks! I'd push back a bit here though:

> A random war reporter quitting isn't interesting.

An article about an unknown reporter might well be more interesting (in HN's sense) than an article about a famous one. That is a function of the article, not the fame of its subject.

Thanks for pushing back on that point. I realized that part was a mistake a couple hours after posting it. HN would be a lot less interesting if we only had articles from famous people/companies/etc.

(BTW, I appreciate the transparency and openness your posts bring to HN. I know that can't always be easy, but you're doing an awesome job.)

That's really nice of you to say, and I'm grateful.
In this case, a magazine of note specifically chose to label this individual "the Best War Reporter in a Generation".

That's not a link-bait superlative; it's a statement of judgement relevant to the story.

"Why a War Reporter Had to Suddenly Stop" is a very different headline for a very different story.

On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in its headline. Readers here can make up their own minds.
> On HN we don't simply accept what a "magazine of note" decides to tell us in its headline.

> Readers here can make up their own minds.

These two sentences seem in conflict to me...

Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own minds. Someone has to make the call about what an accurate, neutral title is, though—otherwise there would be a deadlock.

In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly subjective either. We get it wrong sometimes, but the quality of the front page is vastly higher with this practice than it would be without it.

You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly every case we accommodate their complaints. I'm not doing that this time because the present case seems clear to me and worth defending on principle. But that's rare.

Edit: we did change the title based on this suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10235921. It's really helpful when users suggest better titles! I wish it happened more often.

As always thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'll reiterate somethings I've mentioned to you before:

> Accurate, neutral titles are what's best for readers to make up their own minds.

Not to be pedantic, but I think you are using the word accurate when you mean precise. Accuracy implies a consistent lens. My concern is that by striving for higher precision titles we lose a consistency that actually has less bias long term.

> In practice, it's not all that arbitrary—not algorithmic, but not wildly subjective either.

This is something that's been said over and over again to a community that is extremely focused on empirical evidence. It would be not only great to have a better understanding of how this works, it would be extremely interesting to the community.

> You may also have noticed that when people complain about titles, in nearly every case we accommodate their complaints.

I have noticed that, thank you.

> I'm not doing that this time because the present case seems clear to me and worth defending on principle. But that's rare.

Again, this is a group that responds very well to evidence based argument, and so it's kind of lame to hear that these decisions are made unilaterally based on your principles. I mentioned bias above. Systems that are based on one person making decisions based on their principles are by definition biased. Maybe this is fine, but in that case it would be nice if it was made more clear to the community.

Anyway, don't feel obligated to respond to this, it's just feedback. I understand you're doing the best you can to solve a really hard problem, and I do appreciate the work you put in. It's clear you are thoughtful and working hard, but more transparency would be greatly appreciated.

In general, sure. In this instance, this is a bad policy decision. The title of the article is substantiative. It only seems like link bait at the shallowest possible reading level.
I thought on HN we didn't editorialize titles. (Unless it's for character count restrictions)
The HN guideline is "Please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait." Does that answer your question?
One way to flag titles that you consider to be link bait would be to put quotation marks around them, as in "one weird trick that..."

The proliferation of quotation marks would probably give the impression of a somewhat sarcastic and superior editorial policy, but in all seriousness, software people are all about detailed quotation policies, literal references where appropriate, changelogs, version control, etc.

HN's stripped-down aesthetic is a bit Procrustean.

Fair enough, although I disagree that the title is link-bait.
I didn't know said war reporter's name, but, granted, I don't usually read long war-related stories from the likes of the NYTimes or Esquire (I find them overly biased). Even so, calling him the "best war reporter in a generation" is a bit of an over-statement.

He may be very talented, but as far as I know he didn't put online anything like guys like this did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rorjogZdwM (at 2:51 you can hear bullets flying just a couple of meters above him, microphone still in hand). Granted, what these guys in Syria do is not very smart, safety wise (no helmets, no anything), but they're doing war reporting by actually risking their lives almost every day. Also, they're not "Westerners" and shout "Allah akbar", so that may have something to say about their job not being recognized as "the best in a generation".

What makes a war reporter good is not that they do crazy shit, it is that they do a good job of reporting important stuff.

Unraveling the supply chains behind the bombs is an example of reporting important stuff.

It's certainly better than "One weird trick to stop reporting on wars" or "War profiteers hate this man, find out why".
It's funny, the current title "Why War Reporter C.J. Chivers Had to Suddenly Stop" struck me as click-bait. Why not say why, so we don't have to click to find out? "War reporter C.J. Chivers had to suddenly stop because of PTSD."

But I note that HN titles only get changed after they hit the frontpage - after clickbait has done its work.

Do you think C.J. Chivers might be the type of person to get upset over being "demoted" to "just 'a war reporter?'" The type of person the article reveals him to be suggests that it might not bother him all that much.
It's funny, the current title "Why War Reporter C.J. Chivers Had to Suddenly Stop" struck me as click-bait. Why not say why, so we don't have to click to find out?

War reporter C.J. Chivers had to suddenly stop because of PTDS.

Personally, I see the Buzfeed-ification of titles as an art form. Appreciate it while it lasts; we will be nostalgic for this soon.
was his title before the demotion, "Best War Reporter"?