You've hit on the right word - sentiment. Prejudgement, reaction, emotional appeal, and biasing of expectiations before one word of content is read.
I'd really go further and say that many of the reactions here have a lot more with Kottke's framing than even anything to do with The New Yorker, if the relative dearth of comments and adoration on the thread about the writer's actual post at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2127876 is anything to go by.
As I write this, not much at all there about how awesome, well-written, and insightful those three paragraphs are.
And to more directly respond: not really. This blog post could be utterly wrong and, absent someone screaming bloody murder enough to embarrass The New Yorker, not affect their reputation one iota.
These things are aggregate in nature. In the specific, things aren't so harmonious. Mistakes get made; Pulitzers get awarded to frauds.
That's why I get dismayed at people turning off their brains and pointing to reputation.
This blog post could be utterly wrong and, absent someone screaming bloody murder enough to embarrass The New Yorker, not affect their reputation one iota.
Except that if it were utterly wrong, somebody would scream bloody murder, and it would affect their reputation. Perhaps not overnight, but these sorts of things add up in the long run. This is exactly why TC is held in such low regard around here.
That's why I get dismayed at people turning off their brains and pointing to reputation.
Huh? The only sentiment I see being expressed here is: "Because they have professional writers, editors, and fact checkers, I trust the New Yorker more than TechCrunch." Not sure where you're getting the impression anyone is "turning off their brains and pointing to reputation"
You seem to think that people are applauding the New Yorker for being the New Yorker. They aren't. They are applauding the New Yorker for not being TC or Mashable.
