4 ms·

I don't really understand why the NYT is so terrible on ag policy issues--they could really do some of the heavy lifting here for us and at least try and evalua

I don't really understand why the NYT is so terrible on ag policy issues--they could really do some of the heavy lifting here for us and at least try and evaluate the claims being made--like severity and concurrence rates being claimed by the plaintiffs. The NYT apples to oranges study on rate of yield increase in countries that don't use GMOs (lower starting point) to countries that do (higher starting point) over the same time really undermines their editorial credibility on these kinds of issues with people, like me, who actually deal with agriculture.

marcell 10y ago
Gell-Mann effect? https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/ https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnes...
- phs318u 10y ago
  Thanks for posting. I hadn't heard of that.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  God knows their coverage of other topics I'm knowledgeable about isn't much better. They cover some political and recent-events stuff solidly (international topics much less so), but the domain-specific sucks well outside of agricultural policy. If ag policy and computer security and rock climbing are all poorly covered, I eventually have to assume they aren't doing any better on the topics I don't know. (Where, of course, "terrible" and "better than most" are not contradictory.)
nerdponx 10y ago
Is there a better source for reading about agriculture policy issues? I feel like all of my sources have a subtle anti-ag bias or a blatantly pro-ag one. Maybe an ag econ blog?
- CapTVK 10y ago
  Dr. Steve Savage's blog: "Applied Mythology" is a good start. http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ But I wonder what is "subtle anti-ag" or "blatantly pro-ag" means in this context. Can you give some examples?
  - nerdponx 10y ago
    Subtly anti-ag: one-sided articles in liberal news outlets about the dangers and social injustices associated with ag tech like GMOs, and books like The Omnivore's Dilemma. Purporting to be unbiased but might not be. Blatantly pro-ag: research funded by agribusiness or the USDA. Clearly intended to benefit the industry.
mmjaa 10y ago
Maybe its not the NYT's job to do these things, but rather just inform those who know better, such as yourself, that the docs have been un-sealed, and we can get better analyses of this previously-hidden material in order that lay people, such as myself, can better understand just how Monsanto have fooled so many people into poisoning the world with their highly profitable product.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  The problem is that lay people are the audience for NYT. Most of the population won't really understand it, honestly. If they wanted to make sure someone informed knew, they could have easily reached out. The truth is that this was published without because it is an issue that gets folks to read, making their job of selling newspapers easier.
  - mmjaa 10y ago
    Doesn't matter, still read about the crimes Monsanto commits in order to maintain its power over the worlds food supply ..
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    And this happens everywhere. My favorite example is the coverage of the Dawn Wall rock climb a few years back. It was 'news', but there was very little time pressure for coverage, there was (almost) no divisive/political aspect, and the technical aspects were easy to break down to lay-reader level. Plus, there were thousands of online guides and experts willing to clarify context and terminology for free. It should have been covered flawlessly, just because there was nothing standing in the way of that. And instead, the results were shameful. There was no real harm done, but most of the articles were less accurate than a Simple English Wikipedia page would have been. It made for an interesting demonstration of how atrocious any form of expert-knowledge news is, even by sites like the NYT, even on uncontroversial topics.
- wcummings 10y ago
  That sounds a lot like journalism, which is the nyt's job

marcell 10y ago

Gell-Mann effect? https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/ https://seekerblog.com/2006/01/31/the-murray-gell-mann-amnes...

phs318u 10y ago
Thanks for posting. I hadn't heard of that.
Bartweiss 10y ago
God knows their coverage of other topics I'm knowledgeable about isn't much better. They cover some political and recent-events stuff solidly (international topics much less so), but the domain-specific sucks well outside of agricultural policy. If ag policy and computer security and rock climbing are all poorly covered, I eventually have to assume they aren't doing any better on the topics I don't know. (Where, of course, "terrible" and "better than most" are not contradictory.)

nerdponx 10y ago

Is there a better source for reading about agriculture policy issues? I feel like all of my sources have a subtle anti-ag bias or a blatantly pro-ag one. Maybe an ag econ blog?

CapTVK 10y ago
Dr. Steve Savage's blog: "Applied Mythology" is a good start. http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ http://appliedmythology.blogspot.com/ But I wonder what is "subtle anti-ag" or "blatantly pro-ag" means in this context. Can you give some examples?
- nerdponx 10y ago
  Subtly anti-ag: one-sided articles in liberal news outlets about the dangers and social injustices associated with ag tech like GMOs, and books like The Omnivore's Dilemma. Purporting to be unbiased but might not be. Blatantly pro-ag: research funded by agribusiness or the USDA. Clearly intended to benefit the industry.

mmjaa 10y ago

Maybe its not the NYT's job to do these things, but rather just inform those who know better, such as yourself, that the docs have been un-sealed, and we can get better analyses of this previously-hidden material in order that lay people, such as myself, can better understand just how Monsanto have fooled so many people into poisoning the world with their highly profitable product.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago
The problem is that lay people are the audience for NYT. Most of the population won't really understand it, honestly. If they wanted to make sure someone informed knew, they could have easily reached out. The truth is that this was published without because it is an issue that gets folks to read, making their job of selling newspapers easier.
- mmjaa 10y ago
  Doesn't matter, still read about the crimes Monsanto commits in order to maintain its power over the worlds food supply ..
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  And this happens everywhere. My favorite example is the coverage of the Dawn Wall rock climb a few years back. It was 'news', but there was very little time pressure for coverage, there was (almost) no divisive/political aspect, and the technical aspects were easy to break down to lay-reader level. Plus, there were thousands of online guides and experts willing to clarify context and terminology for free. It should have been covered flawlessly, just because there was nothing standing in the way of that. And instead, the results were shameful. There was no real harm done, but most of the articles were less accurate than a Simple English Wikipedia page would have been. It made for an interesting demonstration of how atrocious any form of expert-knowledge news is, even by sites like the NYT, even on uncontroversial topics.
wcummings 10y ago
That sounds a lot like journalism, which is the nyt's job