4 ms·

> I think that if you read the voice of the Economist, it puts on an air of long experience and an expert level understanding I think it's the content of a te

by mfukar 10y ago

> I think that if you read the voice of the Economist, it puts on an air of long experience and an expert level understanding I think it's the content of a text, not its label, that displays understanding and experience. Arguing only experts should be writing for X because it puts on an air of expertise is getting causality backwards: a publication gets its reputation from its work.

closeparen 10y ago
The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think. If you are not an expert in economics or international relations, who's to say that what you already think is more accurate than what you read in the Economist? Maybe you can check the particular arguments given for minor points, but not for "does this accurately portray the facts on the ground?" or "would a subject matter expert find this claim reasonable?" The latter can be false, for example, when something is plausibly argued and technically correct but missing the point. Reputation and credentials are important because reading something like this is an act of trust. It matters whether the source is competent and trustworthy. However, I don't think it's a problem for the trust to apply at a publication level rather than an individual author level. Editors are a thing. If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it?
- arkades 10y ago
  Proxy indicators. The economist writes on topics on which I am an expert. It writes on many topics on which I am not. The topics on which I have expertise I find to generally be (a) reasonably well-written, and (b) incorrect within the recognizable error-margins of "well researched, clearly spoke to a lot of people that knew their shit, didn't see much in the way of terrible mis-comprehensions." That's better than the vast majority of published material on the topics on which I have expertise. I take that as a proxy indicator of the quality of information in the remainder of the magazine. It's not particularly known as being expert in My Topic, so if they handle that well, the rest is reasonably unlikely to be trash. It can, of course, be trash, and this doesn't guarantee any particular piece of writing isn't, but on the whole, I think my conclusion is reasonable.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    > That's better than the vast majority of published material on the topics on which I have expertise. Exactly my experience on topics I know - the author probably spoke to several experts, has enough grasp of it that he can meaningfully excerpt and summarise their opinion, doesn't make silly mistakes, and most likely has the stated facts absolutely right.
- mfukar 10y ago
  > The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think. If that were true, it'd be one more reason not to try to give credence to unfalsifiable publications by linking them to experts of various fields, or even editors-who-once-took-a-course-on-T. But I think it's not true at all. The thought process on most publications like Economist is one most people can follow for its validity, precisely because it's not state-of-the-art mathematics (or even economics). Even though the domain experts can immediately judge its correctness, I think it's important for anyone to be able to at least identify when they're reading something they can't verify as correct, and not take publication X's "word" for it. > Editors are a thing. Editors are there to make sure the news piece conforms to certain standards, but that's not the standards of the readers. > If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it? That was nowhere near my point, and I don't see why you base your comment around it. My point is I am (or want to be) able to read a piece and judge it on its own, rather than who wrote it.

by mfukar 10y ago

closeparen 10y ago

The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think. If you are not an expert in economics or international relations, who's to say that what you already think is more accurate than what you read in the Economist? Maybe you can check the particular arguments given for minor points, but not for "does this accurately portray the facts on the ground?" or "would a subject matter expert find this claim reasonable?" The latter can be false, for example, when something is plausibly argued and technically correct but missing the point. Reputation and credentials are important because reading something like this is an act of trust. It matters whether the source is competent and trustworthy. However, I don't think it's a problem for the trust to apply at a publication level rather than an individual author level. Editors are a thing. If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it?

arkades 10y ago
Proxy indicators. The economist writes on topics on which I am an expert. It writes on many topics on which I am not. The topics on which I have expertise I find to generally be (a) reasonably well-written, and (b) incorrect within the recognizable error-margins of "well researched, clearly spoke to a lot of people that knew their shit, didn't see much in the way of terrible mis-comprehensions." That's better than the vast majority of published material on the topics on which I have expertise. I take that as a proxy indicator of the quality of information in the remainder of the magazine. It's not particularly known as being expert in My Topic, so if they handle that well, the rest is reasonably unlikely to be trash. It can, of course, be trash, and this doesn't guarantee any particular piece of writing isn't, but on the whole, I think my conclusion is reasonable.
- FabHK 10y ago
  > That's better than the vast majority of published material on the topics on which I have expertise. Exactly my experience on topics I know - the author probably spoke to several experts, has enough grasp of it that he can meaningfully excerpt and summarise their opinion, doesn't make silly mistakes, and most likely has the stated facts absolutely right.
mfukar 10y ago
> The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think. If that were true, it'd be one more reason not to try to give credence to unfalsifiable publications by linking them to experts of various fields, or even editors-who-once-took-a-course-on-T. But I think it's not true at all. The thought process on most publications like Economist is one most people can follow for its validity, precisely because it's not state-of-the-art mathematics (or even economics). Even though the domain experts can immediately judge its correctness, I think it's important for anyone to be able to at least identify when they're reading something they can't verify as correct, and not take publication X's "word" for it. > Editors are a thing. Editors are there to make sure the news piece conforms to certain standards, but that's not the standards of the readers. > If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it? That was nowhere near my point, and I don't see why you base your comment around it. My point is I am (or want to be) able to read a piece and judge it on its own, rather than who wrote it.