4 ms·
Also, Murdoch has a $5B investment in the WSJ. The value of that investment depends on the credibility of their business reporting. Spiking stories to protect
by auntienomen 8y ago
Also, Murdoch has a $5B investment in the WSJ. The value of that investment depends on the credibility of their business reporting. Spiking stories to protect a much smaller investment doesn't make a lot of sense.
- mhneu 8y agoExactly. His long term incentives were aligned with letting the story run.
- jerf 8y agoSo, as I write this, there are what, 5 distinct possible negative motives for Murdoch? As the rationalists say, if you can explain anything, you can explain nothing. I'm not saying he did it for good reasons. I'm saying it's plain that nobody here knows why he did it, and lack of knowledge is lack of knowledge, not license to just fill in the blanks with whatever you like. (Our brains are very good at that, and the careful person must be in a constant fight against that tendency.) But jerf, I already know he's a bad person. You are justified in using past history to do a certain amount of broad concluding (nothing as specific as the 5+ hypotheses given), yes, but bear in mind you are not justified in "A: Murdoch is bad B: Here's a thing he did C: I bet he did B for a bad reason because A therefore D: Murdoch is even worse than I thought". You are "spending" confidence when you do this, not increasing it. (Another very common cognitive error. Not sure I've seen this on any fallacy lists. Probably needs to be, and given a name.)
- auntienomen 8y agoI don't consider my explanation to be a negative one. He didn't spike the story because he's not stupid.