5 ms·

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 I have no strong opinions either way, but o

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319 I have no strong opinions either way, but one meta-point I personally find interesting is: why don't journalists send a final draft of an article to the people involved and get a final round of comments? That just seems fair. Zimbardo claims some facts in the article are simply wrong, and either 1) those errors would be corrected, or 2) Zimbardo's response to those claims could stand side-by-side, instead of this bifurcated situation of articles and response articles. I think it would be even better if these arguments were in a wiki (or git) style instead of a series of articles.

akvadrako 8y ago
This sounds like a good feature of the future of science, but doesn't really fit into the current publishing model. They aren't vetting the papers published there more than on a very basic level. If you want to respond to a paper, you should write another paper titled "Comments on..."
marcoperaza 8y ago
News in general should be presented this way. But people don’t want to read what they didn’t consider or why they might be wrong.
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  Is there anyone who is doing news that way? I would pay good money for that.
dp141 8y ago
Having worked as a journalist previously, it's funny how this is often almost impossible in practice. Most of the time subjects don't want to comment, ignore, or responses are handled by a PR person who doesn't provide adequate comment. Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you, or the subject themselves bemoans how they were never given the opportunity to comment. Not that journalists are above reproach but I can't tell you how many times people got annoyed about not being able to to tell their side of the story or how X or Y was misrepresented when they were given countless ops to do put forward their own case. Attitude toward journalists these days, partly because of more professionalised PR is hugely adversarial rather than co-operative. Anyway /rant.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  Giving a statement to a journalist who has already made up their mind that you’re a bad guy is probably a mistake. Especially when it comes to politics, the other side will take whatever you say out of context and present it in the light most unfavorable to you. Morally-exculpatory nuance goes out the window, or buried at the bottom of the article (the part that we know no one reads). The headline will be spun to make you sound like a monster (see CNN’s headlines about Mr. Damore: that he thought “women are biologically unfit for tech jobs”). Most people should make all statements with the assistance of professional PR if they’re in such a situation. Just like how anyone being interrogated by the police should only speak with the advice with a lawyer, no matter how innocent they actually are.
  - dp141 8y ago
    True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.
    - nailer 8y ago
      There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying Fox is any better, and I think Donald Trump's a nasty and very hypocritical individual. But 1 and 3 are easily proven false on video, and 2 is clearly different from the content of the Damore memo, which you can read online. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to believe evidence about CNN fabricating any of these stories. As @Notradamus says before, giving a quote to a journalist allows them to shape the story. There is no reason to do that: you can self publish and still reach the masses in your own words, without risking someone else cutting video, lying about you, or denying something happened even when they filmed it themselves.
      - 8y ago
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Um. Pardon what might sound snarky / troll-esque... Because they're not really journalists? We have stop stop calling anything with four legs a cat whem it's a dog.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ebrook45 8y ago
In general, I think journalists do always at least try to get both sides, and responses to any criticism, and would keep going back and forth. (If they don't, it's a basic ethical failure.) And especially for technical articles, it's fairly common to send maybe a bullet list of all the points you're using from what they told you. The reason sending drafts around is considered bad journalistic practice comes from political and commercial interests. People will object to minutiae in your article not because it's wrong, but because it's inconvenient for them, including blocking publication etc. (Again, less relevant for science, but the most important pieces of journalism can be a battle to get published.) (A further point is that there do exist wiki-style summaries, more full and precise discussions, etc. But it's the pop media-style articles that have so much more reach, partly because of the often-erring attempts to simplify and make readable.)
dorfsmay 8y ago
Or he might just not react at all until you actually publish it. A real life Cunningham's law of sort. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
ckastner 8y ago
From the article of that HN discussion: > “Now, okay,” Zimbardo corrected himself on the phone with me. He then acknowledged that the informed consent forms which subjects signed had included an explicit safe phrase: “I quit the experiment.” Only that precise phrase would trigger their release. > “None of them said that,” Zimbardo said. “They said, ‘I want out. I want a doctor. I want my mother,’ etc., etc. Essentially I was saying, ‘You have to say, “I quit the experiment.”’” > But the informed consent forms that Zimbardo’s subjects signed, which are available online from Zimbardo’s own website, contain no mention of the phrase “I quit the experiment.” If the transcript of that phone discussion is thruthful and accurate, then Zimbardo lied with regards to that issue. I believe this is a huge issue. The original article makes the accusation that this was probably criminal action ("false imprisonment"). Yet it is not listed in the "Contentious Issues" section of the rebuttal. I didn't read the entire piece, but searching for certain keywords didn't turn up anything new, either. (Edit: just to be clear, claiming to be contractually entitled to hold people against their will unless they use an "explicit safe phrase" is nonsense to begin with, which is why I was hoping the rebuttal would address that argument.)
- Ntrails 8y ago
  > claiming to be contractually entitled to hold people against their will unless they use an "explicit safe phrase" is nonsense to begin with, which is why I was hoping the rebuttal would address that argument I agree, but at the same time safe-words exist for a reason. To allow people "playing the game" to tell what is a real out of character comment, and what is just part of the role. I honestly have no idea what the law says with respect to that. I think it's a tough area to play around in, and things can get real murky real quick. (I'm talking quite generally wrt the concept around consent with safe words etc)
  - bruthafez 8y ago
    You appear not to understand the concept of a safe word. The entire point of a safe word is that it is SHORT and MEMORABLE, not long and generic. "I quit the experiment" is a highly generic phrase, easily forgotten. Calling that phrase a "safe word" is absolutely absurd. Also, even if I accepted your argument that "I quit the experiment" Is somehow a "safe word"-- it still wouldn't be technically correct to say, because it's not a word, it's a phrase / sequence of words. Have you ever heard of a "Safe phrase?" Me neither. That's because making a "safe word" a phrase completely defeats the concept of a safe word. It needs to be short enough to be said and understood in as little time as possible. Making a "safe word" a phrase instead of a short and easily-communicable SINGLE WORD is so deceptive and intellectually dishonest that it's clearly a willful and intentional misunderstanding of the safe-word concept. It's trickery, pure and simple. Good safe word: "Banana." Bad safe word: "Stop." Terrible to the point of being unusable safe word: "I quit the experiment." Zimbardo's lack of addressing this issue in his so-called "rebuttal": pathetic.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pwinnski 8y ago
If we make this the policy, what do we do when the subject of a piece does not provide that final round of comments? Do the subjects of articles get to prevent publication by withholding comment? Or can the articles go ahead without those comments? Because what you're describing is generally what is done, what has been done for decades. This is why you often see a sentence near the end of an article stating that the subject declined to comment or did not respond when reached for comment. The assumption seems to be that people are interested in truthful reporting. In fact, most subjects do not want truthful reporting. They want favorable reporting, which is often not the same thing. There seems to be very clear evidence that Zimbardo lied, at least, and possibly acted extremely unethically, possibly even illegally. Why would he be interested in providing comments on a story stating so? What would be his motivation? By withholding his rebuttal until after original publication, he can base his response on which parts of the story are gaining traction, if any. In this case, he's doing just that, and ignoring several elements for which he has no good answer. It would be very nice if life were documented in a series of objective wiki pages, but so long as humans are involved, that will never be practical.

akvadrako 8y ago

This sounds like a good feature of the future of science, but doesn't really fit into the current publishing model. They aren't vetting the papers published there more than on a very basic level. If you want to respond to a paper, you should write another paper titled "Comments on..."

marcoperaza 8y ago

News in general should be presented this way. But people don’t want to read what they didn’t consider or why they might be wrong.

JasonFruit 8y ago
Is there anyone who is doing news that way? I would pay good money for that.

dp141 8y ago

Having worked as a journalist previously, it's funny how this is often almost impossible in practice. Most of the time subjects don't want to comment, ignore, or responses are handled by a PR person who doesn't provide adequate comment. Then, when you do publish and you get X detail wrong they blast you, or the subject themselves bemoans how they were never given the opportunity to comment. Not that journalists are above reproach but I can't tell you how many times people got annoyed about not being able to to tell their side of the story or how X or Y was misrepresented when they were given countless ops to do put forward their own case. Attitude toward journalists these days, partly because of more professionalised PR is hugely adversarial rather than co-operative. Anyway /rant.

marcoperaza 8y ago
Giving a statement to a journalist who has already made up their mind that you’re a bad guy is probably a mistake. Especially when it comes to politics, the other side will take whatever you say out of context and present it in the light most unfavorable to you. Morally-exculpatory nuance goes out the window, or buried at the bottom of the article (the part that we know no one reads). The headline will be spun to make you sound like a monster (see CNN’s headlines about Mr. Damore: that he thought “women are biologically unfit for tech jobs”). Most people should make all statements with the assistance of professional PR if they’re in such a situation. Just like how anyone being interrogated by the police should only speak with the advice with a lawyer, no matter how innocent they actually are.
- dp141 8y ago
  True, there are 100 per cent people on vendettas hatchet jobs but more reputable publishers are better at curtailing the ill-will of a single writer.
  - nailer 8y ago
    There are many people that believe CNN is a reputable publisher. Even after the Japan fish feeding hoax, fabrications about the contents of the Damore memo, and even denying their own "I'm sure in individual cases" interview with Obama administration re: child seperation this last 24 hours. Quick edit due to downmods: dear partisan Americans: I don't particularly care for either side of your politics. I'm not saying Fox is any better, and I think Donald Trump's a nasty and very hypocritical individual. But 1 and 3 are easily proven false on video, and 2 is clearly different from the content of the Damore memo, which you can read online. You're lying to yourself if you refuse to believe evidence about CNN fabricating any of these stories. As @Notradamus says before, giving a quote to a journalist allows them to shape the story. There is no reason to do that: you can self publish and still reach the masses in your own words, without risking someone else cutting video, lying about you, or denying something happened even when they filmed it themselves.
    - 8y ago

chiefalchemist 8y ago

Um. Pardon what might sound snarky / troll-esque... Because they're not really journalists? We have stop stop calling anything with four legs a cat whem it's a dog.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ebrook45 8y ago

In general, I think journalists do always at least try to get both sides, and responses to any criticism, and would keep going back and forth. (If they don't, it's a basic ethical failure.) And especially for technical articles, it's fairly common to send maybe a bullet list of all the points you're using from what they told you. The reason sending drafts around is considered bad journalistic practice comes from political and commercial interests. People will object to minutiae in your article not because it's wrong, but because it's inconvenient for them, including blocking publication etc. (Again, less relevant for science, but the most important pieces of journalism can be a battle to get published.) (A further point is that there do exist wiki-style summaries, more full and precise discussions, etc. But it's the pop media-style articles that have so much more reach, partly because of the often-erring attempts to simplify and make readable.)

dorfsmay 8y ago

Or he might just not react at all until you actually publish it. A real life Cunningham's law of sort. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law

ckastner 8y ago

From the article of that HN discussion: > “Now, okay,” Zimbardo corrected himself on the phone with me. He then acknowledged that the informed consent forms which subjects signed had included an explicit safe phrase: “I quit the experiment.” Only that precise phrase would trigger their release. > “None of them said that,” Zimbardo said. “They said, ‘I want out. I want a doctor. I want my mother,’ etc., etc. Essentially I was saying, ‘You have to say, “I quit the experiment.”’” > But the informed consent forms that Zimbardo’s subjects signed, which are available online from Zimbardo’s own website, contain no mention of the phrase “I quit the experiment.” If the transcript of that phone discussion is thruthful and accurate, then Zimbardo lied with regards to that issue. I believe this is a huge issue. The original article makes the accusation that this was probably criminal action ("false imprisonment"). Yet it is not listed in the "Contentious Issues" section of the rebuttal. I didn't read the entire piece, but searching for certain keywords didn't turn up anything new, either. (Edit: just to be clear, claiming to be contractually entitled to hold people against their will unless they use an "explicit safe phrase" is nonsense to begin with, which is why I was hoping the rebuttal would address that argument.)

Ntrails 8y ago
> claiming to be contractually entitled to hold people against their will unless they use an "explicit safe phrase" is nonsense to begin with, which is why I was hoping the rebuttal would address that argument I agree, but at the same time safe-words exist for a reason. To allow people "playing the game" to tell what is a real out of character comment, and what is just part of the role. I honestly have no idea what the law says with respect to that. I think it's a tough area to play around in, and things can get real murky real quick. (I'm talking quite generally wrt the concept around consent with safe words etc)
- bruthafez 8y ago
  You appear not to understand the concept of a safe word. The entire point of a safe word is that it is SHORT and MEMORABLE, not long and generic. "I quit the experiment" is a highly generic phrase, easily forgotten. Calling that phrase a "safe word" is absolutely absurd. Also, even if I accepted your argument that "I quit the experiment" Is somehow a "safe word"-- it still wouldn't be technically correct to say, because it's not a word, it's a phrase / sequence of words. Have you ever heard of a "Safe phrase?" Me neither. That's because making a "safe word" a phrase completely defeats the concept of a safe word. It needs to be short enough to be said and understood in as little time as possible. Making a "safe word" a phrase instead of a short and easily-communicable SINGLE WORD is so deceptive and intellectually dishonest that it's clearly a willful and intentional misunderstanding of the safe-word concept. It's trickery, pure and simple. Good safe word: "Banana." Bad safe word: "Stop." Terrible to the point of being unusable safe word: "I quit the experiment." Zimbardo's lack of addressing this issue in his so-called "rebuttal": pathetic.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pwinnski 8y ago

If we make this the policy, what do we do when the subject of a piece does not provide that final round of comments? Do the subjects of articles get to prevent publication by withholding comment? Or can the articles go ahead without those comments? Because what you're describing is generally what is done, what has been done for decades. This is why you often see a sentence near the end of an article stating that the subject declined to comment or did not respond when reached for comment. The assumption seems to be that people are interested in truthful reporting. In fact, most subjects do not want truthful reporting. They want favorable reporting, which is often not the same thing. There seems to be very clear evidence that Zimbardo lied, at least, and possibly acted extremely unethically, possibly even illegally. Why would he be interested in providing comments on a story stating so? What would be his motivation? By withholding his rebuttal until after original publication, he can base his response on which parts of the story are gaining traction, if any. In this case, he's doing just that, and ignoring several elements for which he has no good answer. It would be very nice if life were documented in a series of objective wiki pages, but so long as humans are involved, that will never be practical.