5 ms·

FWIW - Every time I have has personal knowledge of IT issue that made news, it made me lose faith in news. I'm not talking the minor, regular and downright ster

FWIW - Every time I have has personal knowledge of IT issue that made news, it made me lose faith in news. I'm not talking the minor, regular and downright stereotypical "Journalists don't understand technology", but major spins of context, impact, background and history. I'm currently on a system that's been making front pages in my country, and while the factual details of impact are largely accurate, what causes them, background, what can and should be done about it are wildly inaccurate (and not in the "reasonable people can disagree / many technical solutions have merit" sense; in the "what are you smoking / why does anybody think or believe that" sense :P )

Scaevolus 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect > the Gell-Mann amnesia effect defines the idea that "I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong."
- ForRealsies 8y ago
  Also, the news media doesn't report facts in so much that it creates narratives. Facebook was caught up in the anti-Cambridge Analytica narrative, just one skirmish in the anti-Trump campaign.
ekianjo 8y ago
treat news like gossips and you will feel much better. Its at about the same level, on average.
everdev 8y ago
Everyone I've met that's been interviewed about a controversial topic has been critical of the press. I haven't been sure if it's because they think their view is the only correct one or the media are truly that sloppy. My intuition says the latter because time is money and journalists are rarely experts in the fields they cover.
- hluska 8y ago
  I was once something of a journalist and noticed something interesting. When I interviewed someone about something controversial, they were significantly more likely to become defensive when I checked facts and quotes with them.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    When you did this? Why wouldn't all journalists always do this?
    - hluska 8y ago
      They should as it's a great tool to both guarantee accuracy, and ensure you're being fair. But, running an interview, getting people off their script, and still constantly checking and validating are all tough. I could see people forgetting it or just not being comfortable. I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        > I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later. This sounds interesting :) any stories you're able to share on this?
  - losteric 8y ago
    Sometimes the defensiveness arises because of our offensive media atmosphere... the feeling is some of the journalist's quotes/"facts" may be mis-attributed, taken out of context, or straight up lies hoping to get a response that can be quoted out of context. Even supportive facts/quotes can cause concern. Subject matter experts have a reputation on the line, while the journalist is often just looking for a story.
    - hluska 8y ago
      It's interesting because the act of constantly checking facts and quotes actually helps prevent words from being taken out of context. Good interviews can get away from both parties and solid questioning and verification ensures that the listener applies the correct context to the words.
losteric 8y ago
Be sure to investigate the journalist's background, and the article's audience. Articles written for laymen by a general-purpose news source often just pawn off IT stories on their most tech-literate writer. Don't put your trust in filler. News is still good. The HN front page surfaces good tech news, while reputable newspapers are still reputable in their area of expertise. Don't confuse the Gell-Mann [1] effect with Dunning-Kruger [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Scaevolus 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect > the Gell-Mann amnesia effect defines the idea that "I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong."

ForRealsies 8y ago
Also, the news media doesn't report facts in so much that it creates narratives. Facebook was caught up in the anti-Cambridge Analytica narrative, just one skirmish in the anti-Trump campaign.

ekianjo 8y ago

treat news like gossips and you will feel much better. Its at about the same level, on average.

everdev 8y ago

Everyone I've met that's been interviewed about a controversial topic has been critical of the press. I haven't been sure if it's because they think their view is the only correct one or the media are truly that sloppy. My intuition says the latter because time is money and journalists are rarely experts in the fields they cover.

hluska 8y ago
I was once something of a journalist and noticed something interesting. When I interviewed someone about something controversial, they were significantly more likely to become defensive when I checked facts and quotes with them.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  When you did this? Why wouldn't all journalists always do this?
  - hluska 8y ago
    They should as it's a great tool to both guarantee accuracy, and ensure you're being fair. But, running an interview, getting people off their script, and still constantly checking and validating are all tough. I could see people forgetting it or just not being comfortable. I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      > I've also been interviewed by journalists so skilled I didn't realize they were doing it until later. This sounds interesting :) any stories you're able to share on this?
- losteric 8y ago
  Sometimes the defensiveness arises because of our offensive media atmosphere... the feeling is some of the journalist's quotes/"facts" may be mis-attributed, taken out of context, or straight up lies hoping to get a response that can be quoted out of context. Even supportive facts/quotes can cause concern. Subject matter experts have a reputation on the line, while the journalist is often just looking for a story.
  - hluska 8y ago
    It's interesting because the act of constantly checking facts and quotes actually helps prevent words from being taken out of context. Good interviews can get away from both parties and solid questioning and verification ensures that the listener applies the correct context to the words.

losteric 8y ago

Be sure to investigate the journalist's background, and the article's audience. Articles written for laymen by a general-purpose news source often just pawn off IT stories on their most tech-literate writer. Don't put your trust in filler. News is still good. The HN front page surfaces good tech news, while reputable newspapers are still reputable in their area of expertise. Don't confuse the Gell-Mann [1] effect with Dunning-Kruger [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect