4 ms·

This article is amateur. > And despite what Donald Trump, the Kremlin’s Executive in Charge of U.S. Operations, would have you believe It's hard to take an ar

This article is amateur. > And despite what Donald Trump, the Kremlin’s Executive in Charge of U.S. Operations, would have you believe It's hard to take an article seriously when it uses a tone like this (even if there is some truth behind it).

sbov 8y ago
I'm amazed you're getting downvoted. I would love to share this article with conservative friends, but potshots like the above make it pointless. If you want to inform anyone other than your own echo chamber, this article is pointless.
pohl 8y ago
There once was a time on HN when it was customary to respond to a comment like this with a referral to Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, suggesting that it might be better to aim higher than "responding to tone."
- EpicEng 8y ago
  It's not just tone though; it's an obvious journalistic bias. It couldn't possibly be _more_ obvious. It's nonsensical to pretend that doesn't affect the author's credibility.
  - pohl 8y ago
    Someone should probably mention that calling the source biased is just circumstantial ad hominem, which is even lower on the pyramid than responding to tone.
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      >Someone should probably mention that calling the source biased is just circumstantial ad hominem, which is even lower on the pyramid than responding to tone. Yeah, that gets thrown around a lot by people who like to parrot logical fallacies to sound smarter than they are. In reality credibility matters. A lot. Especially for journalists. You're trusting this person to report the facts accurately. You're trusting them to report fully and not omit relevant details. You're trusting this person to commit to an investigation which is as impartial as possible. All of those require trust, and trust is built by credibility, which is built by demonstrating that you do your job well. So no, of course it doesn't mean that everything else in the article is incorrect. Of course, I never said that (straw man on your part? Thought you may enjoy that.) It _does_ mean that I will take anything I read afterwards with a grain of salt.
      - pohl 8y ago
        I see it as a tradeoff. If someone wears their bias on their sleeve, you know where they're coming from. If not, you have no way of knowing whether you're reading someone who is judiciously adhering to a process that minimizes bias, or whether they are deliberately concealing their bias, or whether they are so deluded that they imagine themselves to have no bias whatsoever, which would be absurd. Regardless, you're still advocating for a low form of argument.
        makomk 8y ago
        Well, the article got pulled, so I guess it was a pretty solid warning sign after all: "Editor’s Note: This story was an opinion piece asserting there was evidence that hackers changed votes in the 2016 election. However, a number of statements in the piece are disputed by experts. As a result, we have pulled it down for editorial review, and will update it once that review is completed."
        pohl 8y ago
        The editors are operating a full three levels higher (than “responding to tone”) in the hierarchy of disagreement. They’re setting a good example. (Although a bit later than ideal.)
thrden 8y ago
its part of the gawker family so its not surprising that it uses non-professional language

sbov 8y ago

I'm amazed you're getting downvoted. I would love to share this article with conservative friends, but potshots like the above make it pointless. If you want to inform anyone other than your own echo chamber, this article is pointless.

pohl 8y ago

There once was a time on HN when it was customary to respond to a comment like this with a referral to Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, suggesting that it might be better to aim higher than "responding to tone."

EpicEng 8y ago
It's not just tone though; it's an obvious journalistic bias. It couldn't possibly be _more_ obvious. It's nonsensical to pretend that doesn't affect the author's credibility.
- pohl 8y ago
  Someone should probably mention that calling the source biased is just circumstantial ad hominem, which is even lower on the pyramid than responding to tone.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >Someone should probably mention that calling the source biased is just circumstantial ad hominem, which is even lower on the pyramid than responding to tone. Yeah, that gets thrown around a lot by people who like to parrot logical fallacies to sound smarter than they are. In reality credibility matters. A lot. Especially for journalists. You're trusting this person to report the facts accurately. You're trusting them to report fully and not omit relevant details. You're trusting this person to commit to an investigation which is as impartial as possible. All of those require trust, and trust is built by credibility, which is built by demonstrating that you do your job well. So no, of course it doesn't mean that everything else in the article is incorrect. Of course, I never said that (straw man on your part? Thought you may enjoy that.) It _does_ mean that I will take anything I read afterwards with a grain of salt.
    - pohl 8y ago
      I see it as a tradeoff. If someone wears their bias on their sleeve, you know where they're coming from. If not, you have no way of knowing whether you're reading someone who is judiciously adhering to a process that minimizes bias, or whether they are deliberately concealing their bias, or whether they are so deluded that they imagine themselves to have no bias whatsoever, which would be absurd. Regardless, you're still advocating for a low form of argument.
      - makomk 8y ago
        Well, the article got pulled, so I guess it was a pretty solid warning sign after all: "Editor’s Note: This story was an opinion piece asserting there was evidence that hackers changed votes in the 2016 election. However, a number of statements in the piece are disputed by experts. As a result, we have pulled it down for editorial review, and will update it once that review is completed."
        pohl 8y ago
        The editors are operating a full three levels higher (than “responding to tone”) in the hierarchy of disagreement. They’re setting a good example. (Although a bit later than ideal.)

thrden 8y ago

its part of the gawker family so its not surprising that it uses non-professional language