5 ms·
> The usual way you produce journalism or policy research on a technical question like this is that you hire someone with expertise in journalism or public poli
by ambicapter 7y ago
> The usual way you produce journalism or policy research on a technical question like this is that you hire someone with expertise in journalism or public policy to produce a report. That person calls up relevant experts and asks them to talk, for free, about their areas of expertise. This is one of the great perks of my job: I call up lawyers and other professionals who ordinarily charge hundreds of dollars an hour for their services, and they talk to me for free, whether because they find it interesting, because they have a message they want to get out in the world, or simply because they like seeing their names quoted in print.
This is probably uncouth for Hacker News, but let me just say: Aaaahahahahahahahahha. Is there really an expectation of accuracy if your method is calling up an expert and asking him to pontificate for a little bit? Whatever happened to accounting? Shouldn't the way you go about this is run the numbers, find the differences in isolated segments AND THEN ask the expert why such a difference exists?
I think it a large discredit to this journalist and the organization he/she works for if they think this is how they're going to spread important, useful information to the masses.
- tdb7893 7y agoThe experts often have already done that work already, often that's how they became an expert.
- yellowstuff 7y agoI think the basic idea of investigatory journalism is that the journalist is not necessarily an expert in the topic they write about, but is good at finding informed sources, getting overlapping information from all of them, and determining who can be trusted on which facts.
- ambicapter 7y agoGetting overlapping information seems like a good play, but the determination of who can be trusted on which facts (again, as a non-expert) seems like it'd be drowning in personal bias.
- spenczar5 7y agoWhat is your alternative proposal, if you were to (say) do research on the likely future of US-China trade policy, to make it concrete?
- ambicapter 7y agoI would ask an expert :) But therein lies the rub, I wouldn't ask an expert who was known for profiting off of US-China trade policy news. My spider sense fires here because the GAO is asking the contractors, who benefit from the infrastructure project corruption, why is contracting so expensive and complex? And lo and behold, the contractors tell him, its too complex a question to answer. Fancy that.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ip26 7y agoThey can hardly become a subject matter expert, the same way a jury can't. But they can compare the information different sources provided, research the reliability of a source, etc. It's ridiculous to think the only acceptable way of finding information is to do it yourself, especially if you don't happen to personally be a small army of accountants.
- jfengel 7y agoAs other respondents have said, a good journalist does not rely on a single expert. Good reporting cross-checks multiple sources, often seeking out conflicting ones, and trying to form a coherent story out of that. Unfortunately, that often leads to false dichotomy. It's not sufficient to seek out a contradictory source... especially if that contradictory source is not credible. But it's very exciting journalism to say, "We spoke to X and Y, who bitterly disagree with each other. We'll gloss over the fact that X has a PhD and the support of the entire community, while Y is funded by motivated donors and has been repeatedly debunked. We'll go to Y every single time because they only fund the one." So yeah, journalism is in trouble. Not for reliance on experts, but for failing to rely on themselves when a story seems fishy... and for relying on the public to care about whether they have or not.
- travisoneill1 7y agoWhy is it that you assume that a PhD or community support makes someone right? And surely he gets his paycheck from someone just as Y does, right?
- jfengel 7y agoIt doesn't, in itself. But when a PhD with very widespread support disagrees with somebody so lacking in the relevant discipline that they keep making the same elementary mistakes over and over in support of a preconceived notion, it's a really strong sign that they're not really talking on an equal footing. It's not always easy to rule out outsider with novel ideas, but there are lists of warning signs of crankery and motivated reasoning that a journalist should be able to identify. There will always be a gray area, but that's no excuse for lazy journalists to repeatedly seek out anybody willing to disagree just for the purpose of presenting an equal-and-opposite story.
- cousin_it 7y ago> Good reporting cross-checks multiple sources, often seeking out conflicting ones, and trying to form a coherent story out of that. To me such reporting is not good enough. Have you read Asimov's Foundation? There's a character named Lord Dorwin who's interested in finding he truth about a certain subject, and whose method is to analyze and reconcile the opinions of "old masters" who have "covered the ground" before. Asimov explains quite scathingly why that doesn't work. Grandparent comment is right: a reporter needs to be hands-on with the topic. If you write about overspending, and you only asked experts but never added two numbers in Excel yourself, what makes you qualified to weigh the opinions of experts?