3 ms·

Credibility is important, but credulity is always a risk. People would be cautious and skeptical if these exact words were posted on TechCrunch. Instead, we'r

Credibility is important, but credulity is always a risk. People would be cautious and skeptical if these exact words were posted on TechCrunch. Instead, we're hearing how awesome and correct this article must be because it's posted on newyorker.com.

tptacek 16y ago
I think that in its length, this thread has attenuated reality a little bit. The reality is, the New Yorker piece was more spare, less breathless, and better reported than a typical TechCrunch posting. The New Yorker byline is not the only thing that makes Kottke think the article is awesome. The other side to your argument is, yes, the New Yorker byline does make Kottke think it's "correct". It does the same thing for most people, probably including you. It probably is correct. You said it yourself: credibility is important. TechCrunch has done a lot of stuff to burn credibility instead of building it.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  The reality is that Kottke is mostly wowed because of some decent prose. I read the post and wonder how much of this is true (if "correct" is too alarming a word). How objective is Auletta about Schmidt? How reliable are the unnamed "associates" whose mention thrilled Kottke? I don't have an opinion about whether this post is accurate because I don't have enough information to make that judgement. This post doesn't provide that information, and I haven't happened to read Auletta's book, or even any reviews or criticism of his book. I don't dismiss it like I would anything remotely questionable from TechCrunch, but I also don't buy in because of the brand in this case. I see Kottke and people in these comments making firm declarations of confidence based on, according to them, some clean prose and a brand name.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Or perhaps shorter: people should be reasonably skeptical in approaching articles like this. That they should be much more wary of a tainted source like TechCrunch does not change that first fact.

tptacek 16y ago

I think that in its length, this thread has attenuated reality a little bit. The reality is, the New Yorker piece was more spare, less breathless, and better reported than a typical TechCrunch posting. The New Yorker byline is not the only thing that makes Kottke think the article is awesome. The other side to your argument is, yes, the New Yorker byline does make Kottke think it's "correct". It does the same thing for most people, probably including you. It probably is correct. You said it yourself: credibility is important. TechCrunch has done a lot of stuff to burn credibility instead of building it.

Semiapies 16y ago
The reality is that Kottke is mostly wowed because of some decent prose. I read the post and wonder how much of this is true (if "correct" is too alarming a word). How objective is Auletta about Schmidt? How reliable are the unnamed "associates" whose mention thrilled Kottke? I don't have an opinion about whether this post is accurate because I don't have enough information to make that judgement. This post doesn't provide that information, and I haven't happened to read Auletta's book, or even any reviews or criticism of his book. I don't dismiss it like I would anything remotely questionable from TechCrunch, but I also don't buy in because of the brand in this case. I see Kottke and people in these comments making firm declarations of confidence based on, according to them, some clean prose and a brand name.
Semiapies 16y ago
Or perhaps shorter: people should be reasonably skeptical in approaching articles like this. That they should be much more wary of a tainted source like TechCrunch does not change that first fact.