3 ms·

>I think the article takes a very balanced stance. Not really. It just does the usual cowardly trick of complaining about something by selectively citing cherr

>I think the article takes a very balanced stance. Not really. It just does the usual cowardly trick of complaining about something by selectively citing cherry-picked experts. Rather than this quote salad I'd very much prefer honest, direct criticism where the outlet or the authors make it clear what is their stance and why. That is the responsible thing to do. It wouldn't present opinion as news (as is the case with this article) and it would give a better opportunity for people to respond to criticism.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
starpilot 6y ago
Ah, a world without nuance. I think you're part of the problem (this is my "direct criticism") - you want polarized, this side or that, media, in a world that is increasingly complex. Not everything can be reduced to broadside attacks.
ksk 6y ago
Nothing personal, but I found it a bit ironic that your own criticism of the parent amounted to simply asserting "Not really" without addressing any specific points. You didn't say which experts you would have chosen, and why, and how you know that the author of the article has purposefully attempted to cherry pick specific people. Its one thing to simply dismiss someones work, its quite another to provide constructive criticism with actionable material.
IggleSniggle 6y ago
I prefer outlets that do their very best to attempt to remain impartial and present a "just the facts and all the facts please" view, even if we all know it's not 100% achievable. I agree with you, this article is not that. If you listen to any economist, healthcare provider, or logistics expert, they will all tell you that this was the prudent choice given the worst-case tail scenario, and that this resource is one that has continuing value for some time. But this article takes all that information and manages to paint that information in a negative light. It is "an opinion of the author" piece that even manages to express the opposite opinion FROM the expert opinions it reports.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

starpilot 6y ago

Ah, a world without nuance. I think you're part of the problem (this is my "direct criticism") - you want polarized, this side or that, media, in a world that is increasingly complex. Not everything can be reduced to broadside attacks.

ksk 6y ago

Nothing personal, but I found it a bit ironic that your own criticism of the parent amounted to simply asserting "Not really" without addressing any specific points. You didn't say which experts you would have chosen, and why, and how you know that the author of the article has purposefully attempted to cherry pick specific people. Its one thing to simply dismiss someones work, its quite another to provide constructive criticism with actionable material.

IggleSniggle 6y ago

I prefer outlets that do their very best to attempt to remain impartial and present a "just the facts and all the facts please" view, even if we all know it's not 100% achievable. I agree with you, this article is not that. If you listen to any economist, healthcare provider, or logistics expert, they will all tell you that this was the prudent choice given the worst-case tail scenario, and that this resource is one that has continuing value for some time. But this article takes all that information and manages to paint that information in a negative light. It is "an opinion of the author" piece that even manages to express the opposite opinion FROM the expert opinions it reports.