5 ms·

As a journalist who's a CS dropout, then later a BoA, and who works as a web dev on the side: I agree. BUT: 1) The journalist's work is sometime a soul-crushi

As a journalist who's a CS dropout, then later a BoA, and who works as a web dev on the side: I agree. BUT: 1) The journalist's work is sometime a soul-crushing effort to turn complex things that can't really be made simple into a readable summary. I cover Quantum tech as someone who has at least a grasp of physics: it's insanely difficult. 2) Journalists that behave like the ones you describe, are bad for the whole profession. What you describe is a systemic problem in journalism, which I think it's especially bad in the big newsrooms of big newspapers that are struggling to survive or have still to figure out a proper business model for their future. That said, I think there are a lot journalist who, like yours truly, tend to stick to what they've studied and know. I would never write about medicine, but I know I'm able to write about tech avoiding the complete lack of knowledge some colleagues show. The real problem: this works for me as a freelancer. Staff writers are considered fungible, and they have to adapt to whatever needs to be written. Sorry for the sparse thoughts, I have to much in my mind about this, but not enough time to put it down properly right now. I still wanted to chime in, though. :) P.s. Journalism schools are also part of the problem. They form a cohort of people who think they can do exactly that: write about anything. It's bullshit, and it does not work well for the category. The best colleagues I know all come from very different study fields, and they sort of fell into journalism by chance.

cstross 6y ago
> Journalism schools are also part of the problem. They form a cohort of people who think they can do exactly that: write about anything. It's bullshit, and it does not work well for the category. This. 100% this. (I spent about a decade in the trenches as first a part-time then full-time tech journalist -- wrote a column for the UK Computer Shopper for several years -- and the reason CS's feature quality stayed high was because the editors recruited techies who could write and trained them in the basics of journalism, rather than hiring generalist journalists and expecting them to pick up a CS degree by osmosis.)
SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
It is not a journalist's job to be an expert in the subject they are covering. That's why journalists interview experts, and why journalists don't use themselves as sources. If you are writing from your own knowledge rather than attributing your information to others, I would argue that you aren't really practicing journalism. (There's nothing wrong with that, I just think it's something else.)
- bookofjoe 6y ago
  The problem here is that it's easy to find an expert to mirror the point of view of the journalist, and thus make any point of view seem objective.
- cousin_it 6y ago
  Would it be too much to ask that, when a journalist writes on a topic they don't understand, they should ask an expert "hey can you sanity check this" before publishing?
  - aj3 6y ago
    It's not necessarily malice. Experts rarely have time to review some bullshit for free and the tight timelines don't help.
    - cousin_it 6y ago
      If the journalist talked to the expert while writing the article, the expert will always be happy for a chance to sanity check. The only reason that's so often not done is because the journalist is on a power trip.
    - mattkrause 6y ago
      I asked some science journalists about this on Twitter. Tight deadlines are a problem, but the bigger issue is that there’s some sort of journalistic principle about not letting “sources” see—-or approve—-the completed article. I don’t totally understand why, but I think they were a little unclear on what most scientists want, which is more like checking language and details (a lot of words that seem synonymous aren't in technical contexts) than controlling the overall message.
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        Seems like the obvious argument for open, post-publication review.
Que1rei0 6y ago
> tend to stick to what they've studied and know. Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith. While what you're suggesting seems common sense and is indeed better than current situation, I think it could be even better if rather than having one journalist writing one piece, every piece was a joint effort by several journalists, some expert on the subject and some not.
- belval 6y ago
  One could argue that in your situation a journalist trained in CS is simply not the educated party that should be writing a piece anyway. Knowing CS doesn't mean you understand the ecological impact of technology, you'd want someone with an ecology degree.
  - Que1rei0 6y ago
    Sure, but then that journalist doesn't know about technology and is biased toward ecology :) Although, I guess that rather than having experts and non-experts co-writing the article, it would even be better to have experts on all identified topics. So here, it would be both the journalist with a technological background and the one with an ecological background. It seems a bit unrealistic to have experts on all subjects at hand, though, so I guess mixing non experts could at least be a minimum effort.
- pflats 6y ago
  > Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith. All journalists are biased. Pretending they can be unbiased is silly. Beyond that, a journalist specialized in CS writing about the ecological impact of technology is no longer "sticking to what they've studied and know" any more than a sportswriter would be writing about the ecological impact of a new stadium.
- derefr 6y ago
bregma 6y ago
Ah, yes, it's the 90% of bad journalists that give the rest a poor reputation.
frank2 6y ago
What is a BoA?
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  Bachelor of Arts I guess.
- dan_hawkins 6y ago
  Maybe Bachelor of Arts aka BA or AB? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts

cstross 6y ago

> Journalism schools are also part of the problem. They form a cohort of people who think they can do exactly that: write about anything. It's bullshit, and it does not work well for the category. This. 100% this. (I spent about a decade in the trenches as first a part-time then full-time tech journalist -- wrote a column for the UK Computer Shopper for several years -- and the reason CS's feature quality stayed high was because the editors recruited techies who could write and trained them in the basics of journalism, rather than hiring generalist journalists and expecting them to pick up a CS degree by osmosis.)

SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago

It is not a journalist's job to be an expert in the subject they are covering. That's why journalists interview experts, and why journalists don't use themselves as sources. If you are writing from your own knowledge rather than attributing your information to others, I would argue that you aren't really practicing journalism. (There's nothing wrong with that, I just think it's something else.)

bookofjoe 6y ago
The problem here is that it's easy to find an expert to mirror the point of view of the journalist, and thus make any point of view seem objective.
cousin_it 6y ago
Would it be too much to ask that, when a journalist writes on a topic they don't understand, they should ask an expert "hey can you sanity check this" before publishing?
- aj3 6y ago
  It's not necessarily malice. Experts rarely have time to review some bullshit for free and the tight timelines don't help.
  - cousin_it 6y ago
    If the journalist talked to the expert while writing the article, the expert will always be happy for a chance to sanity check. The only reason that's so often not done is because the journalist is on a power trip.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    I asked some science journalists about this on Twitter. Tight deadlines are a problem, but the bigger issue is that there’s some sort of journalistic principle about not letting “sources” see—-or approve—-the completed article. I don’t totally understand why, but I think they were a little unclear on what most scientists want, which is more like checking language and details (a lot of words that seem synonymous aren't in technical contexts) than controlling the overall message.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      Seems like the obvious argument for open, post-publication review.

Que1rei0 6y ago

> tend to stick to what they've studied and know. Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith. While what you're suggesting seems common sense and is indeed better than current situation, I think it could be even better if rather than having one journalist writing one piece, every piece was a joint effort by several journalists, some expert on the subject and some not.

belval 6y ago
One could argue that in your situation a journalist trained in CS is simply not the educated party that should be writing a piece anyway. Knowing CS doesn't mean you understand the ecological impact of technology, you'd want someone with an ecology degree.
- Que1rei0 6y ago
  Sure, but then that journalist doesn't know about technology and is biased toward ecology :) Although, I guess that rather than having experts and non-experts co-writing the article, it would even be better to have experts on all identified topics. So here, it would be both the journalist with a technological background and the one with an ecological background. It seems a bit unrealistic to have experts on all subjects at hand, though, so I guess mixing non experts could at least be a minimum effort.
pflats 6y ago
> Isn't there a serious risk of bias, there, though? For example, if a journalist is specialized in CS and have to write about the ecological impact of technology, you can expect them to be biased in favor of technology, even in good faith. All journalists are biased. Pretending they can be unbiased is silly. Beyond that, a journalist specialized in CS writing about the ecological impact of technology is no longer "sticking to what they've studied and know" any more than a sportswriter would be writing about the ecological impact of a new stadium.
derefr 6y ago

bregma 6y ago

Ah, yes, it's the 90% of bad journalists that give the rest a poor reputation.

frank2 6y ago

What is a BoA?

fauigerzigerk 6y ago
Bachelor of Arts I guess.
dan_hawkins 6y ago
Maybe Bachelor of Arts aka BA or AB? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts