3 ms·

The New Yorker reporter said "creditable reason". "Creditable" usually means "somewhat praiseworthy" so it's weird phrasing; but I interpret the praise as going

The New Yorker reporter said "creditable reason". "Creditable" usually means "somewhat praiseworthy" so it's weird phrasing; but I interpret the praise as going to the reporter for finding it, implying that the reason would be good. Or perhaps the author actually meant "credible" (or the alternative definition of "creditable" that's a near-synonym), directly stating that it's justified. Either way, I don't see any implication that the negative coverage would be anything but warranted. Where are you getting that? As many other posters noted, there's also an e-book, and the article itself quoted from the blog. So are you asking me to prove the nonexistence of an NYT policy banning the use of any of those sources, despite the New Yorker somehow figuring it out? It's hard to prove a negative, but I could see what I could find online. But do you really think the burden of proof is on me here? Perhaps your impulse is to defend the New Yorker reporter here, and you think the burden of proof for accusing him (of false accusations against Alexander) should be high; but the reporter is accusing Alexander (of having written something that would be a "creditable reason" for negative coverage), so shouldn't the burden be on him? I didn't say the article was a hit piece, and I don't think it was one. Another poster called it a "smoothed-over hit piece", and that seems closer to me, a piece designed to leave both a negative impression and an impression that Alexander has been treated fairly.

adamsea 6y ago
So, creditable also can mean “worthy of belief” which I think is more relevant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditable But the very fact we are arguing over the meaning of a single word is, I think, kind of a signal of an anti-pattern, so to speak. It’s like bikeshedding over a single line of code. Sure, in certain cases that single line might be super important (part of an algorithm, performance critical, etc). Often however there’s a range of acceptable ways to write a single line of code and, if we want to analyze and understand a codebase, it only makes so much sense to spend so much time on that one line. There’s a lot more code to look at as well and to understand how something works or the intent of the author of the code we should look at individual lines in the context of the whole. Plus if we’re going to get that specific about individual words, then it’s even more important to be comprehensive and correct and not jump to one of several plausible meanings ;).
- tripletao 6y ago
  That's the definition I meant by "or the alternative definition of 'creditable' that's a near-synonym [for 'credible']". I agree that might be what the author intended, but I don't see how that would imply the negative coverage would be unwarranted? If the reason is worthy of belief, then doesn't that mean it's probably a good reason, and the coverage is warranted? Though I agree that judging a long piece of writing by a few quotes out of context is generally bad--indeed, I'm surprised no one suggested that I've done the same thing to the New Yorker reporter that Alexander was afraid the NYT would do to him (though with no foreseeable risk to the reporter's job). I've tried not to--those sentences seemed particularly egregious to me, but broadly within the tone of the overall piece. Human attention behind limited, I'm afraid any discussion of a long piece of writing must either talk about subjective feelings and impressions (where it's hard to identify the reasons for those different feelings), or focus on a tiny subset at the cost you correctly note.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    We gotta agree to disagree man.

adamsea 6y ago

So, creditable also can mean “worthy of belief” which I think is more relevant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditable https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creditable But the very fact we are arguing over the meaning of a single word is, I think, kind of a signal of an anti-pattern, so to speak. It’s like bikeshedding over a single line of code. Sure, in certain cases that single line might be super important (part of an algorithm, performance critical, etc). Often however there’s a range of acceptable ways to write a single line of code and, if we want to analyze and understand a codebase, it only makes so much sense to spend so much time on that one line. There’s a lot more code to look at as well and to understand how something works or the intent of the author of the code we should look at individual lines in the context of the whole. Plus if we’re going to get that specific about individual words, then it’s even more important to be comprehensive and correct and not jump to one of several plausible meanings ;).

tripletao 6y ago
That's the definition I meant by "or the alternative definition of 'creditable' that's a near-synonym [for 'credible']". I agree that might be what the author intended, but I don't see how that would imply the negative coverage would be unwarranted? If the reason is worthy of belief, then doesn't that mean it's probably a good reason, and the coverage is warranted? Though I agree that judging a long piece of writing by a few quotes out of context is generally bad--indeed, I'm surprised no one suggested that I've done the same thing to the New Yorker reporter that Alexander was afraid the NYT would do to him (though with no foreseeable risk to the reporter's job). I've tried not to--those sentences seemed particularly egregious to me, but broadly within the tone of the overall piece. Human attention behind limited, I'm afraid any discussion of a long piece of writing must either talk about subjective feelings and impressions (where it's hard to identify the reasons for those different feelings), or focus on a tiny subset at the cost you correctly note.
- adamsea 6y ago
  We gotta agree to disagree man.