4 ms·

I find that Economist articles about things I don't know much about are great. But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. It isn't j

by _jal 6y ago

I find that Economist articles about things I don't know much about are great. But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. It isn't just the spin; sometimes you can guess whom they were talking to and whom they weren't by how wrong and they way they get something wrong.

supernova87a 6y ago
I agree -- the Economist is the exact opposite of what Bloomberg is pointing out. They provide a few scant (or no) examples, and then oddly jump to extrapolating what we should do about the universe. They don't seem to build credibility within an article to make you think they should know what should be done on some specific issue. Sorry to fall back on a stereotype, but they come off as Oxford students sitting in college, pontificating on the world they've read about. Maybe I'm mostly thinking about their pseudo-opinion pieces. It just got to the point I didn't enjoy reading them, and no longer do.
- antipaul 6y ago
  It looks like the Bloomberg editor in chief is actually the former editor of The Economist, though he switched 5 years ago Learned this in one of the articles in this thread: Shortly after his return, he hired a new editor-in-chief -- John Micklethwait, of The Economist https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/bloomberg-fires-digital-editor-josh-topolsky-210295 https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/bloomberg-fires...
razakel 6y ago
>But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. Gell-Mann Amnesia, as Michael Crichton put it: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
- philipodonnell 6y ago
  wow
- the-pigeon 6y ago
  And IMO it's gotta much worse since Crichton said that do to online style publishing encouraging newspapers to be even looser with fact checkers and always trying to publish things ASAP over trying to publish something that is interesting, informative and/or factually corrective.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Some of it is rush to publish. But it's also that most readers here and elsewhere won't pay for subscriptions and will also do their best to avoid even the mediocre monetization provided by digital advertising. It's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      It's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers. When the bad drives out the good, it's no surprise that no one wants to pay for the bad.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        I think you have cause and effect reversed.
        CamperBob2 6y ago
        And I think you do. Where does that leave us? The fact is, nobody has offered me access to a news source that covers all topics of possible interest in a manner that's free from overt biases (or poorly-hidden ones) and intelligence-insulting "both sides" fallacies. Bloomberg certainly doesn't qualify. If such a service is ever offered, I don't expect it to be cheap, much less free... but rest assured I'll listen to their pitch. I'm sure I'm not the only potential customer for a high-end premium news product that I can actually trust.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bagacrap 6y ago
I have the same reaction to the stories on topics I'm familiar with, and it makes me distrust all the stories on other topics as well. There is a certain air or authority and erudition to the writing style, but I'm not sure it's warranted.

by _jal 6y ago

supernova87a 6y ago

I agree -- the Economist is the exact opposite of what Bloomberg is pointing out. They provide a few scant (or no) examples, and then oddly jump to extrapolating what we should do about the universe. They don't seem to build credibility within an article to make you think they should know what should be done on some specific issue. Sorry to fall back on a stereotype, but they come off as Oxford students sitting in college, pontificating on the world they've read about. Maybe I'm mostly thinking about their pseudo-opinion pieces. It just got to the point I didn't enjoy reading them, and no longer do.

antipaul 6y ago
It looks like the Bloomberg editor in chief is actually the former editor of The Economist, though he switched 5 years ago Learned this in one of the articles in this thread: Shortly after his return, he hired a new editor-in-chief -- John Micklethwait, of The Economist https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/bloomberg-fires-digital-editor-josh-topolsky-210295 https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/bloomberg-fires...

razakel 6y ago

>But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article. Gell-Mann Amnesia, as Michael Crichton put it: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

philipodonnell 6y ago
wow
the-pigeon 6y ago
And IMO it's gotta much worse since Crichton said that do to online style publishing encouraging newspapers to be even looser with fact checkers and always trying to publish things ASAP over trying to publish something that is interesting, informative and/or factually corrective.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Some of it is rush to publish. But it's also that most readers here and elsewhere won't pay for subscriptions and will also do their best to avoid even the mediocre monetization provided by digital advertising. It's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    It's hard to support investigative reporting and fact checkers. When the bad drives out the good, it's no surprise that no one wants to pay for the bad.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I think you have cause and effect reversed.
      - CamperBob2 6y ago
        And I think you do. Where does that leave us? The fact is, nobody has offered me access to a news source that covers all topics of possible interest in a manner that's free from overt biases (or poorly-hidden ones) and intelligence-insulting "both sides" fallacies. Bloomberg certainly doesn't qualify. If such a service is ever offered, I don't expect it to be cheap, much less free... but rest assured I'll listen to their pitch. I'm sure I'm not the only potential customer for a high-end premium news product that I can actually trust.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bagacrap 6y ago

I have the same reaction to the stories on topics I'm familiar with, and it makes me distrust all the stories on other topics as well. There is a certain air or authority and erudition to the writing style, but I'm not sure it's warranted.