4 ms·

It seems there is disagreement on this but to me it seems like a perfectly valid disclaimer to give, given the vested interest.

igravious 6y ago
You and me both buddy :)
Barrin92 6y ago
my guess is because it's really just conjecture about the motivation of journalists or media and entirely unecessary. Also it kind of misunderstands how newspapers work, there is a huge firewall between the newsroom and ad business. Also this kind of scrutiny is rarely applied to tech sector content being posted here. Given the libertarian anti-regulatory bent that most of them have you could just dismiss it based on conflict of interest.
- igravious 6y ago
  > Also this kind of scrutiny is rarely applied to tech sector content being posted here. My observation cuts both ways obviously. Presumably corporations have fixed advertising budgets. If they stop spending in one media space they'll reallocate spending to another. Am I being too cynical? Perhaps. Firewall or not, by way off analogy: Tesla is Volkswagen's competition and Facebook is the New York Times's competition.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >Am I being too cynical? Perhaps. Firewall or not, by way off analogy: Tesla is Volkswagen's competition and Facebook is the New York Times's competition. it doens't make sense at all to compare journalistic work to the competition between two companies who build cars. This is just projecting techs broken culture on journalism. Carreyrou at the WSJ was investigating and in fact more or less brought down Theranos despite the fact that Murdoch was one of the largest investors in the company. Don't take techs lack of ethics and mindless growth culture and assume everyone else operates in the same way.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      Ignoring the conflict of interest between social media and traditional media is not wise. What does Theranos have to do with this? The Wall Street Journal isn't competing with Theranos in the blood testing space. There's no conflict of interest in its reporting on Theranos from the perspective of the journalists. Carreyrou doesn't care about Ruper Murdoch's stock portfolio. But they definitely are competing with Facebook, YouTube, etc. for viewers. Journalists know that time spent watching YouTube or reading Reddit means less opportunity for their own pieces to get attention. And their coverage of said platforms and people on those platforms in the past has often ranged from intellectually dishonest to outright dishonest. It's extremely hard to think that this conflict of interest isn't affecting their reporting.
diffeomorphism 6y ago
There is difference between putting a disclaimer and screaming fake news!1! There also is a difference between criticizing a newspaper and saying all "old media" are not to be trusted.

igravious 6y ago

You and me both buddy :)

Barrin92 6y ago

my guess is because it's really just conjecture about the motivation of journalists or media and entirely unecessary. Also it kind of misunderstands how newspapers work, there is a huge firewall between the newsroom and ad business. Also this kind of scrutiny is rarely applied to tech sector content being posted here. Given the libertarian anti-regulatory bent that most of them have you could just dismiss it based on conflict of interest.

igravious 6y ago
> Also this kind of scrutiny is rarely applied to tech sector content being posted here. My observation cuts both ways obviously. Presumably corporations have fixed advertising budgets. If they stop spending in one media space they'll reallocate spending to another. Am I being too cynical? Perhaps. Firewall or not, by way off analogy: Tesla is Volkswagen's competition and Facebook is the New York Times's competition.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >Am I being too cynical? Perhaps. Firewall or not, by way off analogy: Tesla is Volkswagen's competition and Facebook is the New York Times's competition. it doens't make sense at all to compare journalistic work to the competition between two companies who build cars. This is just projecting techs broken culture on journalism. Carreyrou at the WSJ was investigating and in fact more or less brought down Theranos despite the fact that Murdoch was one of the largest investors in the company. Don't take techs lack of ethics and mindless growth culture and assume everyone else operates in the same way.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Ignoring the conflict of interest between social media and traditional media is not wise. What does Theranos have to do with this? The Wall Street Journal isn't competing with Theranos in the blood testing space. There's no conflict of interest in its reporting on Theranos from the perspective of the journalists. Carreyrou doesn't care about Ruper Murdoch's stock portfolio. But they definitely are competing with Facebook, YouTube, etc. for viewers. Journalists know that time spent watching YouTube or reading Reddit means less opportunity for their own pieces to get attention. And their coverage of said platforms and people on those platforms in the past has often ranged from intellectually dishonest to outright dishonest. It's extremely hard to think that this conflict of interest isn't affecting their reporting.

diffeomorphism 6y ago

There is difference between putting a disclaimer and screaming fake news!1! There also is a difference between criticizing a newspaper and saying all "old media" are not to be trusted.