2 ms·

Just a glance at the map tells me they have zero credibility. My guess is not that they are overtly lying, just juking the stats, devising a test by which “the

Just a glance at the map tells me they have zero credibility. My guess is not that they are overtly lying, just juking the stats, devising a test by which “the press” passes but which fails to capture the real heart of the question which is whether the press is a net positive source of information, useful for informing the body politic such that they can make wise long-term decisions. Or not. Or the opposite of that. Anyone not living under a rock can see the trend is moving in the wrong direction, and this bullshit map is not persuasive of anything except maybe that the Reporters Without Borders organization has been subverted by the same incentive landscape that’s twisting and subverting the press as a whole.

WalterGR 6y ago
fails to capture the real heart of the question which is whether the press is a net positive source of information That’s not what they set out to measure. You can’t say they’re doing it wrong if you change the goalposts to your preference.
- pmichaud 6y ago
  I'm well aware of the proxy metrics they chose, and have thought of several ways each could be juked. I'm talking about the heart of the matter which the proxies were selected to measure. You can reasonably dispute my claim about what the heart is or what underlying reality the proxies were selected to measure, but regardless this whole thing is a big Motte and Bailey: I say the proxies are bad and poorly measured for the spirit of the matter, and you (in a broad sense I mean--like anyone inclined to reply like you are), point out that there is no spirit, it's just the metrics themselves and nothing more, and that I can't read more into it than that. That I can't impugn the results for not measuring something it never intended to measure. Fine. But then, also, separately, these results are in fact (I predict, and would bet) going to be used to support broad, "spiritual-style" claims about the health and usefulness of the global press in general, that are misleading and overbroad based on what was actually measured and how. This trick is one of the main problems with the way science and journalism are conducted today. I have heard it termed "Distributed Motte and Bailey."
Pyramus 6y ago
> real heart of the question which is whether the press is a net positive source of information Having read through most of the comments I get the feeling there is an underlying expectation that "the press" or "journalists" are independent and free by default. They aren't. It's a democratic achievement that was decades in the making and comes at a premium of either paying journalists directly, or setting aside tax money to fund it. If a society decides it doesn't want to bear the cost, the media will reflect it.

WalterGR 6y ago

fails to capture the real heart of the question which is whether the press is a net positive source of information That’s not what they set out to measure. You can’t say they’re doing it wrong if you change the goalposts to your preference.

pmichaud 6y ago
I'm well aware of the proxy metrics they chose, and have thought of several ways each could be juked. I'm talking about the heart of the matter which the proxies were selected to measure. You can reasonably dispute my claim about what the heart is or what underlying reality the proxies were selected to measure, but regardless this whole thing is a big Motte and Bailey: I say the proxies are bad and poorly measured for the spirit of the matter, and you (in a broad sense I mean--like anyone inclined to reply like you are), point out that there is no spirit, it's just the metrics themselves and nothing more, and that I can't read more into it than that. That I can't impugn the results for not measuring something it never intended to measure. Fine. But then, also, separately, these results are in fact (I predict, and would bet) going to be used to support broad, "spiritual-style" claims about the health and usefulness of the global press in general, that are misleading and overbroad based on what was actually measured and how. This trick is one of the main problems with the way science and journalism are conducted today. I have heard it termed "Distributed Motte and Bailey."

Pyramus 6y ago

> real heart of the question which is whether the press is a net positive source of information Having read through most of the comments I get the feeling there is an underlying expectation that "the press" or "journalists" are independent and free by default. They aren't. It's a democratic achievement that was decades in the making and comes at a premium of either paying journalists directly, or setting aside tax money to fund it. If a society decides it doesn't want to bear the cost, the media will reflect it.