3 ms·

Why do you think the journalist don't deserve the dissing, if they do a sloppy job of it. Years ago when Guardian had comments open for most of its articles, th

by publicola1990 5y ago

Why do you think the journalist don't deserve the dissing, if they do a sloppy job of it. Years ago when Guardian had comments open for most of its articles, the commentary was full of people calling out every single sloppy thing the journalist did in the article, until the present editor effectively banned the criticism of journalists. Journalists could use direct and immediate feedback.

krastanov 5y ago
(1) Because sibling comments already pointed out that the journalist is correct about Turing becoming better known among the general US public around that time. (2) It is a lazy "middle brow" reaction to just always blame the journalist and claim that they did not try to understand what they have read -- there is no nuance and no possible answer, it just ends the conversation instead of opening it up and trying to understand why an intelligent and honest person would say what they said (discourse is impossible if you do not start from an assumption of honesty and demand of yourself high standards of proof before assuming laziness or dishonesty). (3) It is dangerous for the fabric of society to just disregard what journalists say altogether instead of trying to understand it in the context of their (usually admitted) biases. (4) Admittedly this last one is just a pet peeve of mine: There is a gigantic difference between journalists and opinion writers and I strongly dislike when journalists are blamed for the intellectual and moral failures of opinion writers.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  This is such a bad take, it's borderline disingenuous. (1) Pointing out that Turing was well known before 2012, as if this fact somehow explains anything about the context or reasoning for the viewpoint, is lazy. Generally, duplicated points occur in internet forums. "someone else already said this" is, at best, banal. (2) This is apparently what happened, so it's accurate critical analysis, afaict. (3) This is beyond hyperbole. Fabric of society? Which society? What do you mean by "fabric"? SMH
  - krastanov 5y ago
    For what is worth, I am actually sincere, not disingenuous/trolling (and I link my public identity to this). I have a hard time seeing how your agreement about the facts in (1) (whether repeated or not by others) does not contradict your claims about "what apparently happened" claimed in (2). The question was "why is dissing undeserved" and in (1) saying "because the journalist is right in their context" seems like a pretty reasonable answer to me. Lastly, I am surprised at your umbrage at what I have said in (1). When asked "why", it seems like a pretty reasonable answer to say "look at all the other comments that confirm and justify this statement". (3) Fair enough, it is hyperbolic. Democratic society. "Fabric" is a pretty common idiom for the underlying norms (e.g. journalism exposing issues with the other 3 branches, having a non-governmental source of mass information)
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      I thought the term "fabric of society" consists of things like hospitals and pwer plants - things that can be bombed, and upon which society depends.
      - krastanov 5y ago
        It seems it has been used in both and other ways: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/fabric-of-society https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/fabric-o... For what is worth, your comment and this link[1] is the first time I have seen it used for material infrastructure. [1] I am on the fence whether the quotes in the link can straightforwardly be interpreted to be about material infrastructure as opposed to "moral/social fabric".

krastanov 5y ago

(1) Because sibling comments already pointed out that the journalist is correct about Turing becoming better known among the general US public around that time. (2) It is a lazy "middle brow" reaction to just always blame the journalist and claim that they did not try to understand what they have read -- there is no nuance and no possible answer, it just ends the conversation instead of opening it up and trying to understand why an intelligent and honest person would say what they said (discourse is impossible if you do not start from an assumption of honesty and demand of yourself high standards of proof before assuming laziness or dishonesty). (3) It is dangerous for the fabric of society to just disregard what journalists say altogether instead of trying to understand it in the context of their (usually admitted) biases. (4) Admittedly this last one is just a pet peeve of mine: There is a gigantic difference between journalists and opinion writers and I strongly dislike when journalists are blamed for the intellectual and moral failures of opinion writers.

Supermancho 5y ago
This is such a bad take, it's borderline disingenuous. (1) Pointing out that Turing was well known before 2012, as if this fact somehow explains anything about the context or reasoning for the viewpoint, is lazy. Generally, duplicated points occur in internet forums. "someone else already said this" is, at best, banal. (2) This is apparently what happened, so it's accurate critical analysis, afaict. (3) This is beyond hyperbole. Fabric of society? Which society? What do you mean by "fabric"? SMH
- krastanov 5y ago
  For what is worth, I am actually sincere, not disingenuous/trolling (and I link my public identity to this). I have a hard time seeing how your agreement about the facts in (1) (whether repeated or not by others) does not contradict your claims about "what apparently happened" claimed in (2). The question was "why is dissing undeserved" and in (1) saying "because the journalist is right in their context" seems like a pretty reasonable answer to me. Lastly, I am surprised at your umbrage at what I have said in (1). When asked "why", it seems like a pretty reasonable answer to say "look at all the other comments that confirm and justify this statement". (3) Fair enough, it is hyperbolic. Democratic society. "Fabric" is a pretty common idiom for the underlying norms (e.g. journalism exposing issues with the other 3 branches, having a non-governmental source of mass information)
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    I thought the term "fabric of society" consists of things like hospitals and pwer plants - things that can be bombed, and upon which society depends.
    - krastanov 5y ago
      It seems it has been used in both and other ways: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/fabric-of-society https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/example/english/fabric-o... For what is worth, your comment and this link[1] is the first time I have seen it used for material infrastructure. [1] I am on the fence whether the quotes in the link can straightforwardly be interpreted to be about material infrastructure as opposed to "moral/social fabric".