4 ms·

Now you've seen how a "journalist" doesn't have the patience to spend 60 seconds searching for something you're knowledgeable about, will you (not you specifica

• zimpenfish 5y ago
  I have to say, I find this bit amusing: "That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say." The last 4 years of US politics (and 20? of UK politics) have given the lie to that belief. [edit: added UK politics because they're just as bad]
  • Tarsul 5y ago
    It's the same with typical sales persons: Even though they constantly exaggerate, you want to believe (unless there's animosity). So you take it into account that they exaggerate, but not by as much as they do exaggerate. Which means it's still better for them to do it than not. At least that's my impression of these dynamics, would love good studies about it.
    • alisonkisk 5y ago
      It's well studied that over time people believe lies even if they know they are lies, because we remember things by association, not rigorously. We easily remember that X is associated with Y, but it's hard to remember if the correlation is to Y or to NOT Y.
      • visarga 5y ago
        You mean people are not perfect causal reasoning agents? The shock. /s So many AI models have been ridiculed for the same flaw - learning correlations.
  • Dah00n 5y ago
    Are you saying most people would answer Yes to "Are politicians trustworthy?" because then I clearly live in a completely different bubble than you do and have a very different interpretation of TV speaking heads talking about the issue. In my bubble at least 90% would say that US politicians are not trustworthy (no idea about UK). Not much different if you ask about Trump or Biden either.
    • BobbyJo 5y ago
      I kind of see it both ways. 90% of people would call all politicians liars, but every person in that 90% has their pet politician that can do no wrong.
      • Dah00n 5y ago
        I'm guessing a "pet politician" is a very American Thing -though I have nothing to base it on but my own opinion- since US politics are very much based on specific persons while I'm used to people looking at politics as a big group of people they vote for out of many parties. There are currently 15 parties to vote for here in Denmark, with a government on average being based on 2-3 of them. A single person rarely get more votes than 1% in our elections because most vote for the party, not the person.
        • BobbyJo 5y ago
          I'm speaking specifically about individuals people vote for among the hoard in any given party or set of parties. For instance, my grandfather who thinks all politicians are crooks, believes almost everything Trump says, and my girlfriend who likewise thinks all politicians are liars, takes everything AOC says as gospel. Both disagree with a lot of what the respective parties do, or want.
    • saalweachter 5y ago
      Eh, your view of other people's cynicism is too absolute. People distrust politicians ... except. Except for their favorite politician, except for their party, except for the ones they voted for, except... You see this with Congress writ large. People hate Congress, its approval ratings are through the floor. But they like their own Congresspeople. Sure, gerrymandering, safe districts, etc, but by and large people are much happier with their own Representatives than everyone else's.
  • majormajor 5y ago
    If somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to their boss, they just might get promoted! Let's not act like news readers or politicians are different sorts of humans than anyone else.
• moritzwarhier 5y ago
  I'm not convinced. The wiki article you linked to is a paragraph in an article about a novelist, not an article about widely-accepted term. And rightfully so. Google Plus and Google Glass were big bets in my view. That doesn't take away from Google being unscrupulous in ending unsuccessful offerings. That's part of what made them succesful, I assume. Journalists often use hyperbole or simplify complex facts to deliver an interesting and easily understandable story. That doesn't make every sinplification a gross misrepresentation. You're free to dive deeper into any topic you want, but it's delusional to expect every reader to be an expert in every field. Bashing journalism as a whole has become common gospel, but to me it seems that the effect of that thinking is not that people become better informed. The article sounds Google-friendly and uncritical to me, but it's also very common to cover interviews in a way that represents the views of the interviewed person.
  • moritzwarhier 5y ago
    OK, after reading a bit more about the persons responsible for the mentioned products, I'll admit the "big bets" part maybe was a gross misrepresentation.
• jancsika 5y ago
  It appears you are attempting to indict the entire field of journalism by referring to a cocktail story told by a sci-fi writer. Wouldn't it make more sense to study the field and sort journalists into groups based on their performance over time? Even casual sports fan do that kind of work reflexively. I don't get why journalism should be treated any different, and I especially don't get the desire to find an anecdote that could reject the entire field out of hand. Put differently-- if Glenn Greenwald publishes another leak-based story about state-level corruption, I'll read it and ascribe more veracity to him than I will Crichton's cocktail story. I'll bet you a dollar that when/if I do that, nothing bad will happen as a result.
  • knolax 5y ago
    I think most people have never in their life read an article by a journalist about something they're knowledgeable of that wasn't complete dogshit. You mention Glenn Greenwald because presumably you're not an expert on state-level corruption. Pretty much any piece of journalism on any topic you can poke plenty of holes in with some research. Hell some articles you can use the article itself to disprove the main point the journalist was trying to make. At some point overwhelming empirical evidence can elevate a "cocktail story" to a rule of thumb.