4 ms·

> The whole thing reads as being rushed and superficial. Journalism tends to reward this. I used to work in a much more public-facing field where we would regu

by tharne 5y ago

> The whole thing reads as being rushed and superficial. Journalism tends to reward this. I used to work in a much more public-facing field where we would regularly get calls from local journalists about projects we were involved in. The journalists never printed the quotes from the engineers who gave thoughtful, measured, and accurate answers. They always quoted the blowhards and the charlatans in our office who'd inevitably toss together a bunch of meaningless buzzwords, make a series of vague statements that sounded insightful, and play fast and loose with the facts. A journalist's job is to sell newspapers, or clicks, not to keep anyone informed.

bobthechef 5y ago
> A journalist's job is to sell newspapers, or clicks, not to keep anyone informed. Yes. And to propagandize on behalf of his and his organization's preferred political views. Seldom do they probably consciously realize they are doing this. The echo chamber synergizes with their prejudices and steers them in that direction. And for them, it's a job. Their reward is the editor's approval, or at least the absence of his disapproval.
- benrbray 5y ago
  There's a Noam Chomsky quote for this: “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.” [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9692159-i-m-sure-you-believe-everything-you-re-saying-but-what-i-m https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9692159-i-m-sure-you-believ... [2] "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. Is it controversial that publications have become increasingly partisan in recent years? I thought that was widely agreed upon? Or maybe people disagree with your implication that this is a bad thing (I imagine progressives are pleased that the majority of the old reputable outlets are burning through their credibility reserves to advance progressivism).
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
"Journalism" doesn't tend to reward this. It is a tautological statement than faster is better, all else being equal, for any type of work. In this case, the article is by a guest author. They are not a journalist and this isn't, technically, "journalism". "Journalism" also isn't monolithic enough to warrant the accusation that the trade itself is lowering its standards across-the-board. There are plenty of examples of deeply researched stories or elaborately crafted features on anything from pop culture to science to politics. While some publications may have succumbed to the easy fix that is viral content, and many local papers are but a shade of their former glory because nobody cares, the are plenty of publishers who escaped the other way, to quality. Your complaint about selective quoting also really isn't really about anything being rushed. I presume you could lock the author in a dungeon for a few hours and they might be willing to say whatever you want, but not because they suddenly agree with it. If you disagree with the author and work in AI, I would suggest that it isn't entirely impossible that the topic of cognitive biases is relevant here in more than one way.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > “Journalism" also isn't monolithic enough to warrant the accusation that the trade itself is lowering its standards across-the-board. It certainly feels that way to me. There are still holdouts of really good journalism, like Reuters, but even the likes of the New York Times seems to have significantly degraded. Good journalism seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
- stronglikedan 5y ago
  > While some publications may have succumbed to the easy fix that is viral content, and many local papers are but a shade of their former glory because nobody cares, the are plenty of publishers who escaped the other way, to quality. Since the former has become the norm, and the latter the exception, the former has become, technically, "journalism". Just another case where a word's meaning has changed due to ubiquity.

by tharne 5y ago

bobthechef 5y ago

> A journalist's job is to sell newspapers, or clicks, not to keep anyone informed. Yes. And to propagandize on behalf of his and his organization's preferred political views. Seldom do they probably consciously realize they are doing this. The echo chamber synergizes with their prejudices and steers them in that direction. And for them, it's a job. Their reward is the editor's approval, or at least the absence of his disapproval.

benrbray 5y ago
There's a Noam Chomsky quote for this: “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.” [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9692159-i-m-sure-you-believe-everything-you-re-saying-but-what-i-m https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9692159-i-m-sure-you-believ... [2] "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky
throwaway894345 5y ago
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted. Is it controversial that publications have become increasingly partisan in recent years? I thought that was widely agreed upon? Or maybe people disagree with your implication that this is a bad thing (I imagine progressives are pleased that the majority of the old reputable outlets are burning through their credibility reserves to advance progressivism).

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

"Journalism" doesn't tend to reward this. It is a tautological statement than faster is better, all else being equal, for any type of work. In this case, the article is by a guest author. They are not a journalist and this isn't, technically, "journalism". "Journalism" also isn't monolithic enough to warrant the accusation that the trade itself is lowering its standards across-the-board. There are plenty of examples of deeply researched stories or elaborately crafted features on anything from pop culture to science to politics. While some publications may have succumbed to the easy fix that is viral content, and many local papers are but a shade of their former glory because nobody cares, the are plenty of publishers who escaped the other way, to quality. Your complaint about selective quoting also really isn't really about anything being rushed. I presume you could lock the author in a dungeon for a few hours and they might be willing to say whatever you want, but not because they suddenly agree with it. If you disagree with the author and work in AI, I would suggest that it isn't entirely impossible that the topic of cognitive biases is relevant here in more than one way.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> “Journalism" also isn't monolithic enough to warrant the accusation that the trade itself is lowering its standards across-the-board. It certainly feels that way to me. There are still holdouts of really good journalism, like Reuters, but even the likes of the New York Times seems to have significantly degraded. Good journalism seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
stronglikedan 5y ago
> While some publications may have succumbed to the easy fix that is viral content, and many local papers are but a shade of their former glory because nobody cares, the are plenty of publishers who escaped the other way, to quality. Since the former has become the norm, and the latter the exception, the former has become, technically, "journalism". Just another case where a word's meaning has changed due to ubiquity.