3 ms·
This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content. Even
by yucky 4y ago
This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content. Even if it's slipped a bit in recent years, it's slipped less than writing in general has. Writers who create their own brand tend to create echo chambers, because readers seek out those they trust (i.e. those who don't challenge the readers preconceived notions).
I think the biggest predictor of quality writing is the business model of the publication. Subscription based content is almost always superior. Anything that relies entirely on ad revenue is general hot garbage.
- pydry 4y ago>This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content. A good way to see that it's not is to find out what investors or beltway policy elites would think and hunt for (entirely factual) things which might contradict their narrative. I cited an example below of an article about github copilot that was hot garbage - like a starry eyed intern had watched an investor pitch. On the war front one of the things which I have read in milbloggers is that a key goal of Russia's bombardment of the electricity network is to inhibit Ukrainian rail logistics and prevent the front from being resupplied. Is it working? Well, it was only ever "meant" to crack Ukrainian morale so they wouldnt even think to analyze that. (good military reporting ought to have a bias towards logistics, but it rarely does...)
- karp773 4y agoThe goal of Russia's bombardments is to flood Europe with refugees, provoke civil unrests there and then bring to power Russia's puppets like AfD in Germany and the like. The end goal is to undermine international support for Ukraine.