4 ms·

I don't think the author understands information literacy, and they show their own ignorance in how they discuss their objections. The New York Times and The Wa

I don't think the author understands information literacy, and they show their own ignorance in how they discuss their objections. The New York Times and The Washington Post have news sections that are run independently of the opinion, editorial, and commentary sections. You have to look at which section the article is published in, and know the standards of that section. The NYT news section stamp means something much different than the NYT op-ed stamp. Same with academic articles. Different journals have different standards, they each have their own biases. Something published in NEJM is gatekept differently than something published in PLOSONE, which is different than something published on a professor's Twitter account. The NEJM stamp means something that the others don't. I think it is hilarious that the author calls models from the social sciences "nonsense," which cannot possibly have the validity of the disciplines they revere like the natural sciences.... and economics.

moistofreason 4y ago
You sound like a stamp collector.
kristianc 4y ago
It's also worth examining the vested interests at play here — the author is a founder, and runs a Twitter account with 2M followers, so has, to put it mildly, a vested interest in calling the "old way" of measuring credibility of NYT and WaPo outdated. Often you find the people most loudly saying "Don't play status games" are in fact just playing another kind of status game.
vegetablepotpie 4y ago
I feel like the author is ignorant in a way that is inconvenient to media and academic institutions, but reflective of how the public feels about institutions. Media for example. Media people may be very careful, or believe they are careful, about how they separate opinions and editorials. But that doesn’t mean much to the public. 2016 showed that the media is not trusted by large portions of the public, and their own biases cloud their reporting. Looking at academic publishers. They control the dissemination of information without adding value. There’s no reason for them to exist with the internet. They exist only because of their name. Academics publish there for their careers. But the publishers are one scandal away from being irrelevant. The public is already distrustful of institutions, distrust of finance drove crypto, distrust of medicine drove the anti-vax movement. Distrust of the national security apparatus drives encryption. Distrust of big tech drives right-to-repair, and decentralized social networks. Institutions fail. But we don’t see them face consequences. They are being used by people to hide behind them to absolve themselves of responsibility. No one likes there being a group of untouchables and being outside of that group. Therefore, people are turning their backs, and seeking out solutions to problems these institutions used to satisfy.

moistofreason 4y ago

You sound like a stamp collector.

kristianc 4y ago

It's also worth examining the vested interests at play here — the author is a founder, and runs a Twitter account with 2M followers, so has, to put it mildly, a vested interest in calling the "old way" of measuring credibility of NYT and WaPo outdated. Often you find the people most loudly saying "Don't play status games" are in fact just playing another kind of status game.

vegetablepotpie 4y ago

I feel like the author is ignorant in a way that is inconvenient to media and academic institutions, but reflective of how the public feels about institutions. Media for example. Media people may be very careful, or believe they are careful, about how they separate opinions and editorials. But that doesn’t mean much to the public. 2016 showed that the media is not trusted by large portions of the public, and their own biases cloud their reporting. Looking at academic publishers. They control the dissemination of information without adding value. There’s no reason for them to exist with the internet. They exist only because of their name. Academics publish there for their careers. But the publishers are one scandal away from being irrelevant. The public is already distrustful of institutions, distrust of finance drove crypto, distrust of medicine drove the anti-vax movement. Distrust of the national security apparatus drives encryption. Distrust of big tech drives right-to-repair, and decentralized social networks. Institutions fail. But we don’t see them face consequences. They are being used by people to hide behind them to absolve themselves of responsibility. No one likes there being a group of untouchables and being outside of that group. Therefore, people are turning their backs, and seeking out solutions to problems these institutions used to satisfy.