10 ms·

All you need to do is take a quick look at one of the author's other stories[1] and your skepticism will grow further. [1] https://substack.com/@shellenberger

by wsatb 3y ago

All you need to do is take a quick look at one of the author's other stories[1] and your skepticism will grow further. [1] https://substack.com/@shellenberger https://substack.com/@shellenberger

ajross 3y ago
[flagged]
- mistermann 3y ago
  It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the writing form that a lot of mainstream news articles take (advantage of?). I also am not a fan of it, but I must confess I do enjoy seeing it used in the other direction.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    Yep. I aw that. But then I rely on the trustworthiness of the authors, and when I know for a fact at least one of them has been caught literally making up lies that, when uncovered, literally disprove the narrative they were pushing, it really destroys all credibility.
    - Gud 3y ago
      He was not “caught literally making up lies”. There was an error in his reporting. Perhaps he lied, perhaps he made a mistake. Please don’t turn to hyperbole. Or at least show me the evidence for his lies(not errors, which are not the same thing. Lies require an intent to misconstrue).
      - jasonlotito 3y ago
        The report said one thing. He changed it to something else, intentionally. After "being corrected" he did not go back and fix all the assumptions made from that intentional change he made. A typo is a mistake. Intentionally changing what someone wrote/said is a lie. Especially for a journalist. He's a liar. And those defending him are defending a liar.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the writing form that a lot of mainstream news articles take (advantage of?). No, no way does a serious paper go to print with a source like that. There's room for argument about the use of anonymous sourcing, but there's a huge difference between "someone involved in the decision process" or "with knowledge of the events" (commonly used descriptions) and what the authors did here, which amounts to "someone who works for the US government anywhere, but we won't tell you their expertise". But yes: a lot of it is about trust. We trust editors at NYT and WaPo to make sure their journalists know who their sources are and not to lie or spin about them. And while, sure, sometimes this process breaks, on the whole it's worked very well for a very long time. Throwing it out the window so that someone can get clicks on substack posts, or (worse) because you don't like the political implications of the trusted journalism, is a really bad idea. A world of Fox and Substack, where "sincerely held opinions" take the place of "truth", is sort of a disaster.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > No, no way does a serious paper go to print with a source like that. There's room for argument about the use of anonymous sourcing, but there's a huge difference between "someone involved in the decision process" or "with knowledge of the events" (commonly used descriptions) and what the authors did here, which amounts to "someone who works for the US government anywhere, but we won't tell you their expertise". "Anonymous sources" is a superior attack vector - it is well psychologically established as "normal/righteous", and it allows one complete free reign on weaving a believable tale for the public to update their local simulation with, no risk from your sources being exposed as bogus. > But yes: a lot of it is about trust. We trust editors at NYT and WaPo to make sure their journalists know who their sources are and not to lie or spin about them. Some people believe this, but I don't. In fact, I think it is rather interesting how so many people have been trained to think this way, and no one notices how weird it is. > And while, sure, sometimes this process breaks, on the whole it's worked very well for a very long time. "Measured" (but not actually) on a relative scale. > Throwing it out the window so that someone can get clicks on substack posts, or (worse) because you don't like the political implications of the trusted journalism, is a really bad idea. You predict that it is a bad idea, you do not actually have any way to know this. Imagine driving a car that is modified such that the front window is not a window, but rather a screen containing an extremely well known to be inaccurate simulation of the road - would this not make you nervous? > A world of Fox and Substack, where "sincerely held opinions" take the place of "truth", is sort of a disaster. The problem isn't just Fox and Substack, the root problem is humans/consciousness/culture.
mock-possum 3y ago
> Why Politicians Are Trying To Take Your Children > California legislation would punish parents who don't affirm gender dysphoria wow yeah that's a take
- rnk 3y ago
  Also, how the media is really mean to RFK junior, the crazy RFK by the way. Supporting him puts you on the Bozo list.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 3y ago
    What makes him crazy? Disagreeing with the New York Times or something?
    - rnk 3y ago
      It's because he makes constant clearly incorrect scientific claims, says conspiratorial things about vaccines that are obviously wrong. We haven't hidden the deaths of millions of people who got the COVID vaccine. We just haven't. And for all the billions of people who got the vaccine, I'm sure there were a handful of people that had serious reactions. But contrast that with the millions of people who literally died just in the US. He is trying to reverse that equation and claiming that it's all a big secret with no evidence, that's the problem with people like him.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - swores 3y ago
        And he's been doing it since before Covid, and still spouts the lies about links (which don't actually exist) between vaccinations and increased rates of diagnosed autism.
      - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
        Let's be fair... the vaccine conspiracies have a lot of backing by the gaslightng of our own government and media. I live in a small country of slovenia, we didn't approve any of the russian or chinese vaccines, so for normal people, there were four options - astrazeneca, J&J, moderna and pfeizer vaccines. All of them were marketed as safe, the marketing material from our government was that the 90-95% of the vaccinated won't get a symptomatic covid, and that everyone should get vaccinated "now", with any of the vaccines. Then a few people died nearby, and astrazeneca was temporarily removed from the list of options and wasn't recommended anymore. But the other three vaccines were safe and effective. Then a young girl died here from from a J&J vaccine (the popular choice, due to it being a single-shot one), and we stopped using that. Suddenly the "classic" vaccines were not ok anymore, and the "all four are safe and effective" became "you should get a mRNA vaccine". Then a bunch of young men ended up with heart issues after the moderna vaccine, and suddenly only pfizer is "safe and effective". Also the "95% chance you won't get symptomatic covid" became a slightly "lower chance of hospitalizaton or death". All of this of course came after the "masks are ineffective and you don't need them" that almost literally overnight (it was over a weekend) changed to "masks are mandatory in xyz places". I mean sure.... science, conspiracies... but if you want to fuel a conspiracy theory, the best way to do it is to say something, then change what you said, and ban people who continue saying what you said a few days earlier.
kornhole 3y ago
Or it could do the opposite. Both Taibbi and Shellenberger are independent investigative journalists with no party loyalties. Their funding comes directly from readers rather than corporations or billionaire owned outlets. They can make a few mistakes from time to time but own up to them. Their opinions are their own, but they rarely report anything not factual.
- mmcwilliams 3y ago
  The claim that the funding doesn't come from a "billionaire owned outlet" doesn't really track if you look at the investors[0] in Substack. I count at least one billionaire-run fund in that list. There was also an incident a couple months ago where Elon Musk accused Taibbi of working for Substack, which he denied, but in leaked texts says they "originally hired" him[1], which I find confusing. [0] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/substack/company_financials https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/substack/company_fin... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/04/10/elon-musk-shares-private-text-exchange-he-had-with-twitter-files-journalist-matt-taibbi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/04/10/elon-musk-...
  - harry8 3y ago
    > if you look at the investors[0] in Substack FFS this is like claiming you are funded by BoA or JPM if your salary is deposited there. They are literally paid by their subscribers, Substack is a mere payment & publication tool. Substack do not pay them. Moreover w.r.t. Taibbi he has picked fights with his employers and quit at the first hint of them trying to influence his work. His credibility on that front is actually excellent and better than anyone at the NYT, for example (Who may be excellent but can't point to a history like that).
    - mmcwilliams 3y ago
      Claiming that a private company with significant investment in it has "owners" is not controversial. It's unclear to me why this bothers you so much. This isn't intended as an attack on Taibbi whatsoever, it is just plain wrong to say that a for-profit company funded by some of the largest SV funds is not an owned entity. You can make the case that because Substack writers do not have an editorial process and fact checking that it is distinct from other news outlets and you'd be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a platform that billionaire(s) have a financial interest in.
kneebonian 3y ago
A stellar example of adhominem in the wild. Attack the argument not the person.

by wsatb 3y ago

All you need to do is take a quick look at one of the author's other stories[1] and your skepticism will grow further. [1] https://substack.com/@shellenberger https://substack.com/@shellenberger

ajross 3y ago

[flagged]

mistermann 3y ago
It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the writing form that a lot of mainstream news articles take (advantage of?). I also am not a fan of it, but I must confess I do enjoy seeing it used in the other direction.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  Yep. I aw that. But then I rely on the trustworthiness of the authors, and when I know for a fact at least one of them has been caught literally making up lies that, when uncovered, literally disprove the narrative they were pushing, it really destroys all credibility.
  - Gud 3y ago
    He was not “caught literally making up lies”. There was an error in his reporting. Perhaps he lied, perhaps he made a mistake. Please don’t turn to hyperbole. Or at least show me the evidence for his lies(not errors, which are not the same thing. Lies require an intent to misconstrue).
    - jasonlotito 3y ago
      The report said one thing. He changed it to something else, intentionally. After "being corrected" he did not go back and fix all the assumptions made from that intentional change he made. A typo is a mistake. Intentionally changing what someone wrote/said is a lie. Especially for a journalist. He's a liar. And those defending him are defending a liar.
- ajross 3y ago
  > It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the writing form that a lot of mainstream news articles take (advantage of?). No, no way does a serious paper go to print with a source like that. There's room for argument about the use of anonymous sourcing, but there's a huge difference between "someone involved in the decision process" or "with knowledge of the events" (commonly used descriptions) and what the authors did here, which amounts to "someone who works for the US government anywhere, but we won't tell you their expertise". But yes: a lot of it is about trust. We trust editors at NYT and WaPo to make sure their journalists know who their sources are and not to lie or spin about them. And while, sure, sometimes this process breaks, on the whole it's worked very well for a very long time. Throwing it out the window so that someone can get clicks on substack posts, or (worse) because you don't like the political implications of the trusted journalism, is a really bad idea. A world of Fox and Substack, where "sincerely held opinions" take the place of "truth", is sort of a disaster.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > No, no way does a serious paper go to print with a source like that. There's room for argument about the use of anonymous sourcing, but there's a huge difference between "someone involved in the decision process" or "with knowledge of the events" (commonly used descriptions) and what the authors did here, which amounts to "someone who works for the US government anywhere, but we won't tell you their expertise". "Anonymous sources" is a superior attack vector - it is well psychologically established as "normal/righteous", and it allows one complete free reign on weaving a believable tale for the public to update their local simulation with, no risk from your sources being exposed as bogus. > But yes: a lot of it is about trust. We trust editors at NYT and WaPo to make sure their journalists know who their sources are and not to lie or spin about them. Some people believe this, but I don't. In fact, I think it is rather interesting how so many people have been trained to think this way, and no one notices how weird it is. > And while, sure, sometimes this process breaks, on the whole it's worked very well for a very long time. "Measured" (but not actually) on a relative scale. > Throwing it out the window so that someone can get clicks on substack posts, or (worse) because you don't like the political implications of the trusted journalism, is a really bad idea. You predict that it is a bad idea, you do not actually have any way to know this. Imagine driving a car that is modified such that the front window is not a window, but rather a screen containing an extremely well known to be inaccurate simulation of the road - would this not make you nervous? > A world of Fox and Substack, where "sincerely held opinions" take the place of "truth", is sort of a disaster. The problem isn't just Fox and Substack, the root problem is humans/consciousness/culture.

mock-possum 3y ago

> Why Politicians Are Trying To Take Your Children > California legislation would punish parents who don't affirm gender dysphoria wow yeah that's a take

rnk 3y ago
Also, how the media is really mean to RFK junior, the crazy RFK by the way. Supporting him puts you on the Bozo list.
- CrazyPyroLinux 3y ago
  What makes him crazy? Disagreeing with the New York Times or something?
  - rnk 3y ago
    It's because he makes constant clearly incorrect scientific claims, says conspiratorial things about vaccines that are obviously wrong. We haven't hidden the deaths of millions of people who got the COVID vaccine. We just haven't. And for all the billions of people who got the vaccine, I'm sure there were a handful of people that had serious reactions. But contrast that with the millions of people who literally died just in the US. He is trying to reverse that equation and claiming that it's all a big secret with no evidence, that's the problem with people like him.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - swores 3y ago
      And he's been doing it since before Covid, and still spouts the lies about links (which don't actually exist) between vaccinations and increased rates of diagnosed autism.
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      Let's be fair... the vaccine conspiracies have a lot of backing by the gaslightng of our own government and media. I live in a small country of slovenia, we didn't approve any of the russian or chinese vaccines, so for normal people, there were four options - astrazeneca, J&J, moderna and pfeizer vaccines. All of them were marketed as safe, the marketing material from our government was that the 90-95% of the vaccinated won't get a symptomatic covid, and that everyone should get vaccinated "now", with any of the vaccines. Then a few people died nearby, and astrazeneca was temporarily removed from the list of options and wasn't recommended anymore. But the other three vaccines were safe and effective. Then a young girl died here from from a J&J vaccine (the popular choice, due to it being a single-shot one), and we stopped using that. Suddenly the "classic" vaccines were not ok anymore, and the "all four are safe and effective" became "you should get a mRNA vaccine". Then a bunch of young men ended up with heart issues after the moderna vaccine, and suddenly only pfizer is "safe and effective". Also the "95% chance you won't get symptomatic covid" became a slightly "lower chance of hospitalizaton or death". All of this of course came after the "masks are ineffective and you don't need them" that almost literally overnight (it was over a weekend) changed to "masks are mandatory in xyz places". I mean sure.... science, conspiracies... but if you want to fuel a conspiracy theory, the best way to do it is to say something, then change what you said, and ban people who continue saying what you said a few days earlier.

kornhole 3y ago

Or it could do the opposite. Both Taibbi and Shellenberger are independent investigative journalists with no party loyalties. Their funding comes directly from readers rather than corporations or billionaire owned outlets. They can make a few mistakes from time to time but own up to them. Their opinions are their own, but they rarely report anything not factual.

mmcwilliams 3y ago
The claim that the funding doesn't come from a "billionaire owned outlet" doesn't really track if you look at the investors[0] in Substack. I count at least one billionaire-run fund in that list. There was also an incident a couple months ago where Elon Musk accused Taibbi of working for Substack, which he denied, but in leaked texts says they "originally hired" him[1], which I find confusing. [0] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/substack/company_financials https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/substack/company_fin... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/04/10/elon-musk-shares-private-text-exchange-he-had-with-twitter-files-journalist-matt-taibbi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/04/10/elon-musk-...
- harry8 3y ago
  > if you look at the investors[0] in Substack FFS this is like claiming you are funded by BoA or JPM if your salary is deposited there. They are literally paid by their subscribers, Substack is a mere payment & publication tool. Substack do not pay them. Moreover w.r.t. Taibbi he has picked fights with his employers and quit at the first hint of them trying to influence his work. His credibility on that front is actually excellent and better than anyone at the NYT, for example (Who may be excellent but can't point to a history like that).
  - mmcwilliams 3y ago
    Claiming that a private company with significant investment in it has "owners" is not controversial. It's unclear to me why this bothers you so much. This isn't intended as an attack on Taibbi whatsoever, it is just plain wrong to say that a for-profit company funded by some of the largest SV funds is not an owned entity. You can make the case that because Substack writers do not have an editorial process and fact checking that it is distinct from other news outlets and you'd be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a platform that billionaire(s) have a financial interest in.

kneebonian 3y ago

A stellar example of adhominem in the wild. Attack the argument not the person.