4 ms·

> Seeing Westerners instinctively reaching for "the best known source" tells why something like this came as a surprise in the first place, while this exact sce

> Seeing Westerners instinctively reaching for "the best known source" tells why something like this came as a surprise in the first place, while this exact scenario been a watercooler talk for most Russians, both in Ukraine, and Russia itself. > Why Western experts driving the conversation on Russia, China, etc are completely blind to things known to every highschooler? I’m not sure I follow you here. You’re saying that Westerners don’t understand things even known to high schoolers in Russia. I believe you. But then you say it’s because we try and find the best source for our information, and that also seems true. But it also seems like you’re saying that that’s the wrong course of action? It reads like you’re telling us that our sources aren’t good enough, but also complaining that we’re trying to find good sources. At any rate, I don’t happen to know any Russian high schoolers, so I have no way of asking them directly what it is that they talk about at the watercooler. I’d ask you, but that would just be me instinctively reaching for another “best known source”.

wrp 3y ago
He is complaining that the West does a poor job of elevating well-informed commenters to prominence. Having close association to the Soviet/Russia watching community since the 1980s, I agree. The problem is that the kind of people who get the on-the-ground experience you need are not the type who play politics well and rise in organizations.
- scarab92 3y ago
  It's also because journalists are experts in nothing but journalism. Instead of finding domain experts and giving them communications training and a platform to reach an audience, we instead find people with nothing useful to share, and give them journalism degrees. Journalism should be an activity that our most knowledgeable people do, not our least.
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > finding domain experts and giving them communications training and a platform to reach an audience Good journalism is hard. Being a domain expert in some area doesn’t naturally translate into a talent or passion for journalism or public outreach. Overall, I do agree with you. I just think it’s easier said than done. I’d say the legacy blue checks were often an example of what you’re describing—but those are now meaningless for evaluating if someone is a domain expert.

wrp 3y ago

He is complaining that the West does a poor job of elevating well-informed commenters to prominence. Having close association to the Soviet/Russia watching community since the 1980s, I agree. The problem is that the kind of people who get the on-the-ground experience you need are not the type who play politics well and rise in organizations.

scarab92 3y ago
It's also because journalists are experts in nothing but journalism. Instead of finding domain experts and giving them communications training and a platform to reach an audience, we instead find people with nothing useful to share, and give them journalism degrees. Journalism should be an activity that our most knowledgeable people do, not our least.
- mcphage 3y ago
  > finding domain experts and giving them communications training and a platform to reach an audience Good journalism is hard. Being a domain expert in some area doesn’t naturally translate into a talent or passion for journalism or public outreach. Overall, I do agree with you. I just think it’s easier said than done. I’d say the legacy blue checks were often an example of what you’re describing—but those are now meaningless for evaluating if someone is a domain expert.