3 ms·
I disagree completely. The first one doesn't even indicate that anyone has been killed with weapons. If you saw the first version you could think 'carbon monox
by impossiblefork 2y ago
I disagree completely.
The first one doesn't even indicate that anyone has been killed with weapons. If you saw the first version you could think 'carbon monoxide?' with the second version you know that it wasn't.
Stabbed and slashed to death is critical information. Football star is maybe not important, but it signals in what sort of environment the killing happened, similarly the mention of the trendy neighbourhood.
The goal should be to minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts. If you do, then you will represent everything you have seen. This necessarily means focusing on the surprising bits.
- 1659447091 2y ago> The goal should be to minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts. I agree that the job of an investigative reporter is to minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts. The above is not investigative reporting, it is simply news reporting. Emotive speculation and nudging should be kept to a minimum, preferably not included at all to prevent the emotional speculation the second option is nudging people toward (it is not trying minimize reconstruction error of excluded facts, as all the facts of a crime at the time of reporting on an arrest are not known). Using the second one for news reporting is polluting the jury pool by stirring up emotions before facts of an investigation are presented.