4 ms·

> "on any occasion"..."not universally true" It sounds like you are basing a sweeping assertion on your personal experience. I certainly empathize, but you sim

by doktrin 14y ago

> "on any occasion"..."not universally true" It sounds like you are basing a sweeping assertion on your personal experience. I certainly empathize, but you simply can't paint the entire profession with that brush Even with the "not universally" half-caveat, you are still implying journalists lie and fabricate more often than not.

CamperBob2 14y ago
Even with the "not universally" half-caveat, you are still implying journalists lie and fabricate more often than not. It would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that's not the case. Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction, but who haven't figured out a way to get paid for it. It's a terrible-sounding generalization to make, but I will stand by it.
- untog 14y ago
  Where on earth do you get that generalization from? You think that the journalists following the 2012 election didn't care about the subject at hand at all, and were just looking for a new source of writing inspiration? Have you met a journalist?
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Have you met a journalist? Yes, many times. Where on earth do you get that generalization from? See above. Election reporting isn't comparable to the scenario in this story, because there are literally more reporters than there are subjects being reported upon. In my experience journalists play fast and loose with the facts when there is a low likelihood that someone will call them on it. That's why the previous NYT scandals have involved remote correspondents (Blair) and/or cases where the journalists are serving as lapdogs for powerful political interests (Miller). If this NYT reporter indeed misrepresented the facts of his test drive, then he's just an idiot, plain and simple. He either knew or should have suspected that the car was logging his every move, and that an adverse review would be challenged strongly by the company.
    - untog 14y ago
      You made a generalization about journalists, which I disputed. Your response has granted that your original generalization is not, in fact, generally applicable (with reasoning that ought to also exclude all political journalism, as well as the vast majority of other current affairs news and sports journalism amongst others) and then started talking about the NYT review. So I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to respond. You can't make a broad statement like "Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction" then immediately rebase to "the scenario in this story".
      - CamperBob2 14y ago
        Yeah, I guess you win this one.
        mmatants 14y ago
        Everyone wins in a proper argument.
- doktrin 14y ago
  > It would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that's not the case. Actually, the extraordinary claim is yours, since it is an outlier. > Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to support this claim?

by doktrin 14y ago

CamperBob2 14y ago

Even with the "not universally" half-caveat, you are still implying journalists lie and fabricate more often than not. It would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that's not the case. Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction, but who haven't figured out a way to get paid for it. It's a terrible-sounding generalization to make, but I will stand by it.

untog 14y ago
Where on earth do you get that generalization from? You think that the journalists following the 2012 election didn't care about the subject at hand at all, and were just looking for a new source of writing inspiration? Have you met a journalist?
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Have you met a journalist? Yes, many times. Where on earth do you get that generalization from? See above. Election reporting isn't comparable to the scenario in this story, because there are literally more reporters than there are subjects being reported upon. In my experience journalists play fast and loose with the facts when there is a low likelihood that someone will call them on it. That's why the previous NYT scandals have involved remote correspondents (Blair) and/or cases where the journalists are serving as lapdogs for powerful political interests (Miller). If this NYT reporter indeed misrepresented the facts of his test drive, then he's just an idiot, plain and simple. He either knew or should have suspected that the car was logging his every move, and that an adverse review would be challenged strongly by the company.
  - untog 14y ago
    You made a generalization about journalists, which I disputed. Your response has granted that your original generalization is not, in fact, generally applicable (with reasoning that ought to also exclude all political journalism, as well as the vast majority of other current affairs news and sports journalism amongst others) and then started talking about the NYT review. So I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to respond. You can't make a broad statement like "Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction" then immediately rebase to "the scenario in this story".
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      Yeah, I guess you win this one.
      - mmatants 14y ago
        Everyone wins in a proper argument.
doktrin 14y ago
> It would be an extraordinary claim to suggest that's not the case. Actually, the extraordinary claim is yours, since it is an outlier. > Journalists are basically people who would rather be writing fiction Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to support this claim?