3 ms·

Criticisms of this submissions' title aside: Yes, they got things wrong. This is how any person well-versed in a niche field feels when a mass-market publicat

by jmduke 13y ago

Criticisms of this submissions' title aside: Yes, they got things wrong. This is how any person well-versed in a niche field feels when a mass-market publication covers something which they are personally well-educated in. There are, largely, two different reactions to make here: pointing at laughing at those dumb Fox Business bimbos who just don't get what we do, and reaching out and trying to help, trying to clarify.

chewxy 13y ago
I concur. See my other comment. It's surprisingly very difficult to explain open source (what do you mean you share code with people for free?), forking (wait, you let people change what you wrote???) to non developers. I personally encountered this issue when explaining Fork the Cookbook to people. But what made this video cringeworthy is the total lack of research the journos seem to have put in.
- loganfrederick 13y ago
  I somewhat disagree. I think what you wrote in your parenthesis would work as an explanation of open source to plenty of my non-programming friends and they would have an idea of what you're talking about. Question to friend: You have an idea that computer software is written with code? [Typical person who has used a computer will respond with something like, Yes, I've heard of computer code.] Follow-up: Open Source is what we call sharing your computer code with anyone for free. Generally, nowadays, programmers can put their code online for other people to play around with. Sure, there's more to it than that, but that will give a non-technical person an idea of what you're talking about, and probably makes more sense than what Fox presented. All they needed to add for Github is that it's a company which makes this code sharing easier and more organized and there is business opportunity in making software development easier.
educating 13y ago
Similar criticism of Huffington Post or Rachel Maddow would not make frontpage, I'm sure. That is the deal here in HN though. Live with the bias. (I notice the op changed the title, so this now probably makes little sense.)
bicknergseng 13y ago
I think the problem really is that Fox and other news sources are primary "factual" sources of information for a vast percentage of the American population, and they come out with a piece that is ignorant enough that it feels like it is belittling everyone who programs. It's not that they "don't get what we do," it's that there was clearly no effort to try. It feels like a "I don't know what this is, so I'll trivialize it move on" attitude. I mean comon.... all they would have had to do was email IT and ask what GitHub does. Surely someone there could have made a layman's explanation for the news that didn't involve the phrase "reciprocity or a big chunk of software."
Nitramp 13y ago
I don't agree. It's perfectly feasible to properly research the topics you're covering, lots of newspapers do this, and they get it right. Getting a complex technical concept slightly wrong is fine (pull to edit), but 'reposotory', 'e-note'? That's one Google search away from being corrected. This is really just telling your readers/viewers you just don't give a damn. Why put up a box with terms if you're not willing in the slightest to get them right? Probably just to to keep up the impression of actual journalism - you're not doing journalism, your viewers don't really care anyway, but they kind of feel informed and you found a really cheap way to fill another 10 minutes of screen time.

by jmduke 13y ago

chewxy 13y ago

I concur. See my other comment. It's surprisingly very difficult to explain open source (what do you mean you share code with people for free?), forking (wait, you let people change what you wrote???) to non developers. I personally encountered this issue when explaining Fork the Cookbook to people. But what made this video cringeworthy is the total lack of research the journos seem to have put in.

loganfrederick 13y ago
I somewhat disagree. I think what you wrote in your parenthesis would work as an explanation of open source to plenty of my non-programming friends and they would have an idea of what you're talking about. Question to friend: You have an idea that computer software is written with code? [Typical person who has used a computer will respond with something like, Yes, I've heard of computer code.] Follow-up: Open Source is what we call sharing your computer code with anyone for free. Generally, nowadays, programmers can put their code online for other people to play around with. Sure, there's more to it than that, but that will give a non-technical person an idea of what you're talking about, and probably makes more sense than what Fox presented. All they needed to add for Github is that it's a company which makes this code sharing easier and more organized and there is business opportunity in making software development easier.

educating 13y ago

Similar criticism of Huffington Post or Rachel Maddow would not make frontpage, I'm sure. That is the deal here in HN though. Live with the bias. (I notice the op changed the title, so this now probably makes little sense.)

bicknergseng 13y ago

I think the problem really is that Fox and other news sources are primary "factual" sources of information for a vast percentage of the American population, and they come out with a piece that is ignorant enough that it feels like it is belittling everyone who programs. It's not that they "don't get what we do," it's that there was clearly no effort to try. It feels like a "I don't know what this is, so I'll trivialize it move on" attitude. I mean comon.... all they would have had to do was email IT and ask what GitHub does. Surely someone there could have made a layman's explanation for the news that didn't involve the phrase "reciprocity or a big chunk of software."

Nitramp 13y ago

I don't agree. It's perfectly feasible to properly research the topics you're covering, lots of newspapers do this, and they get it right. Getting a complex technical concept slightly wrong is fine (pull to edit), but 'reposotory', 'e-note'? That's one Google search away from being corrected. This is really just telling your readers/viewers you just don't give a damn. Why put up a box with terms if you're not willing in the slightest to get them right? Probably just to to keep up the impression of actual journalism - you're not doing journalism, your viewers don't really care anyway, but they kind of feel informed and you found a really cheap way to fill another 10 minutes of screen time.