5 ms·

I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly

I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, and seeing how incredibly inaccurate media articles are. Anytime I read an article about a subject I actually have first-hand knowledge of, it reaffirms the lesson.

BurningFrog 11y ago
The fallacy of believing everything else you read is known as "Gell-Mann Amnesia". http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...
jpmattia 11y ago
> I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, Even better: Saying something to a reporter, and then reading what you supposedly said within quotation marks. (Although perhaps my data is old and things have gotten better since adequate interview-recording equipment is now on every smartphone.)
- _red 11y ago
  Yes, trying to give any sort of nuanced answer to a reporter is almost hopeless. For instance if you say: "Plan ABC is good, however the specific concerns are X, Y, and Z. If care is not taken in how these issued are addressed it will likely be a very expensive failure". The article will appear as: PLAN HAS BROAD SUPPORT. _red says, "Plan ABC is good".
  - jpmattia 11y ago
    Or if the writer is in a different mood: PLAN IS NOT GOOD. _red said "The unaddressed issues in this plan will likely make it a very expensive failure!"
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    The reader will reinterpret it anyway so why bother.
- w4 11y ago
  Nope, it hasn't gotten better. I don't think I've been quoted precisely any time I've spoken with a reporter. The "quote" is usually the gist of what I said, so it's not a big deal, but sometimes the paraphrased version is different enough to change the meaning of what was actually said.
- ZoFreX 11y ago
  I sat down with a reporter and literally watched him type out my words, and corrected his article as he wrote it, and made damn sure exactly what I said was written on his screen... and the final article still managed to wildly misquote me. Nothing to do with incompetence (or lack of recording equipment), everything to do with making things fit an interesting narrative.
- nailer 11y ago
  Conversely, from when I used to write professionally, people would often not recall saying something I had recorded them saying on tape.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
stretchwithme 11y ago
Not just true of "internet" journalism. To write accurately about something that you don't understand is hard. You either have to be very vague or take the time required. If anything, the internet allows you to publish revisions of the original article, allowing you to correct your mistakes. Very hard to do with the traditional newspaper.
- sasori 11y ago
  so true
mmphosis 11y ago
note: I am not a journalist, but I have worked with journalists. I agree with you as it reaffirms to me how inaccurate media articles are. There are few to no news resources that provide in-depth investigative journalism. The internet makes the news slower because I check multiple diverse sources, and often the report, bias, story is different. It's interesting. I also see where the story/article is continuously updated by mainstream internet news agencies to fix inaccuracies, spelling, grammar, reduce liability, change the title, change the entire story, change the bias, etc... The comments are almost always more interesting than the actual news report, and can often provide a more accurate report of what actually happened. What were once former respectable news organizations doing investigative reporting no longer exist. We cannot expect "journalism" when reading news on the internet, we need to do that work ourselves.
bithead 11y ago
To be fair, that's not just true of "media" - try talking to a person with third hand knowledge compared to first hand knowledge. It's more a human phenomenon than just a 'media' phenomenon.
- clamprecht 11y ago
  I agree, but it's kind of the news media's job to report it accurately. "You had one job" kind of thing.
  - bithead 11y ago
    Agreed - they should. For me it's just that which is exasperating, since ostensibly some even went to college for it.
slg 11y ago
That is very true, but you also have to keep in mind the flip side of this. The people who know the most about a subject, including ourselves, are likely the ones who will be most biased about it. Not saying that is exactly what happened in the NYT piece, but that is certainly feasible in situations like this. The first person who writes the article is the person who was on duty in the newsroom or its virtual equivalent when the news broke. They don't know the details or history of the greater issue, so they stick to reporting the facts. Later, journalists with more domain expertise rewrite and add to the story. Maybe in this instance they are already knowledgeable about Reddit's questionable history with sexism. They see a story about a sexist website deposing a female CEO who is a controversial figure in gender relations (for lack of a better term). Suddenly the story gets reframed with that in mind. The extra opinion is only added because they know more about the subject.
- Goronmon 11y ago
  The people who know the most about a subject, including ourselves, are likely the ones who will be most biased about it. Which isn't necessarily any worse than the external bias that the reporter/editor may have when covering a subject. And that bias is amplified coming from a place of ignorance.
- comex 11y ago
  In this case, Mike Isaac, the original writer, seems to have a good amount of domain expertise, as starting last week he has been posting frequently on Reddit in an official role, discussing/answering questions about his reporting on the site. (Also claims to have been a redditor for five years, presumably on some other account.) Oddly, all of his official account's posts have been in the GamerGate subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/user/MikeIsaac https://www.reddit.com/user/MikeIsaac
  - anon3_ 11y ago
    Good catch. Up until now, no one has pointed out the article eerily resembles the tones that began GamerGate. The more you look at it, the more it appears to be a deliberate troll to highlight the irony of injecting identity politics into journalism. He's a trojan horse. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_mike_isaac_the_new_york_times_reporter/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m... Also, so called "anti-gamer gaters" don't simply go off and offer AMA's to "gamergaters". Anti-GG's modus operandi is to cast aside any discussion as misogyny or harassment. Both sides harass each other, unfortunately.
aklemm 11y ago
When I started reporting for my college newspaper this jumped out at me immediately and it was maddening. So I recorded every interview I did, and then had to transcribe the quotes. It took forever, so I guess I can see how it isn't feasible in the professional world, but it never seemed right.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
That happened to me: years ago, '60 Minutes' did a hit piece on a friend at work, and I knew that the story was far from the truth. First hand knowledge in that case turned me off of watching '60 Minutes' in the future and helped me develop the habbit of second sourcing stories, preferably from news media in different countries.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media You don't even need to read about it elsewhere. Your own recollection of the details of events you witnessed is usually very malleable. It's one reason why eyewitness testimony needs to be treated carefully. E.g. from Wikipedia[1]: Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions are unreliable; being easily manipulated, altered, and biased. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

BurningFrog 11y ago

The fallacy of believing everything else you read is known as "Gell-Mann Amnesia". http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gel...

jpmattia 11y ago

> I think a lesson everyone should have in life is witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media, Even better: Saying something to a reporter, and then reading what you supposedly said within quotation marks. (Although perhaps my data is old and things have gotten better since adequate interview-recording equipment is now on every smartphone.)

_red 11y ago
Yes, trying to give any sort of nuanced answer to a reporter is almost hopeless. For instance if you say: "Plan ABC is good, however the specific concerns are X, Y, and Z. If care is not taken in how these issued are addressed it will likely be a very expensive failure". The article will appear as: PLAN HAS BROAD SUPPORT. _red says, "Plan ABC is good".
- jpmattia 11y ago
  Or if the writer is in a different mood: PLAN IS NOT GOOD. _red said "The unaddressed issues in this plan will likely make it a very expensive failure!"
- agumonkey 11y ago
  The reader will reinterpret it anyway so why bother.
w4 11y ago
Nope, it hasn't gotten better. I don't think I've been quoted precisely any time I've spoken with a reporter. The "quote" is usually the gist of what I said, so it's not a big deal, but sometimes the paraphrased version is different enough to change the meaning of what was actually said.
ZoFreX 11y ago
I sat down with a reporter and literally watched him type out my words, and corrected his article as he wrote it, and made damn sure exactly what I said was written on his screen... and the final article still managed to wildly misquote me. Nothing to do with incompetence (or lack of recording equipment), everything to do with making things fit an interesting narrative.
nailer 11y ago
Conversely, from when I used to write professionally, people would often not recall saying something I had recorded them saying on tape.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

stretchwithme 11y ago

Not just true of "internet" journalism. To write accurately about something that you don't understand is hard. You either have to be very vague or take the time required. If anything, the internet allows you to publish revisions of the original article, allowing you to correct your mistakes. Very hard to do with the traditional newspaper.

sasori 11y ago
so true

mmphosis 11y ago

note: I am not a journalist, but I have worked with journalists. I agree with you as it reaffirms to me how inaccurate media articles are. There are few to no news resources that provide in-depth investigative journalism. The internet makes the news slower because I check multiple diverse sources, and often the report, bias, story is different. It's interesting. I also see where the story/article is continuously updated by mainstream internet news agencies to fix inaccuracies, spelling, grammar, reduce liability, change the title, change the entire story, change the bias, etc... The comments are almost always more interesting than the actual news report, and can often provide a more accurate report of what actually happened. What were once former respectable news organizations doing investigative reporting no longer exist. We cannot expect "journalism" when reading news on the internet, we need to do that work ourselves.

bithead 11y ago

To be fair, that's not just true of "media" - try talking to a person with third hand knowledge compared to first hand knowledge. It's more a human phenomenon than just a 'media' phenomenon.

clamprecht 11y ago
I agree, but it's kind of the news media's job to report it accurately. "You had one job" kind of thing.
- bithead 11y ago
  Agreed - they should. For me it's just that which is exasperating, since ostensibly some even went to college for it.

slg 11y ago

That is very true, but you also have to keep in mind the flip side of this. The people who know the most about a subject, including ourselves, are likely the ones who will be most biased about it. Not saying that is exactly what happened in the NYT piece, but that is certainly feasible in situations like this. The first person who writes the article is the person who was on duty in the newsroom or its virtual equivalent when the news broke. They don't know the details or history of the greater issue, so they stick to reporting the facts. Later, journalists with more domain expertise rewrite and add to the story. Maybe in this instance they are already knowledgeable about Reddit's questionable history with sexism. They see a story about a sexist website deposing a female CEO who is a controversial figure in gender relations (for lack of a better term). Suddenly the story gets reframed with that in mind. The extra opinion is only added because they know more about the subject.

Goronmon 11y ago
The people who know the most about a subject, including ourselves, are likely the ones who will be most biased about it. Which isn't necessarily any worse than the external bias that the reporter/editor may have when covering a subject. And that bias is amplified coming from a place of ignorance.
comex 11y ago
In this case, Mike Isaac, the original writer, seems to have a good amount of domain expertise, as starting last week he has been posting frequently on Reddit in an official role, discussing/answering questions about his reporting on the site. (Also claims to have been a redditor for five years, presumably on some other account.) Oddly, all of his official account's posts have been in the GamerGate subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/user/MikeIsaac https://www.reddit.com/user/MikeIsaac
- anon3_ 11y ago
  Good catch. Up until now, no one has pointed out the article eerily resembles the tones that began GamerGate. The more you look at it, the more it appears to be a deliberate troll to highlight the irony of injecting identity politics into journalism. He's a trojan horse. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_mike_isaac_the_new_york_times_reporter/ https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3cur16/im_m... Also, so called "anti-gamer gaters" don't simply go off and offer AMA's to "gamergaters". Anti-GG's modus operandi is to cast aside any discussion as misogyny or harassment. Both sides harass each other, unfortunately.

aklemm 11y ago

When I started reporting for my college newspaper this jumped out at me immediately and it was maddening. So I recorded every interview I did, and then had to transcribe the quotes. It took forever, so I guess I can see how it isn't feasible in the professional world, but it never seemed right.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

That happened to me: years ago, '60 Minutes' did a hit piece on a friend at work, and I knew that the story was far from the truth. First hand knowledge in that case turned me off of watching '60 Minutes' in the future and helped me develop the habbit of second sourcing stories, preferably from news media in different countries.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

witnessing something first-hand in real life, and then reading about it in the media You don't even need to read about it elsewhere. Your own recollection of the details of events you witnessed is usually very malleable. It's one reason why eyewitness testimony needs to be treated carefully. E.g. from Wikipedia[1]: Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions are unreliable; being easily manipulated, altered, and biased. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony