Friam

credibility

Classic

List

Threaded

8 messages Options

gepr

credibility

These articles:

New York Times under fire over op-ed urging Trump to 'send in the troops'
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/03/new-york-times-op-ed-tom-cotton-backlash-staff

Senator’s ‘Send In the Troops’ Op-Ed in The Times Draws Online Ire
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/business/tom-cotton-op-ed.html?searchResultPosition=1

remind me of EricS' (proper) calling out of Dave's bullshit about Science™, Jochen's calling out of Weinstein's (apparent) narcissism, this act of feminist community policing by a co-feminist:

Why Naomi Wolf Needs to Go Away Forever
https://youtu.be/GrVS_c9xoGs

deplatforming, how to handle trolls, sophistry surrounding metaphor, the irresponsibility of aphorisms, pithy snark, cherry picking, as well as steelmanning and listening with empathy. The unifying thread, I think, is that "words have power" and the failure to mitigate the consequences/implications of one's words is negligent. Credibility does NOT come from having experiences (e.g. 200k hours on a bike), reputation (a degree from XYZ), intelligence (knowing things or high IQ), etc. Credibility comes from a historical ephemeris showing consequentialist care, evidence that one considers and mitigates the impact of what they say (and do) on the world, other people, the planet, etc. Banally, this is the simple point Tom makes about needing editors (or Watson makes about books vs. peer-review). But it pervades so much deeper into every aspect of every layer of life.

But to be clear, I don't think credibility is related to *[in]formality*. Adopting formal methods for any given behavior (like "hospitality rules" for seminars in rarified cloisters). Both formal and informal treatments can be credible. I suppose it seems like even the demonstrated choice of [in]formality and the consideration of why one or the other is appropriate establishes credibility.

Long story short, *this* is why I cancelled my subscription to the NYT back when they hired Bret Stephens [†], despite all the things they do that I like.

[†] For a little context, see: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28892307/david-karpf-bret-stephens-bedbug-nyt-column-response/

--
☣ uǝlƃ

-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: credibility

Update:

Journalists believe news and opinion are separate, but readers can’t tell the difference
https://theconversation.com/journalists-believe-news-and-opinion-are-separate-but-readers-cant-tell-the-difference-140901

On 6/4/20 7:14 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> These articles:
>
> New York Times under fire over op-ed urging Trump to 'send in the troops'
> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/03/new-york-times-op-ed-tom-cotton-backlash-staff
>
> Senator’s ‘Send In the Troops’ Op-Ed in The Times Draws Online Ire
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/business/tom-cotton-op-ed.html?searchResultPosition=1
>
> remind me of EricS' (proper) calling out of Dave's bullshit about Science™, Jochen's calling out of Weinstein's (apparent) narcissism, this act of feminist community policing by a co-feminist:
>
> Why Naomi Wolf Needs to Go Away Forever
> https://youtu.be/GrVS_c9xoGs
>
> [...]
>
> Long story short, *this* is why I cancelled my subscription to the NYT back when they hired Bret Stephens [†], despite all the things they do that I like.
>
>
> [†] For a little context, see: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28892307/david-karpf-bret-stephens-bedbug-nyt-column-response/
>

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: credibility

Aaannndddd more fodder:

Slate Star Codex must remain anonymous
The New York Times wants to out the author of a blog that is one of the few sites for reasoned argument
https://unherd.com/2020/06/slate-star-codex-must-remain-anonymous/

I don't know anything about Cade Metz <https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz>. I do/did follow SSC quite closely and hope the NYT does not print his surname (assuming they haven't already and I just don't know about it). But what's more interesting to me is this rabbit hole: http://archive.vn/1TvMm [†]

But on the topic of the NYT's credibility, Op-Eds are one thing. This seems different. Most of the other outlets criticizing the threat to print ScottA's surname seem to lean right. National Review and Reason being the more credible ones. I'm having trouble sorting out where this kerfuffle lies.

[†] Links:
Deep Capture: https://www.deepcapture.com/
Patrick Byrne: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M._Byrne
Judd Bagley: https://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com/2015/03/overstockcom-hatchet-man-judd-bagleys.html

On 6/22/20 12:13 PM, ∄ uǝlƃ wrote:

> Update:
>
> Journalists believe news and opinion are separate, but readers can’t tell the difference
> https://theconversation.com/journalists-believe-news-and-opinion-are-separate-but-readers-cant-tell-the-difference-140901
>
> On 6/4/20 7:14 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
>> These articles:
>>
>> New York Times under fire over op-ed urging Trump to 'send in the troops'
>> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/03/new-york-times-op-ed-tom-cotton-backlash-staff
>>
>> Senator’s ‘Send In the Troops’ Op-Ed in The Times Draws Online Ire
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/business/tom-cotton-op-ed.html?searchResultPosition=1
>>
>> remind me of EricS' (proper) calling out of Dave's bullshit about Science™, Jochen's calling out of Weinstein's (apparent) narcissism, this act of feminist community policing by a co-feminist:
>>
>> Why Naomi Wolf Needs to Go Away Forever
>> https://youtu.be/GrVS_c9xoGs
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Long story short, *this* is why I cancelled my subscription to the NYT back when they hired Bret Stephens [†], despite all the things they do that I like.
>>
>>
>> [†] For a little context, see: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28892307/david-karpf-bret-stephens-bedbug-nyt-column-response/
>>
>

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: credibility

I'm catching up after rescuing 30 days of FRIAM from the spam folder.

In an even more meta-news context, The New York Times revealed yesterday that the Washington Post pulled a Bob Woodward article that would have outed Bret Kavanaugh as an anonymous source, directly contradicting testimony Kavanaugh was giving about what he did and did not do while serving on Ken Starr's staff. Keeping faith with your sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html

-- rec --

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:17 AM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Aaannndddd more fodder:

Slate Star Codex must remain anonymous
The New York Times wants to out the author of a blog that is one of the few sites for reasoned argument
https://unherd.com/2020/06/slate-star-codex-must-remain-anonymous/

I don't know anything about Cade Metz <https://www.nytimes.com/by/cade-metz>. I do/did follow SSC quite closely and hope the NYT does not print his surname (assuming they haven't already and I just don't know about it). But what's more interesting to me is this rabbit hole: http://archive.vn/1TvMm [†]

But on the topic of the NYT's credibility, Op-Eds are one thing. This seems different. Most of the other outlets criticizing the threat to print ScottA's surname seem to lean right. National Review and Reason being the more credible ones. I'm having trouble sorting out where this kerfuffle lies.

[†] Links:
Deep Capture: https://www.deepcapture.com/
Patrick Byrne: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M._Byrne
Judd Bagley: https://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com/2015/03/overstockcom-hatchet-man-judd-bagleys.html

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: credibility

I'm not sure if that NYT article's been edited since it was originally published or what. It's so brief and conflicts with a screenshot I see on Twitter that I don't know what to think. Maybe it's simply that I'm not subscribed to the NYT anymore? (Of course, I'll never subscribe to WP because Bezos doesn't need my money.)

https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1277398891936219139/photo/1

A little more context, here: https://lawandcrime.com/politics/wapo-editor-squashed-2018-woodward-article-that-wouldve-unmasked-kavanaugh-as-backstabbing-source-report/

It's interesting that Google returns a lot of right-leaning sources for this story, similar to the Slate Star Codex issue <https://slatestarcodex.com/>. I suppose it's thinly justified as right-leaners' opportunities to attack left-leaners' favorite sources. I enjoy things most when, e.g., orgs like the ACLU band together with, e.g., Reason to argue for privacy. Blatant partisanship annoys me. At least *pretend* to be open-minded! >8^D

On 6/29/20 9:48 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> I'm catching up after rescuing 30 days of FRIAM from the spam folder.
>
> In an even more meta-news context, The New York Times revealed yesterday that the Washington Post pulled a Bob Woodward article that would have outed Bret Kavanaugh as an anonymous source, directly contradicting testimony Kavanaugh was giving about what he did and did not do while serving on Ken Starr's staff. Keeping faith with your sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html?>

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Tom Johnson

Re: credibility

" (Of course, I'll never subscribe to WP because Bezos doesn't need my money.) "

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Bezos is taking any money out of the WP. In fact, he and the company seem to be investing everything back into the property.

TJ
============================================
Tom Johnson - [hidden email]
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
NM Foundation for Open Government
Check out It's The People's Data

============================================

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:23 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure if that NYT article's been edited since it was originally published or what. It's so brief and conflicts with a screenshot I see on Twitter that I don't know what to think. Maybe it's simply that I'm not subscribed to the NYT anymore? (Of course, I'll never subscribe to WP because Bezos doesn't need my money.)

https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1277398891936219139/photo/1

A little more context, here: https://lawandcrime.com/politics/wapo-editor-squashed-2018-woodward-article-that-wouldve-unmasked-kavanaugh-as-backstabbing-source-report/

It's interesting that Google returns a lot of right-leaning sources for this story, similar to the Slate Star Codex issue <https://slatestarcodex.com/>. I suppose it's thinly justified as right-leaners' opportunities to attack left-leaners' favorite sources. I enjoy things most when, e.g., orgs like the ACLU band together with, e.g., Reason to argue for privacy. Blatant partisanship annoys me. At least *pretend* to be open-minded! >8^D

On 6/29/20 9:48 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> I'm catching up after rescuing 30 days of FRIAM from the spam folder.
>
> In an even more meta-news context, The New York Times revealed yesterday that the Washington Post pulled a Bob Woodward article that would have outed Bret Kavanaugh as an anonymous source, directly contradicting testimony Kavanaugh was giving about what he did and did not do while serving on Ken Starr's staff. Keeping faith with your sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html?>

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: credibility

Yes, I suppose I should speak more clearly. Bezos doesn't *need* to take any money out of WP because he's the richest person in the world. I'm glad he *donates* his money to the WP. But I'm suspicious of for-profits that act like non-profits and non-profits that act like for-profits. To make it even more explicit, Renee' responds positively to these advertisements:

https://www.passiton.com/

After seeing a loooong commercial on one of her crime shows, I asked "What are they selling?" She responded, "What do you mean? They're not selling anything. It's like a PSA." A little digging demonstrates that they're *selling* MAGA, even if they don't call it that ... good ole traditional American values of family and individual responsibility ... you know, the same values that kill black men and get transgendered people dragged behind trucks in Texas.

So, what *is* Bezos buying every time he does NOT take a profit from the WP?

On 6/29/20 11:45 AM, Tom Johnson wrote:
> /" (Of course, I'll never subscribe to WP because Bezos doesn't need my money.) "
> /
> There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Bezos is taking any money out of the WP. In fact, he and the company seem to be investing everything back into the property.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: credibility

In reply to this post by gepr

And still more progress toward realism in media:

Over 280 Wall Street Journal employees raise credibility concerns about opinion page
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/508373-over-280-wall-street-journal-employees-raise-credibility-concerns-about

On 6/29/20 11:23 AM, ∄ uǝlƃ wrote:

> I'm not sure if that NYT article's been edited since it was originally published or what. It's so brief and conflicts with a screenshot I see on Twitter that I don't know what to think. Maybe it's simply that I'm not subscribed to the NYT anymore? (Of course, I'll never subscribe to WP because Bezos doesn't need my money.)
>
> https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1277398891936219139/photo/1
>
> A little more context, here: https://lawandcrime.com/politics/wapo-editor-squashed-2018-woodward-article-that-wouldve-unmasked-kavanaugh-as-backstabbing-source-report/
>
> It's interesting that Google returns a lot of right-leaning sources for this story, similar to the Slate Star Codex issue <https://slatestarcodex.com/>. I suppose it's thinly justified as right-leaners' opportunities to attack left-leaners' favorite sources. I enjoy things most when, e.g., orgs like the ACLU band together with, e.g., Reason to argue for privacy. Blatant partisanship annoys me. At least *pretend* to be open-minded! >8^D
>
> On 6/29/20 9:48 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>> I'm catching up after rescuing 30 days of FRIAM from the spam folder.
>>
>> In an even more meta-news context, The New York Times revealed yesterday that the Washington Post pulled a Bob Woodward article that would have outed Bret Kavanaugh as an anonymous source, directly contradicting testimony Kavanaugh was giving about what he did and did not do while serving on Ken Starr's staff. Keeping faith with your sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html?>
>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen