91–100 of 258 posts
Didn't a Russian ship catch fire some months ago and travel through the English Channel? Seems to me that if it affected the nuclear aspect of the ship, it could pollute the water, and also flow into some of the major rivers of Europe.
How would that work? Does the Atlantic ocean flow into the rivers of Europe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking for clarification: could the nuclear reactors of atomic submarines carrying nuclear warheads not conceivably release I-131?
Nuclear reactor on the sub, yes. Nuclear warhead, no, unless there was a detonation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the…
I agree with many of your points and feel that this topic does seem a bit sensationalized here. But my conclusions had nothing to do with the grammatical peeves you're also pointing out, which feel a bit unnecessary amidst the actual facts being discussed.
I added them because I believe that, in aggregate, they demonstrate another dimension of the 'quality' being discussed: journalism has an appreciation of language. Without writers that care, and paid copy editors, that quality may be lost without people ever realising what we had.
Think about any craft you know something about: You might find yourself explaining the details of a really well-crafted specimen to a lay person. Most or all of it may be new to to that person, but they could have maybe recognised and appreciated the overall quality. By teaching people about the many small details that went into the product, you're making it easier for them to seek out quality, and harder on producers to cut corners.
But my examples were probably too superficial and/or even wrong. Only this once I'll use my status as a non-native speaker of English as an excuse :). I'd add a note to the post itself, but the time to edit has unfortunately passed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. It is one thing to give reasonable criticism of a specific incidence of news media misconduct. It is another thing to blanket condemn every news organization based on inaccurate hypotheticals and personal opinions with no proof. Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed. By all means, be a skeptical and informed consumer of the news, but d…
People lost faith in media after their support for Iraq war. I haven't seen anything from them which shows they are trying to improve.
These criticisms toward the media and 'it's not like it used to be' allegations have been going on for generations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the…
> Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. What about that news article that WaPo published about the guy who found some malware on his laptop and was blown out into this https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russi... I don't know how you could go from a virus on a laptop to "Russia is hacking into our power grid"…
I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.
I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that what qualifies as incompetence is extremely subjective. Saying "this person's work is incompetent", I think, usually amounts to nothing more than "this person made mistakes in their work that turn out to be obvious to me because of the particulars of my circumstances." Take me for example. I work as a software developer at a company that hires devs who studied computer science or math mostly from low…
> Not only is the label of incompetence highly subjective, it is also useless at best This just isn't the case. The label of incompetence can give you correct, meaningful answers to questions like - This person wants me to work with them. Am I likely to get anything out of this? - If I devote my time to trying to educate/train/help this person, will I see any results from that? Will they end up with any additional kn…
Please tell me we are better than this as a profession.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree. It is one thing to give reasonable criticism of a specific incidence of news media misconduct. It is another thing to blanket condemn every news organization based on inaccurate hypotheticals and personal opinions with no proof. Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed. By all means, be a skeptical and informed consumer of the news, but d…
I feel like people have all of a sudden rushed to defend the media now that Trump is attacking it. But I feel like we've lost sight of who is probably chiefly responsible for Trump to begin with: A media framework which rewards views, leading to focus on the most outrageous and entertaining "news" over important information. The media is VERY important, I agree. But I feel we've recently decided to forget how awful t…
I agree with you on this point, but I'd like to add that this argument can be spun further: the media framework is as rigged for views as it is due to poor prioritization of the media consumers.
Of course, next step in the chain is that it's the media companies that failed to find business models that adapted to digital and retained sufficient journalistic integrity. But I think that's a bit unfair. None of us have figured that out. I highly doubt that journalists are celebrating the new age of clickbait. I'd rather suspect they cry themselves to sleep over it, so it's not for lack of trying.
Sigh. I think I'm going to buy a Guardian subscription now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the…
"There's only one WC-135, so the plural is wrong." Wikipedia claims this: "10 original WC-135B, plus 1 converted former EC-135C. Two aircraft currently in active service." So... is there one WC-135, or two or 10 or 11? >> the "mainstream media" is doing an excellent job regarding these reports: not reporting on them. I just checked up on CNN and I can read about "Kung fu granny", "Comic con in Saudi Arabia" and nothi…
> Wikipedia claims this: "10 original WC-135B, plus 1 converted former EC-135C. Two aircraft currently in active service."
You are right – I misunderstood the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article when I checked.
In this case, however, I'd like to add to my nitpicking by complaining about the phrase "highly unique".
I also don't get why anybody would use cnn.com, or any other TV station's website, for news. Journalism happens at Newspapers, at magazines, and in books. That's the result of economics: These formats are very constrained. They don't allow for many distinguishing features except the content itself. Whereas CNN has dozens of variables it can jiggle before even thinking about investing into investigative journalism, and ultimately it's bound to be the better business decision to spend money on a charming anchorman than a dozen people working an idea that may just go nowhere.