Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 161 posts

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#21

Post by davehtaylor »

gdulli wrote: post #5

> He wants to use different means to address “the problem,” he insists, and doubts that the tradeoffs of getting to a staff of 50 percent men and 50 percent women would be worth it A lot of people are rushing to give this guy bonus points for saying "I'm not against diversity" and acknowledging some women should exist at Google. (Just as long as they're fewer than men, apparently.)

The author took the "I'm not sexist, but..." approach to this. But sadly, because of that, people seem to think he's some kind of objective observer.

If you have to make that kind of declaration, then everything you say afterward contradicts it.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#23

Post by TeMPOraL »

sidlls wrote: post #18
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least 3 other HN threads where people are deliberately misrepresenting what he wrote and implying malicious intent where none existed. Can we at least keep this one for substantive meta-commentary?

Implicit in your comment is that any suggestion of malicious intent by the author is not substantive. That doesn't seem reasonable, given the context.

I think discussing implicit things in such context should be considered harmful. We should limit ourselves to considering only the original text at face value - because it's too easy for anyone to read their own implicit meaning into the text that reflects their own biases.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#24

Post by whytaka »

sidlls wrote: post #18
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least 3 other HN threads where people are deliberately misrepresenting what he wrote and implying malicious intent where none existed. Can we at least keep this one for substantive meta-commentary?

Implicit in your comment is that any suggestion of malicious intent by the author is not substantive. That doesn't seem reasonable, given the context.

That's not implied in what they said at all. It takes quite a bit of imagination to make that leap from 3 to all.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#25

Post by Danihan »

strictnein wrote: post #7
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are giving all the click-bait writers far too much of a benefit of doubt. Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that they don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing, and what they are doing is creating outrage and profiting from it in this eyeball-click-ad driven journalism economy. Very few are going to have the wherewithal to forego hundreds or thousands of dollars i…

Yep, and sadly even major news orgs like CNN are doing this now. Case in point: "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs " https://twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 "A Google engineer argued that women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs." https://twitter.com/CNN/status/894951392779141120

This is intentional. It's intended to capture attention from people who will feel a need to argue that the headline misrepresents the content of the memo (which is does).

Then CNN converts that emotionalism and clicks and comments into ad dollars.

It's exactly why the media LOVES any controversial "wedge" issues. They polarize people, and polarized people argue incessantly. And people who are arguing == views and ad dollars.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#26

Post by mommy123 »

How about you lads try to calm down - perhaps by sucking on some teet to calm yourselves down? Surely your mom's, the one whose underwear you're surely wearing as you've been typing away furiously for days now on this topic - using her computer located in her basement, no doubt - and so perhaps this heroine might feel sympathetic and provide some comfort to you on this dark day, too. In the the form of her worn out teet, that is.

Well you lads know how REAL WOMENS are. They don't care for you, because you're just 8-bit mentally challenged trash to be flushed down the toilet as soon as you show up anywhere - but that one WOMENS who poured you out her colostomy bag might still care for you! So now, don't be proud - you never have been ;) - and go ask your mother, lads, before you get all flustered and angry online. You may feel much calmer later.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#27

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

agentgt wrote: post #13

What pains me is before reading this article I was slightly biased because of previous articles. Actually it doesn't pain me... it really pisses me off that so many journalist are fooling people... particularly me. When I read the bloomberg article (which I submitted to HN and now I want to just bang my head on the table for doing it) I was actually slightly siding with Google. Even though I was constantly telling my…

I feel the same. When I first read the censored Gizmodo version, I thought to myself, "Whoah, this guy is making up too many assumptions without any references!" Later, when I found the original version with references, I felt a bit stupid for judging him.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#28

Post by spookyuser »

Chardok wrote: post #6

Regardless on your opinions of the memo, this article nails it right on the head; Gizmodo and other major news outlets handled this very irresponsibly, posting their version that had no citations, and leading the reader, even at the very beginning, into forming the opinion that this was simply a guy being "anti-diversity". Whatever your thoughts on the subject are, it needs to be pointed out that this type of journal…

So true, I thought the last paragraph of the article was particularly apt.

>When journalistic institutions widely publicize material of this sort, only to abdicate the vital work of rigorously addressing its substance, they make its least plausible claims more likely to be normalized. They leave the project of assessing its merits and flaws to Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and other venues where the loudest voices tend to prevail, instead of offering their own careful reporting and expert analysis.

I buy this point so much because after reading about the controversy on the crazy 1000 comment thread here on HN and the other threads on reddit, there was no top level comment that made the same well reasoned claims this very article did, which IMO is so far the best I have read about the whole debacle. This is what journalists doing their job looks like.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#29

Post by TeMPOraL »

davehtaylor wrote: post #21
gdulli wrote: post #5

> He wants to use different means to address “the problem,” he insists, and doubts that the tradeoffs of getting to a staff of 50 percent men and 50 percent women would be worth it A lot of people are rushing to give this guy bonus points for saying "I'm not against diversity" and acknowledging some women should exist at Google. (Just as long as they're fewer than men, apparently.)

The author took the "I'm not sexist, but..." approach to this. But sadly, because of that, people seem to think he's some kind of objective observer. If you have to make that kind of declaration, then everything you say afterward contradicts it.

This whole "I'm not sexist, but" line or rejection is one of the most anti-intellectual things I've seen in my lifetime. It's literally the good old witch test. If you don't say it, you're sexist because you didn't deny it. If you say it, you're sexist because obviously a sexist would deny being one.

Re: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

#30

Post by throwawayhnc678 »

strictnein wrote: post #7
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are giving all the click-bait writers far too much of a benefit of doubt. Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that they don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing, and what they are doing is creating outrage and profiting from it in this eyeball-click-ad driven journalism economy. Very few are going to have the wherewithal to forego hundreds or thousands of dollars i…

Yep, and sadly even major news orgs like CNN are doing this now. Case in point: "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs " https://twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161 "A Google engineer argued that women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs." https://twitter.com/CNN/status/894951392779141120

Sundar Pichai (the CEO) did the same thing in his letter to employees:

"However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. [...] To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK."

https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-...

Post reply on HN