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

51–60 of 161 posts

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

#51

Post by beager »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #2

Seriously, it sounds like the author of this article is the first journalist who actually read the article in full and reflected on its contents. Unfortunately, it's a few days too late - the rest already spread wrong summaries, the misinformation has been spread, and the author of the memo fired.

I don't necessarily agree. I think a lot of writers probably read it in full and had a sense of its nuance, flaws, and intentions, and still elected to push the juicy and possibly inaccurate headline for their own, and their publications' own gain.

I think we're just at the point where thinkpieces criticizing the initial wave of thinkpieces are now vogue and profitable.

(FWIW, I believe the wave of misleading or negative coverage of this memo is partly the fault of its means of original publication and distribution. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the way in which unorthodox viewpoints are offered to the public can dictate how they're received and interpreted, and this was not "groomed" to be received well, regardless of the merit of its arguments or lack thereof.)

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

#52

Post by ashark »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #29
davehtaylor wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not weighing in on the broader issue here or, necessarily, why the author included that bit (see what I'm doing?) but pedantically qualifying one's position and every single clause to the point of absurdity is a style people learn when writing for online audiences, because something about reading text online makes people even worse readers than they ordinarily are, which is saying something, while also making them feel like well-informed experts on every conceivable topic who definitely need to comment on the thing they just read and (generously) half-understood, while also for some reason assuming the writer is some kind of actual fairy tale monster until proven otherwise.

Above sweeping statements intentionally left without pedantic qualification because it accurately expresses my thoughts on the matter as written. Deal with it, Internet.

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

#53

Post by gist »

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…

> it needs to be pointed out that this type of journalism is absolutely not neutral

And actually is a lazy way to even hoodwink people. The correct way is to show a bias and then use the proverbial 'to be sure' statements but bury those later on where they are less likely to be noticed.

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

#55

Post by mhalle »

Completely agree that the reporting on this memo would have benefited greatly by more careful reporting by the journalism community.

While that may be the case, however, it isn't like the uproar and misinterpretation couldn't have been predicted. Whatever the academic merit of the memo author's claims, the memo was thrown into a social context that was clearly primed for snap judgement.

Particularly regarding social issues, how we write is just as important as what we write. An effective argument connects and convinces, anticipating possible reactions and (mis-)interpretations of the reader.

The irony is that the memo is missing the necessary empathy and social awareness for the audience, qualities that the author attributes to women.

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

#56

Post by jabv »

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.

So there's no need to evaluate the argument, only to parse for key signals in the rhetoric?

Thanks for saving me time in my future critical reading!

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

#58

Post by bandrami »

mpweiher wrote: post #49
clairity wrote: post #41

i appreciate the article for pointing out a nuance often lost in this kind of situation: that teasing out positions and perspectives requires a careful reading, and summaries are often (intentionally) misleading. but let's be clear: the memo was a political document (in the common sense of the word, rather than about government machinations). sure, james damore may have been trying to have an honest conversation (and…

> biases and position were clear right from the title onward What were those "biases" and "positions", pray tell? > vulnerable and defensive You mean those that lied about what the guy wrote and then attacked that made-up wrongthink?

It's actually about ethics in game journalism?

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

#59

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #20
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've been there. Anybody who says that they've never been blinded by biased journalism or fallen for an internet hoax is lying to you, and possibly their own egos as well. That being said, this episode is an excellent example of why it is always best to avoid taking "sides." When someone takes a "side", the newspapers, data brokers, social media companies, advertisers, and everyone else rejoice in the profits of "eng…

I see what you're saying. People have a natural tendency to form an us-vs-them mentality and form their own little tribes. It is an ideological extreme.

However, I believe that there exists a growing extreme on the opposite side of the spectrum that believes there is no right or wrong, and thus we need to be accepting of everything that everyone has to say, which goes too far in my opinion.

I believe that it stems from multiculturalism teaching people that all cultures(and thus values) are valid, which is true on a global scale, but ignores the fact that having a particular culture locally helps in defining what is right or wrong socially and form a communal cohesion. I understand this is controversial. If you disagree, please comment so I may learn the flaws in my argument.

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

#60

Post by Sachaniman »

thowaway26539 wrote: post #17
strictnein wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is truly depressing. CNN used to be one of the last places to get non-ideological journalism. Looks like non-partisan journalism really is dead, as is the principle of charity.

Perhaps this might interest you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/65vl4v/cnn_treats...

Post reply on HN