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

91–100 of 161 posts

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

#91

Post by SkyMarshal »

spookyuser wrote: post #28
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…

Yes, and exacerbating the problem is that the original memo, even with its citations included, was sloppy and not rigorous, and should have been like shooting fish in a barrel for all the media covering it.

But instead most of the media coverage seemed to be coming from a frame of, "don't validate fringe viewpoints by actually addressing their arguments", rather just ignore their arguments and use other tactics to undermine them. That strategy may have worked in the pre-Internet age, but in the Internet age it risks putting you on the wrong side of "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.". In the Internet age the correct strategy for dealing with the fringe is directly addressing and discrediting their reasoning early, before they can create an echo chamber feedback loop.

But traditional media seems slow in general to realize that, in the Internet age, the fringe eventually defines the center unless stopped early. This episode appears to have been another manifestation of that.

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

#92

Post by jshevek »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #89
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…

The problem with this, is that the alt-right have made a habit of this "look how rational I am as i call you subhuman, why are you so upset by rational truth" thing. Milo Yianoppolos, who most of the time markets himself as an anarchistic troll, will put on his serious face and claim that he is worried about trans people because it's a mental illness and he just wants them to be treated, rather than play along with t…

This only seems relevant if you think that these examples justify refusing to listen to the rational of those you disagree with.

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

#93

Post by jshevek »

wcummings wrote: post #71
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…

This article doesn't say anything about citations, unless I'm missing something. I've read the memo, "citations" (some of them hardly qualify) and all. "Anti-diversity" might be a little hyperbolic, but it's hard to argue it is anything else in good faith . The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic , in a professional setting , no less. His "citation" for this fact is Wikipedi…

Where did you read the memo? Gizmodo lied and claimed to present the whole memo, when they didn't.

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

#94

Post by mentat »

wcummings wrote: post #84
MountainManMe wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author feels comfortable making the claim women are biologically more neurotic, in a professional setting, no less. His "citation" for this fact is Wikipedia. This is unimaginative sexist bullshit that everyone has heard before. That people feel the impulse to defend this is disgusting. Wikipedia might not be the most credible source, but the differences in big 5 personality traits between men and women are wel…

And you believe those differences to be meaningful? To programming? And appropriate to discuss with coworkers?

What happens with all the correct things that are now inappropriate to say in this brave new world?

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

#95

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jshevek wrote: post #92
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this, is that the alt-right have made a habit of this "look how rational I am as i call you subhuman, why are you so upset by rational truth" thing. Milo Yianoppolos, who most of the time markets himself as an anarchistic troll, will put on his serious face and claim that he is worried about trans people because it's a mental illness and he just wants them to be treated, rather than play along with t…

This only seems relevant if you think that these examples justify refusing to listen to the rational of those you disagree with.

I've listened to all of the above, enough to spot glaring inconsistencies lurking behind their rational facade. What more do you want from me? Automatic agreement with disingenuous trolls and madmen just because they can write fully formed paragraphs and link to cherry picked science?

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

#96

Post by Danihan »

matchu wrote: post #74

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that…

Define sexism...

Is believing men and women on average have different hormone levels and generally speaking, this leads to different behaviors and proclivities, sexist?

Is admitting there is any difference between the two sexes, sexist?

Is using different pronouns for men and women sexist?

I honestly don't know where someone draws the line who finds this memo "sexist."

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

#97

Post by tajen »

Danihan wrote: post #25
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

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…

Or is it intentional by the leaders of CNN to try to side with Google on that case?

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

#98

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #89
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…

The problem with this, is that the alt-right have made a habit of this "look how rational I am as i call you subhuman, why are you so upset by rational truth" thing. Milo Yianoppolos, who most of the time markets himself as an anarchistic troll, will put on his serious face and claim that he is worried about trans people because it's a mental illness and he just wants them to be treated, rather than play along with t…

> Fool me once..

Except this only works with subsequent encounters with the same trickster. Those across your side of the political aisle are not a monolith, yet you assume they are all just a few shades off from Milo. If that's your impression, you should diversify your reading selections. Try John McWhorter, for example.

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

#99

Post by md224 »

joelrunyon wrote: post #77

Why is this on the second page with 246 points in 1-2 hours? Seems strange...

Not sure if you'll see my reply, but this happens often to HN submissions on politically charged topics. The topic gets flagged to death. It's been like this for a long time.

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

#100

Post by matchu »

Danihan wrote: post #96
matchu wrote: post #74

It's important to distinguish between what the memo's author says, and what effect his words actually have. It is an anti-diversity memo, even if it isn't intended as one. The author makes shaky statements about gender, reinforcing sexist stereotypes. The author applies rationalist disclaimers, which enables already-sexist readers to feel that their sexism is rational. And, most distressingly, the author asserts that…

Define sexism... Is believing men and women on average have different hormone levels and generally speaking, this leads to different behaviors and proclivities, sexist? Is admitting there is any difference between the two sexes, sexist? Is using different pronouns for men and women sexist? I honestly don't know where someone draws the line who finds this memo "sexist."

I haven't decided yet whether I think the memo is sexist. But I'm confident that, because of how it's written, sexist people who read it will feel validated in their sexism.

It uses the same core argument as sexism: women are less suited to certain tasks, perhaps biologically. And it reaches the same conclusion: we should roll back our pro-diversity and pro-empathy programs. A sexist person who reads this will therefore feel that it supports their views, and, because the argument seems rationalist, they'll conclude that their poor treatment of women is rationalist. That might not be the intent of the document, but it is a predictable outcome.

Words that validate sexist behavior, intentionally or unintentionally, contribute to the problem. Regardless of the merit of the underlying idea, or the valuable conversations it inspired, it's important to remember that the memo itself did harm. It's appropriate that some people are focusing on that.

Post reply on HN