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

Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

natesilver.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 385 posts

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#371

Post by ricksunny »

wrp wrote: post #221
ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

> Big question: HOW? By asking OTHER specialists. In the 1970s/80s of my experience, journalism was much higher quality than now, but reporters were still notoriously ignorant of technical subjects. Standard procedure for a reporter was to contact one or two outside specialists to comment on the case. A good reporter wasn't expected to have expert knowledge, but just to be an accurate "reporter" of what experts said.

And what if the 'other specialists' participate in a sci-bubble (grant review committees, peer review in-group) with the reporter's source in question? Relevant scientific niches for affirming credibility are too small for everyone not to already know each other through b̶a̶i̶j̶i̶u̶ i̶n̶ a̶ b̶a̶t̶c̶a̶v̶e̶ pre-existing co-opetitive relationships.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#372

Post by 0dayz »

stainablesteel wrote: post #176

define journalist: 1. an independent youtuber, who gives their opinion, can admit their bias, and is able to operate on good faith while allowing open discussions with people they disagree with 2. a corporate "journalist" who's integrity has become second rate in the age of the internet, who uses language as an instrument to get people to admit what they want them to admit in the most petty way possible i can agree w…

1. Is as likely if not even more likely to be biased because they got multiple incentives such as their personal ego, clout, vendetta, financial and more.

A journalist is not just someone asking questions, it's someone able to do a report and crucially be source critical which is a skill, 90% of so called journalists on YouTube do not do this.

2. This definition makes no sense and it sounds more like you're confusing reporter and investigator.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#373

Post by unethical_ban »

avgcorrection wrote: post #363
unethical_ban wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is necessary because an informed electorate is a prerequisite for successful democracy.

You got the propaganda line down pat.

Your intellectual weakness begins to show when you can't craft an argument or admit when your opponent makes a point.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#375

Post by Slava_Propanei »

wholinator2 wrote: post #332
willyt wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reply to downvotes: Interesting… Is it the idea of regulation that you disagree with? Do you also think that professionals like Structural engineers, Electricians and Doctors shouldn’t be regulated? Or is it the idea of protected words ‘e.g ‘Medical Doctor’ or ‘Prescription’?

If i might speak on some behalf, an adjacent question is what would a political agenda in structural engineering registration and certification look like? Then, what would a political agenda in the registration of journalists look like? It feels sorta like regulatory capture. Why would we allow the government or some central organizing body to determine who is legally allowed to report on them. Because introducing ce…

[dead]

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#376

Post by mike_hearn »

dekhn wrote: post #198
mike_hearn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to shoot for perfection. The bar has sunk so low even very basic techniques can yield huge improvements in trust: 1. Report the fact that disagreement exists. Phrased differently, stop taking academics at their word when they claim there's a consensus. Do some basic web searches to find people who disagree. Get quotes from them. Stress on the word people ; not just other academics but literally anyone…

it's rare for "layman" to find true errors in papers, and you weren't a layman when you did your investigation, as you say in the article. That said, 90% of all papers contain at least one important error that brings the conclusions into question. Note that even great papers that established long-accepted truths contain important errors, see both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Controvers... and htt…

Although it's true I wasn't a layman, it turned out my own expertise in bot fighting had no utility to reviewing the paper. The review was done as a "layman", because the sociological subfield of twitter bot research has nothing to do with bots :( Anyone could have written that and actually most of the paper takedowns in that subfield are done by a team of a CS prof (with no specialism in bots) and a data journalist.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#377

Post by avgcorrection »

unethical_ban wrote: post #373
avgcorrection wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got the propaganda line down pat.

Your intellectual weakness begins to show when you can't craft an argument or admit when your opponent makes a point.

You didn’t craft an argument. You just made a statement/assertion. Do you get to be lazy simply because your statement is the conventional wisdom? While I don’t get the same privilege?

A premise of your assertion—that one lives in a democracy—fails in the case of the US (a popular country I hear) since a Princeton study shows that there is zero correlation between the policy preferences of 90% of Americans and the policies that are actually enacted.

But the Walter Lippmann sense of propaganda is still relevant since the News is meant to herd the beliefs of that Political Class—the top 10%. See for example the book Manufacturing Consent.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#378

Post by unethical_ban »

avgcorrection wrote: post #377
unethical_ban wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your intellectual weakness begins to show when you can't craft an argument or admit when your opponent makes a point.

You didn’t craft an argument. You just made a statement/assertion. Do you get to be lazy simply because your statement is the conventional wisdom? While I don’t get the same privilege? A premise of your assertion—that one lives in a democracy—fails in the case of the US (a popular country I hear) since a Princeton study shows that there is zero correlation between the policy preferences of 90% of Americans and the po…

To state that the US isn't an effective democracy doesn't counter the argument that journalism as a mechanism for an informed populace is necessary for an effective democracy.

It seems what I'm saying is "proper journalism is important" and I can't tell if you're saying "we don't have proper journalism in the US" or "There is no such thing as effective journalism".

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#379

Post by dang »

papito wrote: post #28
slily wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment reminds me of this line from the submission: "There’s also a generational divide in journalism, with younger journalists tending to be more openly left/progressive than their older peers — and tending to be more Manichean in dividing the world between good and evil rather than proceeding from the notion that people and news stories are complicated and it’s not particularly their job to pass moral judgmen…

[flagged]

Could you please not post in the flamewar style like this? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#380

Post by robertlagrant »

ghaff wrote: post #192
robertlagrant wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and that reporters could never become capable of doing it I disagree for any current reporters who were selected by going to journalism school rather than by gaining expertise and then turning to journalism.

J-school in general is probably a poor criterion. Someone who has just done a bunch of reporting (and other things) isn't really less qualified to do journalism that someone with a J-school degree.

I'm not saying they are; if anything I'm saying the exact opposite.
Post reply on HN