“CEO said a thing” journalism
karlbode.com
“CEO said a thing” journalism
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#2Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#3Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#4Jensen thinks DLSS 5 works at "the geometry level", for instance. Oh and he pays engineers $500,000 to spend $250,000 on Claude tokens.
Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#5Is there a term that's equivalent to "reactionary" but applies to leftist/liberal ideals or is it fine for me to start referring to this kind of writing as "reactionary" save that I apply some sort of qualifier like "leftist" or "liberal" before or afterwards?
Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#6Also "some minority group is concerned about something" journalism.
Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#7Also "some minority group is concerned about something" journalism.
Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#8I'm confident this phenomenon exists in other industries too. Is there a term that's equivalent to "reactionary" but applies to leftist/liberal ideals or is it fine for me to start referring to this kind of writing as "reactionary" save that I apply some sort of qualifier like "leftist" or "liberal" before or afterwards?
Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#9It is at least entertaining when certain CEOs speak off-the-cuff and reveal they have no clue what they are talking about. Jensen thinks DLSS 5 works at "the geometry level", for instance. Oh and he pays engineers $500,000 to spend $250,000 on Claude tokens.
Jensen isn't an idiot, he's capitalizing on the market.
Re: “CEO said a thing” journalism
#10I'm confident this phenomenon exists in other industries too. Is there a term that's equivalent to "reactionary" but applies to leftist/liberal ideals or is it fine for me to start referring to this kind of writing as "reactionary" save that I apply some sort of qualifier like "leftist" or "liberal" before or afterwards?
Also, what would define a "leftist reactionary" anyway? An opposition to social conservatism? That's already the left's stance.
> is it fine for me to start referring to this kind of writing as "reactionary"
I really don't understand what's wrong with asking journalists to do their damn jobs and spend even a tiny amount of time checking the validity of what the people they're quoting are saying. Don't remove their statement, just point at the various potential ways they're misleading/wrong.
Journalists better start doing this basic part of their job again lest you want to be ruled by shameless incompetent buffoons that go unchallenged. Oh wait...