Jim Lehrer's Rules of Journalism - <AUTHOR> https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 <comment><USER3> I feel like the conversation is lacking a journalist point of view so I'm going to pitch in :) I usually don't say anything in this kind of debate (especially on Twitter ;) ) because it's pretty useless, but I love reading the community here and it's the first time that a debate disppoints me. I feel like it's one sided and completly lacking the usual counter-argument and debate. Also, bear with me if I make english mistakes - I'm french and it's not my native langage.

First I'd like to adress there's very different kinds of journalism, different set of skills associated with it and of course, a company they work for. As a job, working for the New York Times, for a local journal, for a tech magazine or for travel channel is completely different. I don't think people realise how different the job actually is from one media to the other. You can't say 'journalists' the same way you can't say 'engineers' because there's people doing software, people doing tests, people building machines, people advising companies and many other people doing many other things and having no idea how to do some other engineer job because it is... entirely different. We're not interchangeable and we don't all do the same job at all.

All medias are also different. Which implies different owners, rules, and bosses. As a journalist, you're like everyone else : you're an employee. You can have ethics, you can have thoughts or a list of rules. At the end of the day, it's a job and if your boss asks you to do something completly stupid, you can either say no, loose that job and possibly die of hunger. Or you roll with it and hope very very hard it will not stay on the internet. (Spoiler alert : it will and you'll be ashamed of it all your life.) You do have rights in some countries; but first, like many rights, not everyone know them; and second, those rights don't necessarily protect you. Maybe the media can't fire you right away or because you refused working, but a few months later, when they're considering reconducting your contract, you'll just get cut. It's just sad math. Not everyone can afford to be a hero.

<comment><USER3> Another point is that there's this image that being a good journalist means investigating. Movies or tv shows never mention the actual money you're getting for publishing online. I often see discussion here on how much engineers make. Everytime I read those, I can't believe the numbers. So let's talk money. In France the middle ground for an online paper is getting paid between 40 dollars for a short piece and 120 for a long one. That's usually 8000 characters for long ones, so more or less 800 to 1000 words. If you want to do a good job, it requiries usually two days : you have to research, get people's contacts. Agree on a time for three or four interview which are going to last between 30 minutes and an hour each. Then if you have everything (rarely happens) you have to write. If no one answers or you realize the subject was actually much more complicated than you thought, it might take a week or a month. The nature of the job makes it hard to know how long exactly something is going to take if you want to do it right... But at the end of the day, the amount of money you get paid doesn't change and you might just get paid 100 dollars for two days work, and that's before taxes. I'll talk about my own experience as a freelancer for a year here, and I'm actually one of the very lucky ones because I had work. I calculated that this year, I often got paid 1 or 2 euro the hour. I earned 300 or 400 a month - well, usually it's more 1500 a month, then nothing for two month, then 200, then 600, then nothing again... Often I got paid four months after being published - <USER2> sometimes on Paypal. I also worked for a big American media and they pay you the same amount as in France - except at the end you get a check and your bank at home will also cut its own share of it and you'll end up with two times less money. I am absolutely not exagerating. Of course, I stopped being a freelancer because I couldn't make it work. Yes, my job was more interesting and I was travelling and getting to cover more exciting stuff. But it couldn't compensate the stress that came with having literaly no money and my savings going down and down and down and down. So now I have a job that is actually one of the rare ones where I can do a good job in France and get paid ok. I'll still never earn more than 20 to 25K a year after taxes. But I'm lucky. Really. So imagine how it is for mostly everyone else.

<comment><USER3> So I'd like to take the debate here where I think it should lie: with the companies' management. The problem isn't the journalists - there's good ones, bad ones like everywhere and they can't shoulder all the trust crisis that's out there. The problem is that no one is really checking who posts what online. Medias have had a history of having an article go through 3 to 4 people before getting okayed and being published. I actually hate that you only have one name on an article because it is really not a solo work (or at least it never should be). Often I have read articles I wrote and was unable to recognize them. Or they were cut of a part I though balanced the whole argument I was making. In those cases I feel like it's unfair only my name get written down because I'll get all the criticism. In other cases, we were really two working on an article and the editing work was formidable. But somehow in the end, I'm the only one getting the credit for it, which also feels unfair to my colleagues.

All those problems are not easy to solve. They beg many questions : is there just too many people in journalism ? Should companies shrink so they finally get profitable again and the remaining staff can do quality work - at the expense of thousands of people that would get without a job ? Should there only be subscription-based info ? But then does that mean no one without money would get the right to good information ? Should every company sort out a way to be both a newsroom (one that doesn't make much money or even none at all) and develop multiple activities on the side like an ad company, so that they can stay afloat (some have succeeded that way but it's not a valid point for everyone) ? I don't have an answer and mostly every media is trying to figure out their way out of all this. The thing is it's easy to criticize from outside that the managment is shit... but the ships are sinking and when you're sinking, you're not thinking ahead as to which direction you're going to take, or what part of the boat you're going to make better. First you try to figure out how to get all the water out and keep all the people inside alive. It's not an excuse, just the context we have to deal with.

Side note : there's also a problem of journalist schools. That's my own opinion, but I actually think they are very bad for the job - because you won't learn more than in a media, and it makes all the journalists come out very similar. Problem is, if you don't do them, you have no network and, at least in France, you actually can't intern in big medias. Twitter is a similar bubble to the bubbles school create. Twitter makes journalists feel like what they see or talk about has a bigger influence than it really has. But that's not a problem that's only with journalists. It's also with the platforms and it's been argued that it's all over the internet.

<comment><USER3> Then... I want to adress one final fact which is that it's easier to say it's the "journalists" fault if information has gotten so bad. Journalists for sure hold responsability in this but the public that doesnt value the work, isn't willing to pay for it and will click on whatever is coming up without caring about sourcing... Well, that crowd also has its share in how bad the situation has gotten. I don't think you can blame journalists for all the fake news websites that came up and how they often became the first things you got to access. The tools for visibility that we have to deal with are completely not appropriate for responsible journalism and also require an amount of time that will never be worth the money (Google, Facebook etc). Those fake news website play dirty and of benefit greatly from it.

In one of the medias I worked for, it does say something that one of the most visited article of the year was about a tenia worm that was in someone's intestine and took literally ten minute to write, edit and publish. None of the very interesting piece of good journalism got as much attention. If you want to do good reporting that will shine, you need good keywords, a video, tons of links... And a long text for good SEO. They can't all have that. And because of the lack of money, all those steps are often asked of the journalists themselves. How can you do a good job if you have to get a good idea while browsing the internet because you don't have time to go out, talk to people and take the risk it will be all for nothing ? Then you have to sell your idea to your boss. Then research. Then interview. Then maybe do a video. Then maybe edit it. Then write the story. Then also doing editing and all the linking. Then publishing. Then promoting it with your own media so you get recognised by your coworkers. Then promoting it online. Then get another idea. All that in one morning of course because where's your worth as a stable employee if you can't publish 5 articles a day ?

I'm not saying journalists are not responsible for what is happening, that all the points you made weren't good points or that I have any answers. I'm just getting tired of always reading hate and simplistic arguments like "Anyway, Buzzfeed is shit" and "Journalists are only caring about twitter". Those are the symptoms, not the cause of the illness. And it would do great to move the debate elsewhere if we want to cure this. It won't be done by journalists alone. A journalist doesn't exist without an audience and this will have to be a common effort or journalism is just going to die and well, it's only my opinion, but I don't think the world will be better for it.

Sorry that rant ended up being a whole book. But if you get there, I would love to hear what you think and we can discuss this outside of hate and "they" and "journalists" and "toxicity".

<comment><USER4> I get the feeling that you're somewhat justifying the state of journalism with "you have to make money somehow" and "people are also not valuing good journalism". Consider what would happen if you transferred that to other professions. "Oh well, people die because the house collapses, but the owners want it cheap and I have to pay the rent. Also, people don't value good craftsmanship in buildings", or, let's take it up a notch, "I'm breaking into hospital networks, encrypt their data and ask for a ransom, I have to pay the rent. Also, the general public never valued all the great software I wrote beforehand".

Journalists aren't the root cause of the state of the media, but they aren't unwilling victims either. It's like working for a land mine manufacturer. You're not responsible for the concept of war existing, but you sure are contributing to suffering.

I generally like Thomas Jefferson on the topic:

 _To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy._

<comment><USER5> It'd rather seem that Jefferson really didn't have the answer either. His 'solution' probably wasn't a solution, and would probably drive said paper out of business.

<comment><USER4> Yes, and I don't believe there is a definite answer. I like his description of the problem, and the fact that it works very well to describe the problem today is noteworthy as well: it's not a new problem, but each generation has to deal with it, and maybe the magnitude changes from time to time.

<comment><USER5> The answer is either private organizations have to act with integrity to promote and coordinate 'proper news' \- or there has to be social intervention. The former kind of holds true for network news wherein there is institutional control over distribution. But not so much in print, and definitely not on the net. In Canada, there's the CBC and they are considering subsidies for other news outlets.

<comment><USER4> Relying on private organizations to act with integrity isn't going to be easy, I think. For public options, I'm skeptical as well, they are very mixed in my perception, some are doing good work, others are little more than very expensive mouth pieces for the government. Subsidies for private companies might be a way, but that will undoubtedly get gamed and you end up needing a large bureaucracy to counteract that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the author unintentionally misspoke in calling him "one of the last". The growth of journalism in which Lehrer's standards are not observed should not distract us from the fact that there are many journalists reporting with integrity, and in some cases, great courage.

<comment><USER7> Can you reference some?

<comment><USER8> There are plenty. The Pulitzer prize winners and finalists last year seems a good place to start.

[https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by- year/2019](https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2019)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In addition to partisanship and sensationalism, access journalism has dramatically lowered the quality of what gets reported:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_journalism)

It's also worth referencing Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent which lays out the playbook for propaganda posing as journalism:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent)

<comment><USER10> Just want to point out that while often manufacturing consent is seen in a negative light because it's been used to negatively manipulate people that it is also also possible to be used to the better good (vaccinations, education, etc. of course this can get abused and thus the negative aspect).

<comment><USER9> I disagree. It's not the job of journalism to manipulate people, even if they think they're doing it for a good cause. Jim Lehrer's rules are very correct here.

<comment><USER10> I think we're talking past each other. Manufacturing consent isn't always about lying or making things up. It can be presenting a united front on something and it entails telling the truth with which you're persuading a pop to see that POV.

<comment><USER9> I've never heard manufacturing consent used like that. Do you have any examples of what you're talking about? Genuinely curious.

<comment><USER5> "I've never heard manufacturing consent used like that. Do you have any examples of what you're talking about? Genuinely curious."

It's called 'PR', it's used all day, every day by most companies and political organizations, social movements and even the government.

Highlighting the positive aspects of whatever you're doing, avoiding the negative aspects, discrediting opponents and most insidiously - misrepresenting their arguments is how it's done.

It's about creating the intended narrative around a specific subject.

Take any controversial issue and you'll generally see that the 'sides' are not having a debate in public, they're engaging in framing the issue in a manner. The end up talking past one another entirely.

'Manufacturing Consent' is a funny book, because we read it when we're young and naive and our eyes are opened to the reality of the world and the perennial war of ideas. Because such activities are framed as nefarious and related to questionable acts of intervention (i.e. US intervention in S. America) ... we are 'shocked and outraged'. But I think looking at it from a more mature, contextualized perspective, it doesn't seem 'shocking' it seems really normal.

Ironically the real coup of Chomsky is to misrepresent the nature of 'mass idea marketing' in a fair antagonist way that I don't think is really helpful.

Unfortunately - almost _all news_ is narrative-driven.

Certainly the entirety of cable news.

If you watch the local news, it feels dry and mundane, because it's generally very truthful, and there isn't a lot of 'war of ideas' over the dog that called 911.

But for everything in pop culture and politics, there's a way to frame the subject in an ideological way (or in a manner that represents the interests of some group like advertisers or powerful individuals etc.) which is what happens all day long.

<comment><USER11> _> ...we read it when we're young and naive and our eyes are opened..._

First, you're projecting.

Second, it's not at all surprising that you're young enough to have first read _Manufacturing Consent_ when you were "young".

Third, books like _Manufacturing Consent_ and _Discipline and Punishment_ are primarily sociological. They do have some normative content, of course, but their primary goal is to explain how the world works.

 _> It's called 'PR', it's used all day, every day by most companies and political organizations, social movements and even the government._

This is an over-simplification. Of course that's true. _Manufacturing Consent_ is not merely pointing out the existence of politics or merely making the observation that political operatives attempt to use media to shift opinion. It's a book about ____how____ that process works in the age of mass media and in a democratic capitalist society.

The way in which cable news is used to warp people's perception of reality seems pretty obvious in 2020, with hindsight.

And so _Manufacturing Consent_ might seem trite and obvious today. But the book wasn't written in 2019. Or 2018. Or 2008. Or even 1998. It was published in 1988.

Just to put that in context: it was written prior to 9/11\. It was written almost a decade before Fox News was founded. It was written only shortly after cable television was even invented. In 1988, "Cable News" as we know it today didn't exist. CNN barely existed, and looked more like a combination of NBC Nightly News and CSPAN. And most importantly, manufacturing Consent was published at a time when most Americans really did believe that the nightly news was a mostly unbiased source of information.

You might read it today and think "yeah, that's obviously how mass media is used to influence how people think about the world". But that's very much _not_ the reaction most people -- even, perhaps especially, hard-nosed realists -- had when reading it in 1988.

<comment><USER5> It wasn't 'new information' in 1988, it was just news to the plebes, and it was measured/articulated in some way.

This goes back far beyond the advent of 'cable news'.

For centuries, newspapers have been created, bought and promulgated mostly for the purposes of making money and promoting the narrative of the owners, often in the form of personal attacks.

Yes, I'm 'projecting' a little but this issue usually takes quite some time and exposure to grasp as most people don't have any direct dealings with it. It comes up way too often with young people referring to Manufacturing Consent as some kind of revelation. The fact is it's a revelation to them, but not objectively a revelation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For me, Twitter has been the worst thing to happen to journalism. There are a lot of downsides to strong institutions and gatekeeping, but when it comes to journalism I always felt like I was reading The New York Times or The Washington Post and not an individual reporter. The shroud of not getting an up close an personal look put the institution at the forefront.

With social media, Twitter specifically, the journalist becomes the main focal point -- unfortunately the biases comes out as we are all human and you begin to get a closer look at how the sausage is made, how much "access journalism" corrodes coverage, and particularly how non-diverse these institutions are (everyone feels like they went to some Ivy or liberal arts college with somewhat wealthy or well connected in journalism relatives). A majority of the content is still really good (climate reporting, international politics, 'explainers' and data backed reporting are all excellent) from the big institutions but I've totally avoided political and most opinion columns since 2016.

<comment><USER13> > unfortunately the biases comes out as we are all human

Can you point to an example of any recent article in any US paper that even tries to be objective? Only the BBC pretends to strive for that nowadays.

<comment><USER3> Thing is objectivity can't be reached and Lehrer's says it : the only thing yyou can do is try and be fair. It's a big misconception that medias were objective before. Newspapers have always had political leanings (clear and revendicated as the identity of the magazine) and that just never stopped. To say a media isn't objective with their political coverage is actually the norm and what should be expected. Now if a media trumps a fact in favor of an argument in a paper that explain science, that's wrong. But actually I don't think any media does that (never on purpose. And mistakes usually are corrected).

<comment><USER14> _To say a media isn 't objective with their political coverage is actually the norm and what should be expected._

I think that depends where in the world you live.

In the UK all news broadcasters are required to be neutral and objective by law. They aren't and the relevant regulator is MIA, probably because it's staffed with people who agree with the broadcaster's biases. But it's certainly not the norm there that "people" say media isn't objective. Lots of people still like to claim the BBC at least is objective, despite reams of retired or former journalists going on record to say it isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Lehrer's Rules are solid, ethical, and actionable. I agree 100%.

Alas, they are completely moot in today's ad-supported automated outrage machines. And I'm fresh out of goodwill.

Until we decide that discourse is more important than profits, forge a new consensus, we have to treat reporting like the replication crisis in science.

Just two rules apply:

Sign your work.

Share your data.

The corollaries are just as simple:

Unsigned, unsourced statements are gossip.

Unsupported data is propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER16> Attention is the currency of media. Modern, mainstream "news" programs are not journalism per se, they are just conduits for advertising dollars.

The sad part is that concocting sensationalism is extremely profitable, especially politics. And when you can create the controversy and then charge outrageous amounts of money to the very people to whom you poke, you control the discourse and you make a lot of money, which in America is power.

Modern, mainstream "news" is just like fast food. If you care about your body and your health, you will not eat the stuff. But most people dont care, dont mind and dont even think about it. Its cheap, tasty and convenient.

</comment><comment><USER17> 13\. Acknowledge that objectivity may be impossible but fairness never is.

The worst problem with journalism today, encapsulated in a single sentence.

<comment><USER18> Personally, I think a bigger journalistic sin is:

> Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

A journalist should _check_ whether there is another side that they missed. However, there sometimes isn't. Sometimes the other side is simply flat-out wrong. More often, the "other side" is maliciously wrong.

This journalistic assumption that there are _always_ multiple sides that are on equal footing needs to _DIE_.

<comment><USER19> But stories do have multiple sides, even if one side is flat out wrong.

I don't think anyone on the right or left would say that the present problem with Journalists is that they present both sides too well.

That's not to say that there's never a correct position. Assuming there is another version is different from assuming all versions are on multiple footing.

<comment><USER18> My standard argument about this is: vax vs anti-vax.

There are _NOT_ two equal sides. There is a correct side and an outright _fraudulent_ side and bunch of easily swayed morons.

Journalists tend to cover this with "balance" instead of calling one side flat-out wrong. "Fair" means occasionally calling out liars and pissing people off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Somewhat amusingly, the list highlights the Achilles heel of journalism by omitting one simple rule: "tell the truth".

Not lying is not at all the same as telling the truth.

Modern journalism, at best (very rarely seen), tells you something that is, narrowly taken, true. Even this version of journalism does not attempt to tell you what the actual truth of the matter is.

Narrowly true statement: "Republican Senator Blarg said today on the floor of the Senate "these charges are nonsense, fake news, totally made up"."

That's a true statement! It was said! But it's also misleading about the whole matter to convey it to your readers.

Telling your viewers the real truth of the situation: "The charges levied in the Senate are obviously accurate and serious, but Republican Senators are lying about them in an attempt to obfuscate and downplay the situation."

</comment><comment><USER21> Many journalists seem to have discovered that becoming noisy, performative blue tick 'personas', acting out journalism on Twitter, and saying things like 'this, literally this' a lot as a substitute for actual analysis is also good for their careers.

They act out this status-dance of pretending to loathe every second of life in the toxic digital hellscape that, in the talk tracks and visibility it gives them is actually very beneficial for their careers.

They couldn't actually admit it's been good for them though, as that would mean admitting profiting from the algorithmic, privacy problem-invested landscape that they barely understand but have made their careers criticizing.

But of course, everyone's at it! So the only way to get ahead is more paranoia, more angst, more toxicity. Once you're bought in, you can't go back to tacking to the middle. So we get an arms race of performative angst and hyperbolic statements.

Before you know it, you're claiming that Slack notifications give you PTSD symptoms: [https://twitter.com/pfpicardi/status/1220738739514814467?s=2...](https://twitter.com/pfpicardi/status/1220738739514814467?s=21)

The problem is that that is antithetical to the real work of journalism - which should be about seeking truth without fear or favour.

<comment><USER10> The problem is that on Twitter they've become more like activists rather than journalists/reporters.

Maybe one day actual journalists will come to the conclusion that tweeting is antithetical to journalism and may only use it as a tool of discovery rather than engagement.

<comment><USER22> > _The problem is that on Twitter they've become more like activists rather > than journalists /reporters._

The upside though is that it's easier to tell they're activists / non- objective on Twitter - compared to supposedly 'serious' outlets pushing all kinds of agendas as "objective" journalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> most of these seem like a good personal ethos to have, even if you're not a journo

</comment><comment><USER24> Even the "newspaper of record", the NY Times has lost its journalistic process.

This is just one recent example that comes to mind. See why Harvard Professor is suing the NYT [1] for completely twisting his post about MIT and Jeffrey Epstein [0]

I found this so outrageous how NYT would completely twist words and not make the appropriate corrections when given the evidence.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D135DBWfabM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D135DBWfabM)

<comment><USER25> > "Lessig's defamation suit covers a September 2019 article titled "A Harvard > Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein's Money, Do It in Secret." He > claims the headline misrepresents his interview, where he condemns the > donation, but says that "if you're going to take the money, you damn well > better make it anonymous.""

If you see the egregious defamation there, then you're a more nuanced reader than I am.

[https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/13/21063873/jeffrey- epstein-...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/13/21063873/jeffrey-epstein- lessig-nyt-defamation-lawsuit-mit-joi-ito-donations-interview)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you take the present journalism climate as the norm, these rules are radical. Can you imagine CNN reporting on Trump voters and following rule #6? Or reporting on Trump and following rule #5, #11?

<comment><USER27> #5 and #7 are a problem - they can be exploited by bad actors. That's how you get the "views on shape of Earth differ" reports.

<comment><USER9> It's the job of journalists to vet the stories. No journalist ever has or ever will suggest that the earth is flat. That's a strawman.

<comment><USER28> The concern as I understand it is not that a journalist would just straight-up defend a conspiracy theory. Rather, the concern is that if you give any airtime to conspiracy theorists, even in the form of a debate, some viewers/readers will conclude that there must be _some_ nugget of legitimacy in the conspiracy (why else would it be on the news?). Indeed, conspiracy theorists have relied on this to gain support, especially before they had the internet, when strategically baiting the media was the only way to get their bullshit noticed.

<comment><USER9> A far greater concern than conspiracy theorists getting taken seriously are actual conspiracies perpetrated by mainstream media outlets. I gave two examples elsewhere in the thread: Weinstein and Epstein. Those aren't "conspiracy theories", they're know and active conspiracies. There were a multitude of opportunity to report on them but the stories were actively stifled for personal and political gain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In their current form, medias:

1\. do not care about creating panics or damaging society

2\. are incentivized to provide click-baity to-the-minute reporting.

How to fix this?

Maybe regulation, even though dangerous in this freedom of speech territory.

One thing I was thinking (inspired by one of Andrew Yang's point) is to have a press tax to fund a delayed international news outlet.

It changes the incentives: the media has no funding issue and is not incentivized to attract more readers; and it changes the impact: delaying each piece of news to wait until more information is available is good.

<comment><USER11> We already have some obscure bureaucratic infrastructure in place from the 70s called the "public broadcasting service". It's funded and everything. Could just re-purpose that I suppose.

Perhaps the public broadcasting service could have a nightly program that dedicates an _entire hour_ of primetime to this type of reporting. And we could even name it in Lehrer's name! Of course in that case we should also give MacNeil credit as well. So perhaps the show could be called something like the "MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour"!

;-)

<comment><USER29> I'm not native so I'm not sure I got your comment :D

<comment><USER11> You suggested a tax-funded news outlet that could focus on publishing well- sourced stories instead of keeping up with the hourly news cycle.

What you are asking for already exists [1]. In fact, the article we're commenting on is about the guy who co-hosted it [2]. Up until a few years ago, the program was even called the "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" [3].

[1] [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Lehrer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Lehrer)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_NewsHour#The_MacNeil/Lehre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_NewsHour#The_MacNeil/Lehrer_NewsHour_and_The_NewsHour_With_Jim_Lehrer_\(1983%E2%80%932009\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> probably a silly complaint, but it would've been really nice to put the asterisk on the left side of the numbers so that one could immediately see by scanning which are the refined 9.

</comment><comment><USER31> I wonder whether the improvements in machine learning would ever be sufficient, so that for an article we could generate a quick report of how many points from the list are "checked".

<comment><USER32> Journalists pick and choose facts to support the narrative, I don't think having them "checked" would matter.

What you want to know is the facts that go against the narrative that aren't mentioned.

Then take a holistic view.

<comment><USER33> Exactly.

Something that gathers all of the known facts in one place for review. That used to be what journalists did, not so much any longer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> These are excellent rules, but they're useless without sites and journalists that follow them. Does anyone here have some recommendations worth reading?

<comment><USER11> You can watch the Macneil-Lehrer News Hour (now rebranded as just PBS News Hour), the program that Jim Lehrer hosted for the better part of his professional career and the reason people care about his opinion on journalism. It still runs every night: [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's much more rare though and it's almost entirely absent when looking at political coverage. Two journalists I can think of off the top of my head who have acted with outstanding integrity in recent years are Ronan Farrow and Julie K. Brown (broke the Weinstein and Epstein stories respectively). Part of what makes their journalism so strong is that they had to fight _the entire industry_ to get their stories out.

Political coverage is a nightmare though. Just yesterday George Stephanopoulos was caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner [1]. This happens on both sides of the isle regularly at this point (the White House itself is hardly faultless). It's only ratcheted up since 2016 where it seems the press took it up themselves to "save" us, where the definition of save seems to be: push their own political opinions.

1\. [https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1220758756071497728](https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1220758756071497728)

<comment><USER35> > caught on camera acting in an extremely partisan manner

I'm sorry, but even as political talking points go this makes no sense. He made a "cut" gesture during a live feed, but live news broadcasts cut from one feed to another dozens of times per hour, and the feed he was motioning to cut wasn't of any particular importance to either party (it was a Trump lawyer listening to someone off-camera asking a question). That's hardly "extremely partisan".

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Reading his rules, it's hard not to agree with Bob Woodward that many journalists have become "unhinged" over Trump.

<comment><USER37> You forgot to put journalists in quotes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> > No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.

This is the entire internet.

<comment><USER39> I think Lehrer's point here is that journalists often speak to sources "off the record", and that this is often used to fuel conflict instead of illuminating the situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Interesting that none of the rules of journalism include just reporting facts. In fact, it says that journalists should be disciplined for "reckless" reporting of any fact.

It kind of explains why we live in the fact light environment of quotes and spin. Presumably, if a hard fact proves unpopular with a large enough group, then those facts, even when backed by hard evidence, can likely land you in a lot of trouble.

A bit understandable I suppose? I mean, if talking bad about Trump or Obama increases the number of shooters in your Walmarts and churches, then yeah, probably should be careful about doing that. At the same time, if you have to walk on egg shells around people so emotionally invested in a person, or place, or subject that they're going to shoot up anyone who disagrees with them, then your journalism on that issue is not likely to be very "good" in any case.

<comment><USER26> >Interesting that none of the rules of journalism include just reporting facts.

Facts are not enough because in order for 'facts' to be useful they have to be embedded in a larger structure - like a theory, or ideology, or narrative, or whatever.

Here's a fact: "Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West". This fact is compatible with heliocentric and geocentric models. The fact on its own doesn't tell you which is which. It doesn't tell you the context, nor the other facts that may have been omitted or superfluously included when reported, and proponents of both theories can use it to justify their position. This is why there can never be such a thing as "journalism that just reports the facts".

<comment><USER33> > _This fact is compatible with heliocentric and geocentric models. The fact > on its own doesn 't tell you which is which._

But the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun does tell you which "model" is actually a fact. That's the point.

You're making an argument about which facts should be reported? The sun rising in the east? Or the phases of Venus? Or both? Or both and more?

But stating that you need an ideology or narrative to support your facts is a bit nonsensical in my own opinion. There really is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the totality of the facts. To state only a single fact, and then say, "here is an ideology or narrative so you can understand the fact I just gave you." Really is just stating an ideology or narrative.

Think of it this way, if you still need a narrative, then you didn't give anyone all the facts.

<comment><USER40> Nobody has time to read all the facts.

Nobody has time to report all the facts.

Nobody _knows_ ALL the facts.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bringing Chance the Rapper to the Deaf - <AUTHOR> https://www.gq.com/story/chance-the-rapper-sign-language-deafinitely-dope <comment><USER2> It's probably just me personally as a teetotaler, but opening the article with praising a ritual of getting drunk/buzzed before executing a translation really set a lower bar for the rest of the article to me.

Anyway, I think it's great he's able to help really bring shows to life for deaf people. Adding his own personality and style into it is tremendous

<comment><USER3> Alcohol improving second language acquisition is something I remember hearing of in a Spanish class years ago, and it seems like there is some research to back it up:

[https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1901/how- doe...](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/1901/how-does-alcohol- affect-the-ability-to-speak-a-second-language/1902#1902)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Modern music + ASL is a fun thing: [https://www.youtube.com/user/1stopforasl](https://www.youtube.com/user/1stopforasl)

I've been told by Deaf and hard-of-hearing people multiple times that they think they have more fun at concerts and clubs than hearing people. They get to enjoy the music and can still communicate effectively.</comment>


Friction Between Programming Professionals and Beginners - <AUTHOR> http://www.programmingforbeginnersbook.com/blog/friction_between_programming_professionals_and_beginners/ <comment><USER3> > Attempt to answer the question, or don't comment at all. Don't tell them to > RTFM, Google it,

No, just no. There is no point to any of all this search technology and this accumulated knowledge if no one uses it.

Someone asking a question that is answered in the documentation or has been asked and answered over and over should be pointed at those sources. One of the most important skills anyone is going to learn in a technical position is finding answers to questions you have that have already been answered. The next important skill they have to learn is doing a little bit of your own research in understanding your problem.

This goes especially for places like StackOverflow which is not a discussion forum. It's value is diminished by asking and answering the same questions over and over.

EDIT: I'll mention the last part of the statement I quoted too, it's unfortunate the lumped the second half of the statement with the first.

> correct their grammar, or give your opinions about their choice of > technology

Correcting grammar is not helpful in any way in this context. If you can't understand what they're getting at, ask for clarification. Nitpicking grammar is just being a dick.

Opinions about what they're using may have one very narrow use, if what they're using to do what they're trying to do is just so very wrong. And we're talking 'I'm trying to create a pure HTML page to run this Nuclear reactor' levels of wrong. Most of the time, you do need to keep it to yourself. Especially on sites like StackOverflow, which is not a discussion board.

<comment><USER4> > No, just no. There is no point to any of all this search technology and this > accumulated knowledge if no one uses it.

And here we have a prime example of why beginners find the programming community to be so abrasive, and worse, it's sitting at the top of this comment thread.

Ask yourself, would this be the answer you give to a 12 year old girl who's taken an early interest in programming? Or a single mother who's trying to switch careers to improve her lot in life? Or your own mother, for that matter? Is it really constructive to be so abrasive?

I'm starting to understand why we have such a problem with diversity in our field. This type of response is, in no uncertain terms, the response of a bully.

Pause for a moment. Try to remember what it was like when you were first starting out with programming. When "the fucking manual" was actually really confusing and loaded with domain specific terms, acronyms, and syntax. Can't remember a time when you didn't learn something immediately? Fine, step outside your world of programming and try to recall any painful memories you might have about trying to learn something outside your area of expertise.

Ever go to a gym and ask someone how to do a basic lift only to be scoffed at? Ever been to a foreign country and have someone berate you for not understanding how to navigate through some strange process or not knowing how to speak their language well enough? Perhaps you have, and it hurt, but you brushed it off and continued on. That's great for you, but not everybody is like that. A lot of people get discouraged and never continue with that sport, or with traveling, or with programming, and it's tragic because they might have otherwise excelled at those endeavors.

<comment><USER5> Yes, it is the answer I would give to a 12 year old girl.

First off, why does your 12 year old have to be a girl? You are spouting off about diversity but you basically just used the stereotype that teenage girls are going to cry if you give them the hard truth. Why do we have to treat single mothers with kid gloves? Guess what, diving through some docs is a lot easier than anything a parent has to put up with.

3 of the 4 interns at the company I work for were women last summer, and they kicked ass. While they weren't 12 years old, they were young, and I had no issue telling them to start at the documentation.

There is a _massive_ difference between "read the fucking manual" and suggesting "even if it takes longer, you will be better served starting with the documentation and working through that than googling or using stack overflow". One is bullying, one is teaching.

I _always_ teach my interns to start with the docs. Give the docs 30 minutes before you Google or Stack Overflow. Give that 30 minutes before you ask a senior engineer. Struggling through it is part of the process of learning. The things you learn by going through the docs will help you later.

Or the shorter version, I want to hire someone that can answer Stack Overflow posts not find them.

<comment><USER6>
      > I always teach my interns to start with the docs.
      > Give the docs 30 minutes before you Google or
      > Stack Overflow. Give that 30 minutes before
      > you ask a senior engineer. Struggling through
      > it is part of the process of learning. The
      > things you learn by going through the docs will
      > help you later.

This is a skill I wish more programmers had.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> nv-vn I can definitely recall how alienating the stack overflow community was to me when I first started learning programming. You ask a simple question and they yell at you to Google it. You ask a complex question and they ask you why you're doing it. My solution was just to close myself off from StackOverflow and try any other community. My experience with IRC hasn't been great, but often my responses were miles better than what I would get on SO. Honestly, the best advice I can give to beginners is to make friends who know a bit more and go to friends first whenever possible (at the very least to help them make a good SO post with proper terminology, etc.)

<comment><USER7> > You ask a complex question and they ask you why you're doing it.

As someone on the other side of those questions, perhaps I can explain.

Very often, people unfamiliar with a subject area ask questions about solutions, instead of asking about problems. They've done a bit of googling, and have a partial solution. But the solution doesn't work, so they ask "how can I fix this solution."

To someone familiar with the problem space, the question is often nonsensical. It's based on false assumptions about how the API / system works. So the question is largely un-answerable.

The only possible response, then, is "Don't talk about the solution. Talk about the problem. What goal are you trying to accomplish? Maybe there's a different solution which can help you reach that goal."

This response can be seen as obtuse and unhelpful by the questioner. But it's often the only possible response, given the incorrect assumptions.

e.g. Q: How do I get diesel into my gas car? The nozzle just doesn't fit!

A: Why are you trying to do that?

Q: Stop being annoying, and just help me!

A: No, really... why are you trying to do that?

(after some back and forth)

Q: My car is in front of the diesel pump, and the hose from the gas pump won't reach.

A: Well... move your car.

It's not always that simple, but the back & forth is similar. It's hard work convincing people that their assumptions are wrong, and that they have to re- visit their assumptions, and re-do all of their previous work.

<comment><USER8> > Stop being annoying, and just help me!

I don't see this, for beginners the reply will be "I'm trying to bake a cake" ... "I need to get milk from the store" ... "I need gas to get to the store"

Each ... is a back and forth focusing on the actual problem. Beginners don't necessarily know what information is useful information. This is why physically working with an experienced developer is so useful, because that exchange (which provides a useful learning experience for the beginner) is so much easier in person.

<comment><USER7> > I don't see this

Try sitting on an open source mailing list sometime. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am surprised that no one linked the What Have You Tried article by Matt Gemmell.

[http://mattgemmell.com/what-have-you-tried/](http://mattgemmell.com/what- have-you-tried/)

This is how I almost never got my SO topics closed. I state beforehand what I have tried, how certain SO questions may look related but are still not giving me enough knowledge to solve my problem. I do my best to make a convincing argument that I need help and can't make it on my own. A few days later and I get my answer :) (and sometimes I figure it out myself which takes a while)

I agree with the HNers that say that someone needs to struggle a bit first. It's necessary to develop the emotional coping skills, because programming can have very frustrating moments. And they can answer "what have you tried?"

Beginners need to understand: why would I put more time into solving someone else's problems than the person asking me the question? I notice that a lot of friction comes from that place. Sometimes beginners don't realize it, but I've seen some lazy people as well. When I am on the beginning side I really try to take this into account and value the time of the expert.

<comment><USER10> StackOverflow serves a dual purpose: (1) to answer the immediate question of the original poster, and (2) to serve as a reference for anyone encountering the same problem in the future. I'd say that (2) is more important - <USER2> question/answer pairs on SO have helped hundreds or even thousands of developers beyond the original poster. Answering "what have you tried" may help with purpose (1), but is often just distracting for (2). If I'm looking for a way to do X, reading through someone's failed attempts to do X is a waste of time. And this whole notion of making someone "struggle a bit" is entirely misplaced when you keep purpose (2) in mind. Let's say I'm not a CSS expert and I'm trying to find a way to make a sticky page footer. I can "struggle for a bit", spend maybe 30-60min researching the topic and come up with a solution myself, without ever involving StackOverflow. Multiply this by 1,000 developers facing the same problem, and you have 500-1000 hours of wasted developer effort. Compare this to spending 15min to write a precisely- worded question (but without "steps you've tried"), and an expert spending 15min to write up an answer. From that point on, the piece of knowledge is available to anyone, enormously amplifying the impact of this initial time investment. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but I see this amplification effect continuously ignored in discussions of StackOverflow posting guidelines. I think this attitude of "show your work" and "make the original poster struggle a bit" comes from the days of IRC/Usenet questions, where an answer to a question only helped one person, not thousands.

<comment><USER9> I forgot a bit about purpose 2, good point.

"And this whole notion of making someone "struggle a bit" is entirely misplaced when you keep purpose (2) in mind."

I didn't mean it that way. Struggling a bit also implies Googling an answer or looking things up on StackOverflow, it's part of the struggle before you ask someone (online or IRL). Specifically, querying Google, querying SO and typing in the question on SO and then clicking on the suggestions first are all part of the struggle since you haven't asked a person yet.

"Compare this to spending 15min to write a precisely-worded question (but without "steps you've tried"), and an expert spending 15min to write up an answer. "

When I think about it, a precisely worded question implicitly shows the struggle. Implicitly showing it is more effective than telling a whole story about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I feel StackOverflow is a bad place even as a professional. I don't agree with 90% of "closing" of questions, frequently closing a question is the ultimate upvote. StackOverflow seems to prefer questions that can be answered by just copying the fine manual - and frowns on those that might involve discussion.

From time to time I still use it, but for me it has jumped the shark.

<comment><USER12> Same here. I feel like StackOverflow after nearly 10 years of closing questions such as 'Which is a better framework X or Y', should be honored at /r/DesirePath.

Like at which point do they understand that maybe their desire conflicts with how most community wants to use SO as.

<comment><USER13> I keep waiting to see a competitor take off because it _starts_ by encouraging those sorts of questions, and then secondarily accepts all the other sorts of questions SO does. Of course it's more difficult to start a new community because of network effects, but a decent place to start might be to find a bunch of the popular closed questions on SO and reach out to the questioner and some of the good answerers to come participate on your site instead. If this exists already, I'd love a pointer to it!

<comment><USER12> Have you looked into Slant.co ([https://www.slant.co/](https://www.slant.co/))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I guess I'm going to be the asshole today :

If someone lets a few rough edges on SO dissuade them from learning, they probably didn't care for any of this to begin with.

I mean, every single one of these traumatized "beginner" comments were sourced from reddit - where there are _at least_ a half dozen subs that would gladly accommodate questions unsuitable for SO.

On a related note, I also don't understand why there is a constant push to coddle beginners to increasingly absurd degrees. It has literally never been easier to learn to program. There are _hundreds_ of resources available to the aspiring learner - more so than _any_ other field I'm aware of. Yet somehow the anal retentiveness of SO is the problem here? Come on.

<comment><USER15> _" I also don't understand why there is a constant push to coddle beginners to increasingly absurd degrees."_

Apply this perspective beyond software development. Law, medicine, firemen, teaching a kid to play baseball. Why do we continually look at software development different than other acquired skills?

To answer your question directly, it is my opinion that the layers of abstraction that we have today, and that continue to grow, put those new to software and computer science at a huge disadvantage. They have a very long haul. And yet, demand increases for these skills. Yes, we should coddle to the best of our ability.

<comment><USER14> > Apply this perspective beyond software development. Law, medicine, firemen, > teaching a kid to play baseball. Why do we continually look at software > development different than other acquired skills?

Well, that's a good question. What do you think it takes to break into law, medicine or fire safety? I can assure you that being willing to put in _significant_ work, and tolerating adversity, is a hard requirement for each of them.

Much of my family is in medicine, and I used to work in law - both professions are absolutely merciless in comparison to engineering. The expectation that would-be [doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc] put in the work is _unwavering_ , and the professionals in those fields can be huge dickheads to boot. Yet, they somehow manage to attract more than their share of candidates.

<comment><USER16> While too much coddling is probably not helpful, neither is being overly abrasive because "back in my day that's how we learned it".

Holding on to old teaching methods "just because" isn't the right answer, nor will it help the programming profession in the long run.

<comment><USER14> Are you addressing me, or just speaking in generalities?

Teaching and pedagogy is a broad topic, and there are certainly things that can be done to improve most existing models. However, a willingness to tolerate some modest level of adversity will remain necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a kid, it took me a long time to learn to program because I was constantly fighting the very things that this article brings up. You can chalk it up to youthful arrogance. When I dropped my attitude and realized how wrong I was (around age 17, when many kids finally do this) I finally became a good programmer. I tried for nearly five years as a kid, but my naievete got in the way.

Programming requires a nearly dogmatic adherence to methodology, logic, and best practices, to be done well. What the article describes as unfriendly towards beginners, is really just an attempt to bestow upon beginners a _thought process_ that needs to be instilled to be successful.

<comment><USER7> I agree 100%. I run into this every day.

The people who give up their ego and follow methodology, logic, etc. get things done.

The people who have an attitude don't get things done. Even worse, they often accuse everyone else of being arrogant and unhelpful.

On the Open Source mailing list I administer, I've had to resort to banning these people. Ask a question? OK. Argue with the answer? Not OK. Tell the people who are helping you that they're assholes for saying you did something wrong? Ban.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I consider myself a fairly seasoned programmer. I have written countless lines of code, work on a few projects with friends, and automated most of my computer-related tasks. I've been doing this since I was 12, and I am 19 at the time of writing this.

I can say with confidence, I have never been able to successfully ask a question on stack overflow. I think I have been banned at least once, or they deleted my account.

I've asked questions ranging from implementation of 3D matrix manipulation to avoid gimbal lock to writing a python client-side application that needs to be able to edit a google docs file.

Everything has been closed, locked, or down voted. Each time I followed standard procedures that we are all familiar with for reporting bugs.

      - Include output
      - Sample code
      - Explanation of what the current code does and what I want it to do
      - Pictures/Diagrams if helpful

I have NEVER gotten a single useful response. Granted it's a great resource for programming information. I use it as a library: I can go there and look at all the books frozen in time, all with good information on a wide variety of topics. But I know, if I attempted to write one of these books or jot down my feelings on the side of a page I'd just get yelled at by the librarians.

There are two things that I have noticed about stack overflow: it's one of a few sites that for some reason prides your identity over your work. Your 'karma' is displayed just as big as your name, and it seems to be implied that the bigger that number is, the more right you are. I have also noticed that most of the resources that are indeed helpful are either locked, closed for 'read only', or every reply is down voted even though the responses and questions are still valid.

I jokingly tell people who are going into CS at my college that "you are not a programmer until you have gotten banned from stack overflow for asking perfectly reasonable questions". Whenever I say that, I can almost hear a sub- audible sigh of relief from everyone in the room including some professors from other departments attempting to learn CS.

Stack overflow is presented as a site for the end user learning how to program. It is not.

<comment><USER19> I have had a couple of my questions closed for reasons that I disagree with, so I can sympathise there, but to me it sounds incredible that someone would be banned just for asking programming questions. You say you think you've been banned, could you check and let us know what actually happened? Did you really get banned?

<comment><USER18> Yea it looks like I was banned and it looks like I was banned more then once. I have an @gmail email address, and one at a custom domain I use professionally.

I cant login to either.

It also seems like I am not the only one: [https://np.reddit.com/r/learnprogramming/comments/1wpbhv/i_e...](https://np.reddit.com/r/learnprogramming/comments/1wpbhv/i_embarrassed_myself_on_stack_overflow_and_i_need/cf461uj)

That was linked in the article.

I spent that entire week upset because I felt I did something wrong (this was back when I was like 14, 2 years into programming and still very much an emotional edgy teen).

I'm very lucky that I eventually brought it up to a long time IRC friend and programming "mentor" of mine Steve who said that he was also banned. To me this was crazy as I could not understand how he could have been banned. He was, and still is, my last go-to resort for programming help; basically Mister Miyagi.

Because of this, I have surmised that to be good at programming, you need to be banned from SOF for asking a perfectly reasonable question.

Edit: I was banned when I asked for help with writing a 3D matrix camera with not problems from gimbal lock and another time for asking if there was a datatype for allowing two threads to mutate the same state.

Back then, I did not know about locking, concurrency, and all of the cool jazz. I learned most of what I know myself.

Thank god google indexes all of the closed SOF posts or I would have never been able to.

<comment><USER20> If you had hit the automatic question block, you would still be able to log in. And if you were manually suspended by a moderator, you also would be able to login.

Account deletion is only used for spammers, sock puppets used for vote fraud and for persistent trolls.

You can get blocked on SO from asking questions if you ask too many heavily downvoted and/or closed questions without a lot of positive contributions, but accounts aren't deleted just because someone asks a few bad questions.

<comment><USER18> >You can get blocked on SO from asking questions if you ask too many heavily downvoted and/or closed questions without a lot of positive contributions, but accounts aren't deleted just because someone asks a few bad questions

Yes, that was it. I asked two questions, and was banned for it.

<comment><USER19> Here's what SE has to say about auto-blocking: [http://stackoverflow.com/help/question- bans](http://stackoverflow.com/help/question-bans)

> ... The exact formula for the bans is not disclosed, but users are only > banned if they have a significant number of heavily down-voted, zero-voted, > or deleted posts. One or two bad posts will not cause you to be blocked from > using the site.

So what happened is definitely against current SO policy and auto-banning rules. If you want to share the question URLs and your SO user id to help sort out what happened, I'd be happy to assist, I can see deleted posts, I'm a fan of SO and I would raise a ruckus if I had proof that new users were banned after asking two programming questions.

<comment><USER18> I can't find those questions and I don't much remember the account name, this was over 5 years ago, and even then it was my first account. So I don't really know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This article fails to notice the primary problem with people learning a programming _language_.

Just as with a real _language_ you learn the highest amount of material by absorbing explanations and expressions by qualified users of the _language_ ; not by immediately trying to form sentences as soon as you know 5 words.

A user of a _language_ only becomed a skilled user when their mind contains a large enough corpus of absorbed expressions to imitate and combine.

IOW: Yes, the newbie does need to read the manual first. And after that some working code. (Though admittedly many manuals are crap and recommending a good, useful and fitting manual is a skill in itself that is lacking in many professionals.)

<comment><USER22> I'm not sure your analogy between programming languages and spoken languages supports your point. Pretty sure the best way to learn a new language involves lots of time practicing speaking. The analogy would then support trying to program as much as possible in a new language, rather than just reading books about it. Not sure if this was supposed to be a joke; I thought it was fairly well established that it's common and even encouraged for new programmers to start exploring and writing programs as soon as possible. Am I misinterpreting your comment?

<comment><USER21> > Pretty sure the best way to learn a new language involves lots of time > practicing speaking.

It isn't. It really isn't. :)

While it is a big part, and necessary if you actually want to talk to people, in terms of time spent it is much more important to get the vocabulary in and as much exposure to expressions of the language by competent users as possible.

That's why people recommend travelling to where a language one wants to learn is spoken; not because one must speak it there as well, but because one hears and reads it there everywhere.

<comment><USER22> I dont think we're disagreeing. I don't suggest speaking practice to the exclusion of literary practice. In this comment you acknowledge the importance of speaking practice. That's what was missing from my reading of your first comment. I responded largely because I understood your comment to suggest (explicitly and through analogy) that new programmers study books _before_ attempting to write code and interact with the community.

Cheers, sorry for the confusion.

<comment><USER21> Actually, i do. Completely. I acknowledge practicing is important, but attempting to write code before having gone through a full book and having read some real world code is only going to be damaging for a new learner.

Plus, newbies who refuse to actually read a book front-to-end annoy the ever- living shit out of help channel people, because they end up asking all the stuff that the book would explain fo them, and the chat people end up being nothing but an interactive and abusive book.

<comment><USER6> "The only true way is with Dijkstra's programming textbook that starts with proofs." It will prevent you from becoming braindamaged from BASIC (or Python :) )

[http://www.amazon.com/Method-Programming-Edsger-W- Dijkstra/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Method-Programming-Edsger-W- Dijkstra/dp/0201175363)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Seems like this article is mainly talking about cognitive dissonance occurring between a hypothetical beginner who imagines Stack Overflow is going to be a congenial conversation, and a hypothetical expert who curates SO as more of a high-viscosity Wikipedia that would ideally be ask once, answer once.

<comment><USER6> The article is mainly a blog post attempting to build hype for the author's book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Joel Spolsky gave a great talk a few years ago about the design of StackOverflow. Three groups of people are involved in every question on the site: the asker, the people who answer and the people who read the answer later. Which group do you think the site is optimised for?

The answer is the third group. The average SO question gets read 30 times per day. Any value captured by either of the other groups is massively dominated by the value captured by people who google the question and land on SO. Complaining about the site being harsh to question askers fundamentally misunderstands the value SO provides to the community.

I'm all for websites which help beginners learn programming, but if you need 1-on-1 help to figure out why your loop is invalid, SO is the wrong site. [https://hackhands.com](https://hackhands.com) might be a better destination.

(I can't find the video on my phone - if somebody could link it below that would be great. )

<comment><USER25> You're right. SO is optimized for people who read it later. I.e. people who will Google their problem, get directed to the question...and then want to throttle you for answering "Just google it."

Because they just did that.

And the next eight links on their google search also link to forums with people saying "RTFM", "Quit wasting our time", "This has been answered a bunch of times before.", or even worse, someone who clearly didn't bother to read the question and gives a blatantly wrong answer.

And then the answer they have been looking for is now buried in legions of programmers' impulsive expressions of indignation.

At the very least link to somewhere where it is properly answered, or don't answer at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Generally speaking, I agree with the article. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread attitude of "meanness" on the internet (actually, perhaps that's just people in general...)

I recall three years ago asking the question "What is dependent typing?" on Stack Overflow. The first commenter replied "Did you try google? wikipedia?" to which I provided a sassy retort ([http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9338709/what-is- dependent...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9338709/what-is-dependent- typing)).

Some people seem to become quickly exasperated with what they perceive as "stupid" questions (e.g. Linus Torvalds). I don't understand why; just ignore them. On the other hand, I get exasperated with mean comments. I frequently upvote people on Hacker News that I disagree with if they have worded their stance in a nice way, and I also frequently downvote people that I agree with if I find their comment particularly rude.

Some feel that rudeness is necessary in order to drive a point home (particularly in politics — lots of mudslinging), but I disagree. It would be interesting to see if any research has been done on this subject: are blunt, mean comments _actually_ effective in certain situations?

</comment><comment><USER27> Some suggestions for the beginner asking questions:

1\. Make it clear that you are a beginner and that you're eagerly learning. Otherwise it's easy for someone to assume that you're a more experienced developer and answer accordingly.

2\. Don't ask people to do your homework assignment for you.

And some suggestions for the experienced devs answering the questions:

1\. Don't assume that the OPs first language is the language of the forum.

2\. Don't assume that the OP is an adult, lots of kids are learning programming these days.

</comment><comment><USER28> I suppose I have a hard time empathizing with the archetype of the beginner as presented in this article due to just how markedly different my own experiences developing as a programmer were.

I have never relied on the generosity of others to take their time to teach me - nor have I seen it as the responsibility of anyone to carry me along. I'm not dead weight, I'm independent and I have things I want to do.

One of my first experiences with programming was automating a menial task at my first internship. I was studying mechanical engineering at the time and my older brother had gotten me an internship at the company he worked for in the QA department. I was given the task of testing their in house search engine and recording the results in an Excel spreadsheet. When I got tired of doing it by hand I wrote a script to do it for me - a horrific mashup of PHP and awk and sed and all sorts of other gristle. But it worked. And it was mine. And I put it together by piecing together man pages, internet documentation, and trial and error.

After I switched my major in college to CS I was working on a personal project and when my professor couldn't give me an answer (he rightly expected me to figure it out for myself) I eventually ended up trawling though Java reference books at the local Barnes and Nobel to find a solution because nothing freely available gave enough detail.

The barrier to entry to programming is incredibly low. Anyone with a personal computer or laptop has an unbelievable treasure trove of incredibly high quality and FREE tools and resources to do absolutely amazing things...but that does not lessen the inherent complexity or difficulty of what programming is.

I think the attitude that many hobbyists or beginners bring to programming would be unheard of in practically any other sort of hobbyist field.

Build a basic knowledge and grow it. Yes. That means making an investment of time and possibly money. I have bought many supplemental educational resources (at first foundational algorithm and data structures and eventually technology and framework specific) because I want to learn. If you do not want to learn no one can teach you. And learning requires effort and engagement that are altogether lacking in many individuals.

</comment><comment><USER29> The problem is a lot of people misinterpret what StackOverflow is supposed to be - a repository of programming-related questions/answers that are useful to more than one person.

Most questions asked these days are duplicates, syntax errors or are answered in the relevant online documentation - I really think there should be online courses on 'How to find the right thing to search for' because it would help newbies so much, and prevent them from having to interact with the mean/rude side of StackOverflow (which is proving hard to get rid of despite all the initiatives).

<comment><USER30> Already done, and it's apparently RFC 1925 §6 - turtles all the way down. Now the problem is one level down the stack (pun not intended), with "newbies won't read [http://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to- ask](http://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask) and get offended when prompted" instead of "newbies don't know how to ask and get offended when prompted".

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> StackOverflow is a good place for intermediates and up. IRC is a better place for beginners, but truly if people are just starting out they need a dedicated teacher, or they need a good manual / tutorial that they read front to back. Most beginners don't read the manual / tutorial front to back; they try things immediately once they've read about them and their code understandably break. In this case they need a dedicated teacher, a person they can ask uninformed questions to. StackOverflow is the wrong tool for that.

<comment><USER32> Speaking from my experience as a self-taught programmer, IRC convos generally follow the same trajectory as OP specifies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I joined StackOverflow when it was about 9 months old, it's completely different now and I would not recommend it for new developers. The vast majority of moderators and people who close questions are among the worst dweebs I have ever spoken to online.

They have some minuscule, irrelevant taste of power, and it immediately goes to their heads. And in their eyes they are correct.

Instead, opt to go to a forum. For example, if you develop with ember go to their forums, meteor, go to their forums, elixir? They have a slack channel. Etc. Anything but stack overflow.

</comment><comment><USER34> What are the three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience, and hubris?

What would compel those who hang around Stackoverflow to be complete assholes to those who ask questions? Definitely hubris, and most probably impatience.

As a mediocre programmer I've been subject to ridicule from experts. I remember when I was trying to learn ExtJS (before is was Sencha) and for the life of me I could not get past a bug. I went on the ExtJS posting board.

Along the way I noticed one guy who answered replied to a lot of posts, but frequently not with an answer. It was more often than not to ridicule the original poster. Sometimes he would help but more often than not he would make a derogatory comment. I eventually broke down, and decided to post a question on the board, and within a short period of time the aforementioned guy replied, but did not provide a real answer. Something about 'you clearly don't know how to debug'. Yes dumbass, I can't figure it out that's why I'm asking.

I don't think any particular field has a shortage of arrogant know-it-alls that take pleasure in lording over the masses and gain pleasure out of humiliating those who they perceive as being beneath them. However programmers can be a funny lot, and without going too far out on a ledge there are quite a few of us who are brilliant at code but not so much in other areas of our lives.

Plus I have to wonder how many of us programmers have been on the receiving end of abuse in other areas of our lives, and take that repressed frustration out on others in the area we have confidence in.

</comment><comment><USER35> Personally, I find StackOverflow to be one of the most useful online resources for general/random programming questions. Its not a place that tolerates a great deal of willful ignorance, and does almost nothing to help you if you're not willing to help yourself.

Also, I'm not surprised to see a bunch of comments taken from r/learnprogramming, a subreddit dedicated to helping beginners, being somewhat critical of StackOverflow and its style.

</comment><comment><USER13> I enjoyed this article a lot. It has some really good advice on both the beginner and professional sides that I'll definitely be keeping in mind going forward.

But I think the article, and the comments here, have a bit of a blind-spot: teachers and/or mentors. As much as people seem to want to believe that it's easy to self-learn programming, the issues brought up in this article are among those that give the lie to that idea. There would be tension in any field if untrained beginners were asking questions in the same forums used by experienced professionals.

Questions like "javascript while loop not working" demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding that professional support forums like SO and IRC are not designed to address. Most fields recognize that those sorts of fundamentals are best learned with the support of teachers who can evaluate what is missing in a student's mental model and answer questions in a way that builds knowledge. I don't see what makes us think our field is so different.

</comment><comment><USER36> The programming professional culture described in the article is a grown-up version of hacker culture seen in old newsgroups and IRC rooms. It's somewhat of a rite of passage for a beginner to first lurk in these communities and learn just enough to know how to ask the right questions to not get yelled at.

<comment><USER6> Oh, you reminded me there's actually a tutorial for that:

[http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart- questions.html](http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is just a tip of the iceberg. Junior questions on stack overflow and general attitude towards learning people how to work with the vocabulary and the basic concepts are sort of addressed by many great tutorials (codecombat.com <3), podcasts and in general helpful people that are out there. But try to even formulate an advanced question, like "how should I fit this idea into my existing 200+ classes system". Even if you describe your problem in less than one page of text, there is no place to ask how to design stuff. I suspect most people just make enough mistakes to become this senior architect person who gets to say "oh yes, we did try that in the 70s, it won't work because X".

</rant>

<comment><USER30> Perhaps that is another issue - "MYYYYY question was cloooosed, that is a _MORTAL INSULT TO ME_ " instead of accepting that mistakes _do_ happen, and even I make them. Did I go out to find knowledge, or did I actually want a pat on the head for being a good schoolboy who _never makes a mistake_?

This is a (mostly subconscious) theme in most of the SO flamewars: "they are attacking _me_ for trying to find out the Truth" vs. "I'm trying to get to the root of his _question_ , and he's just being stubborn" (I have seen such pointless bickering from both sides; hopefully I have learned something from that?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Over the past few years, we've put together a couple of (reasonably short) guides to asking questions on Stack Overflow; if you're a beginner (or simply struggling to learn the Stack Overflow way of doing things), it wouldn't hurt to read them:

\- [http://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to- ask](http://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask)

\- [http://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve](http://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve)

Disclaimer: I work for Stack Overflow, but these were mostly written by folks who don't and who just wanted to see new users have an easier time - I just edited them.

</comment><comment><USER39> I find beginners also can adopt this know it all attitude, and if something isn't in the scope of their understanding, it's either not relevant or capable of being understood.

Curiousity, interest, cooperation is the key of creating new beginners.

</comment><comment><USER8> The absolute worst experience is when the top link on Google is on a Closed/Duplicate/Invalid Stack Overflow, where the answers and comments are all on how the question is bad- especially when the question is almost verbatim to the search.

The problem with SO is that there isn't an alternative with a user base large enough to get that critical mass of answers. That means that there are no real alternatives to the very well defined limitations of Stack Overflow.

Without an alternative, it puts contributors in an adversarial position against askers- trying to close as many questions as possible to try and keep the mission statement alive.

</comment><comment><USER40> All I wish for is that more beginners would read (all of) "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" [http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart- questions.html](http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html) before asking. That would help a lot I believe.

</comment><comment><USER41> I appreciate the discussion this article is bringing to the table, and I mostly agree with it. I'm going to pick on the one thing that I disagree with.

The article said that professionals should _not_ say: "why would you want to do that?"

I think this question is quite possibly the best thing about asking for help in a programming community. What better way is there to learn about programming than the Socratic Method?

What this question means is that the professional is dedicated, not to simply finding the short term answer to the beginner's question, but to helping the beginner actually understand the problem, and what the range of solutions are, and what the best solution might be. It teaches the beginner to not get stuck in a rabbit hole and look at the big picture. It teaches the beginner to do it the right way instead of the easiest most obvious way.

<comment><USER42> Exactly. When I'm helping people solve problems, I find that "why would you want to do that" is one of the most useful questions to ask. The questions that people ask are very frequently about preconceived notions of what the solution to some problem should look like. If you ask about what the actual problem is that they're trying to solve, you might be able to suggest a much better or simpler solution, or inform them that the problem is solved already (e.g., there's a method in the API that does just what they're trying to do).

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The RTFM reply s are the equivalent of teaching a man locked in a box to become a magician, by putting a Houdini-manual on top of the box.

Its arrogant from the new users perspective, and basically just a result of the human mind purging negative moments, like ones own beginners frustration, lost in time.

</comment><comment><USER44> While it address the situation on stack overflow, this is a problem in general with communities:

      -It's my opinion that with enough time communities are
       driven and shaped by the leaders this has at least the
       following two aspects
        -The leaders (assuming they were elected or emerged from
         the community) will strength the core values of the
         community (look at it as the identity).
        -Previous statement can also be read as: they will make
         everything they can from prevent the community to
         become something they don't like

How do you prevent people with strong __insert here characteristic or property, e.g. technical __background and therefore after some time taking leadership from driving the community that way?

On the other hand (and I speak for myself here) when I started learning programming I were extremely frustrated with my first Java class for a desktop application, you copy paste something, modify it and then got into a situation where you ask for help.

Years later I did understand all the reasons why my approach was incorrect:

      -you can place logic inside the class or outside of it
         -You later learn that code should not repeat itself
          something called *one source of truth*, how that
          drives code from instances to the parents from where
          it its inherit
            -you later learn or discover that; that's the same
             principle behind normalization on databases
              -then you learn that behavior respects the same
               rules and hence interfaces and contracts
                 -then you can understand easily mef and maf for
                  example
                    -....

for that basic point above I would have need to be told to read and learn about a lot of things, if you get to the other side, the simple question becomes a really long explanation and tutorship about something.

Maybe this exemplifies and proves the necessity that can be addressed by a new community, _Ask and learn_ community with rules looking forward to address this kind of learning.

</comment><comment><USER45> As a self taught programmer, I went from a beginner to an intermediate level by learning from websites and books. My suggestion to beginners would be to read some stuff about the technology they want to use, then read and implement a few tutorials where they will make example apps, etc. This clarifies the terminology and makes it easier to describe the problem, read docs, etc. Because 99% of beginner problems have already been answered on StackOverflow. I have had some bad experience with SO but it was mostly due to not searching properly. I definitely understand how beginners feel. But if someone kept asking me how to reverse an array in C++ repeatedly, even I would be pissed.

</comment><comment><USER46> SO is not for beginners, because beginners do not know enough to ask the right questions.

</comment><comment><USER47> There are only three reasons why people answer questions on stackoverflow:

1\. fake internet points 2\. a genuine interest in the question/problem 3\. get paid to do it

I don't know anyone who sticks with stackoverflow very long if #1 is their primary motivation.

And group #3 is a pretty small percentage of users whose companies have off loaded support onto SO, but they are paid real money to answer whatever question someone posts, so they will put up with a lot.

But leaves, in my opinion, #2 is being the majority of people actually answer questions on stackoverflow. Which I think breaks down to an aspect of question-asking that is often overlooked. Given that I am not just waiting around to help you, then it is up to you, question-asker, to motivate me to _want_ to take time out of my day to answer your question.

At the worst, are people who asks questions with a chip on their shoulder, as if the internet is broken or the people who wrote the documentation committed some personal foul against them, and its up to the rest of the internet to make it up to them. I have _absolutely zero_ motivation to help that person. Then there are the people that but no effort into either composing the question or finding thier own answer, a question that can be answered trivially enough by copying the title of the question into google and looking at the results. Again, you have failed to motivate me to answer your question.

Then comes the good questions, the ones that tell a story, that _entice me_ into wanting to help this person achieve their goals. I _want_ to help you, but _have other things to do_ , give me a _reason_ to procrastinate and help you figure out your problem/misunderstanding. Tell me a story of what you are trying to do, what you tried and failed, let me see your thinking process that went into it. It's up to you to build a social bond that I _care enough_ to _help you_.

That, to me, is your job as "the asker". Make me want to help you, and when it's done we can both feel good about what happened. If you can't take the time to do that, then there is little point in me helping you. I, honestly, have more important things I _should_ be doing.

</comment><comment><USER23> This discussion is making me think that Stack Overflow has a solid opportunity to rethink how their architecture/approach could be redesigned to minimize questions that get closed due to redundancy or other reasons. One could indefinitely kick the can by saying the user should have known how to use SO better, but the questions keep popping up and getting closed. I for one personally have only ever found useful data downthread in closed questions. You could say that means the design is working, but it would still seem like a ridiculous, even risible design.

</comment><comment><USER48> I've been programming for ~20 years and I use Stack Overflow ALL THE TIME. The thing is...I've literally never ever posted a single question. Everything I've ever asked has already been answered.

</comment><comment><USER49> 1\. Sounds like a market opportunity for a beginner oriented forum, that somehow incentivizes experts to help constructively.

2\. The number one sign an expert is an impostor is the way the play the role of a teacher and student.

3\. The main thing I hate about SO is the illogical ban on questions that recommend something. At least 80% of my searches that land on a SO page are like, "this is blacklisted by some troll master, because it encourages people to post links to cool and interesting things that might be outside of the box".

<comment><USER30> SO was never supposed to be a site for Eeeeeeeverything And A Kitchen Sink. "Cool and interesting things outside the box" is pretty much Reddit's tagline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Code your way out of this one.

Google is awful for programming research for instance if I look for javadocs it is random if I get jdk 6, 7 or 8.

Same for the other dependencies in my code despite the fact that I use maven so the versions of everything are specified.

The how do I question has to be managed on an individual and project basis because in a certain projects we do it the same way so the system has a property we need and we don't care what the stackoverflowers think...

</comment><comment><USER51> A worthwhile article; thanks. I do think it could be improved with a link to esr's "How to Ask Questions the Right Way".

</comment><comment><USER52> 1) Wheaton's Law.

2) You have to enjoy mentoring/assisting. If you don't, then don't do it, but also obey (1).

</comment><comment><USER53> Not that it justifies the behavior I'm curious if there are any disciplines of where there isn't friction between professionals and beginners. In academia I noticed a similar friction. I would imagine politics to be similar... sports... they won't even let you play if your not good.

</comment><comment><USER54> The "Programming Professional", as a rule, suffers from a kind of mental disease. He is deformed, clumsy, awkward, violent, narrow, infantile, dwarfish and wretched.

These people need therapy. But instead they are encouraged and exploited.

</comment><comment><USER55> Does this generalize to diversity? Friction between people of diverse background and mindset.

</comment><comment><USER56> Pair programming is suppose to fix it.

<comment><USER6> The ideal of pair programming:

      The student learns at the side of the master

The reality of pair programming:

      "Why doesn't this guy ever wash his  hair! -_- "

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I don't really think this article warrants a serious conversion.

He leads with "I'm not endorsing either side", then proceeds to denumerate every wrong that SO regulars have inflicted on poor, benign newbies, and intersperses it with quotes with hard-working, incipient programmers ( who are, naturally, all from Reddit) who've been abused by oppressed by this ill- tempered cadre of SO devs. Many of them decide to quit the dream they're working so hard at because an experienced developer didn't debug their while loop.

Naturally, he's peddling a book that teaches you how to install a text editor and run hello world. The only travesty here is that he's getting from free publicity for this troll-bait.

</comment><comment><USER58> It's almost laughable that there's no work to identify the most common mistakes beginners do and let compilers etc. explain them. You probably could catch most of them.

It's also ridiculous through how many hoops you have to jump to start programming. Take python, which is touted as a begginner friendly programming language. First you need to install it (most people use windows or os x, which both don't have python 3). Then you need to get an text editor. You're recommended to use the python repl, but it lacks syntax highlighting and autocompletion.

<comment><USER59> There actually has been quite a bit of work on this front. DrScheme, for example.

It's a very, very hard problem, though. And computers cannot, in general, figure out what's wrong with broken code.

<comment><USER30> Sure, it's a very hard problem to _solve_. It's much easier to _warn_ against 80% of _potential_ errors - the algorithm isn't "smart" enough to fix them, but is smart enough to give the developer a push.</comment></comment></comment>