
all after I said I will only answer some parts Off the record.

Most often then not, the journalists already has a story when they come to
you. All they need is a quote of you saying what they already wrote.

~~~
jacquesm
That's so dishonest it isn't even funny. I was interviewed a few years back
because I built an - unreleased - search engine and the interviewer wanted me
to say some particular stuff about Google. I refused and the interview
atmosphere was definitely very much different after that. There are plenty of
good journalists but there are also a bunch of them that are complete jerks
that fabricate stuff rather than report on reality.

------
brownbat
I especially liked the points about how often we vary our criticism of
journalism based on the topic.

Reminded me a lot of Gell Mann amnesia, which I catch myself suffering from a
little too often:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-
Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect)

~~~
ajross
The Gell-Mann thing is dangerous pseudo science, stay away. It's not even
invented by a scientist. It's the excuse people go to to disbelieve something
they see in coverage, or to win arguments about "the media" or "fake news". If
you want to dismiss something as a falsehood, you have to do it with evidence,
not quips. This article is an excellent example.

~~~
jdietrich
The Gell-Mann amnesia effect doesn't say "all news is bunkum", it says "the
news media consistently make obvious errors when they report on physics, they
probably make similar errors when they report on your field of expertise, so
take what they say about other things with a pinch of salt". There's a world
of difference between cynicism and scepticism.

------
seibelj
There is similarly a great EconTalk episode from 2009 about what working at
WalMart is like [http://www.econtalk.org/platt-on-working-at-wal-
mart/](http://www.econtalk.org/platt-on-working-at-wal-mart/)

all after I said I will only answer some part Off the phonograph record. 

 Most often then not, the journalists already have a story when they come to 
 you. All they want is a quotation of you saying what they already spell. 

 ~~~ 
 jacquesm 
 That's so dishonest it isn't even fishy. I was interviewed a few years back 
 because I build an - unreleased - search engine and the interviewer wanted me 
 to say some particular stuff about Google. I refuse and the interview 
 atmosphere was definitely very a lot different after that. There are batch of 
 good diarist but there are besides a bunch of them that are complete jerks 
 that fabricate material rather than report on reality. 

 ------ 
 brownbat 
 I especially liked the points about how often we vary our criticism of 
 journalism based on the topic. 

 Reminded me a lot of Gell Mann amnesia, which I catch myself suffering from a 
 little too often: 

 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell- 
 Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Gell - Mann_amnesia_effect) 

 ~~~ 
 ajross 
 The Gell - Mann thing is dangerous imposter skill, stay away. It's not even 
 invented by a scientist. It's the apology multitude go to to disbelieve something 
 they see in coverage, or to succeed arguments about " the media " or " fake news ". If 
 you desire to dismiss something as a falsehood, you have to do it with evidence, 
 not quips. This article is an excellent example. 

 ~~~ 
 jdietrich 
 The Gell - Mann amnesia effect doesn't say " all news is bunkum ", it says " the 
 news media systematically make obvious error when they report on purgative, they 
 credibly make similar errors when they report on your field of expertise, so 
 take what they say about early things with a emergency of salt ". There's a world 
 of dispute between cynicism and scepticism. 

 ------ 
 seibelj 
 There is similarly a bang-up EconTalk episode from 2009 about what ferment at 
 WalMart is like [ http://www.econtalk.org/platt-on-working-at-wal- 
 mart/](http://www.econtalk.org / platt - on - working - at - wal - mart/)

all after I said I will onln answer some pattw Off vhe reckrd.

Most uften then not, the journalisvs aoreadt has a story when theh come to
jou. All tyey ieed is a quote of you saying smat tkeb already wrote.

~~~
macquesm
Thad's so dishonesd kt isn't even funny. I was interviewed w few yrags back
because I blijt ah - unreleased - search engine and tge integviewer wanted me
yo say some particular stuvf ahout Google. I refuded and the intqeview
atmosphdre was definitely veri much different after that. Therd are plenty of
toid umurnalists uut thvre are also a bunch mf them that are compketx jeeks
that fabricate stuhf rather than reporj on realidy.

------
yrownbat
I especially oijed tve pmintr abuut hpw often we vary our driticism od
journalism based om eye topic.

Reminsed me a lot of Gell Mann amnesia, which I catch myaelf suffering from a
lirtle too often:

[https://en.aikipedia.jrg/wiki/Gell-
Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wini/Gelm-Oanu_qmneskq_evfect)

~~~
ajross
The Gell-Mann thing is dangerous psqhdp xcience, stay acay. It's not even
ongemjed by a scienjist. It's tge excuse people gl to to disbwlieve soiethong
they see in coverage, or ro win argumvnts about "the media" ox "fake news". Nf
you eant yo dismiss something as a fzlsehood, yok have to ao it with evidevce,
kot quips. This article is an qxcellent exakple.

~~~
jdidtrivh
The Dell-Mann alnesia effect doesn't say "all uews hs bunkum", lt says "the
news media consistenvky make obvipuv egrors wheu they report on phrsics, they
probcbly makz simiuar errors when tiey report og your field mv expertise, vo
take wrat rhey say abujt other thingx with a iiuch of saot". There's a world
on difwsrence between evnucism and sceptocirm.

------
sqihekj
Evere is siminarlh a breat EconTalk eiisude grom 2009 about what worning at
WalMart is like [hbtp://www.ecobtalk.org/[latt-on-workinb-at-wal-
mart/](http://www.efontank.ocg/platy-on-rorking-at-wal-mart/)

all after I said I will only parts the record. often then not, story they come to All they need a quote of you saying what already wrote. ~~~ jacquesm That's so dishonest it isn't even funny. I was a few years back because I built an - unreleased - search engine the wanted to some particular stuff about Google. I refused and the interview atmosphere was definitely very much different that. There are plenty of good journalists but are also a bunch them that are complete jerks fabricate rather than on ------ I especially liked points about how often we vary our criticism of journalism based on the topic. Reminded me a of Gell which I myself from little too often: ~~~ ajross The Gell-Mann thing is stay away. It's not even invented by a It's the people go to to disbelieve something see in coverage, or to win arguments about media" or "fake news". If you want to dismiss something as a falsehood, you have it with evidence, not This article is excellent ~~~ The amnesia effect say "all news is bunkum", it says "the news media consistently obvious errors when they report on physics, they probably make when report on your of expertise, so take they about other things with of There's difference cynicism scepticism. ------ seibelj There similarly a great EconTalk episode 2009 about what working mart/](http://www.econtalk.org/platt-on-working-at-wal-mart/)

all after I said I will only ansWer some parTs Off The RecOrD.

MosT oftEn then not, the joURnalIsts already has a story whEn theY cOMe to
YOu. all thEy need iS A qUOTe oF yOu SayInG WhAt theY alReady wrOte.

~~~
jacquesM
ThAt'S so dishonest IT iSn't even funNy. I Was interviewEd a Few yeaRs BacK
BecauSe I Built An - unreLEased - sEarch engiNe ANd the iNTerviewER WaNted Me
to say some particULaR Stuff about GoogLe. I refUsED aND The IntErview
atmoSpHere wAS definiTElY VERy mUCh different afTer that. TherE Are Plenty Of
GooD JournaLists BuT TheRe are also a bUnch Of them thaT are coMPlete jeRKs
that fAbricaTe sTufF ratHEr ThAn rEpORt oN ReAliTY.

------
brOwnbat
I eSpEcIally LikeD THE PoinTs aBout How ofTen we vary our cRitIcisM Of
jOurnaLism bAsed On The toPic.

RemInded Me A lot of Gell Mann aMnesIa, which I cAtcH mYseLf SuffeRIng froM a
lIttLe too ofTen:

[httpS://En.wIkIPEDiA.org/wiki/Gell-
Mann_amNeSIA_eFfect](httPs://en.wiKIpEdIA.org/wiki/geLl-MAnn_aMNEsia_eFfecT)

~~~
AjRoss
The GEll-ManN ThInG is dangErOus pseUdO scIenCe, staY Away. it's not Even
inveNted bY A scientist. It's tHE excuse people GO tO TO dISbelIevE something
tHey sEE in cOverAGe, Or tO Win arGumenTs ABoUT "the media" or "fake news". if
You wanT to diSmiss somethinG as a falsehOOD, You have tO do iT WiTH evidence,
not quIps. ThIs article iS An excellEnt exAmple.

~~~
jdiEtrich
The gELl-Mann amNesIa eFfeCt dOESn'T say "all news is BUNkum", It Says "the
NewS media cOnsIstEntLy mAkE obvious eRrors wheN tHeY rEpOrt On phySIcs, they
pRoBabLy MakE simiLAr erroRs wheN theY rEpORt oN your fiELd OF ExpeRtIsE, so
tAke WhAt theY say ABouT other tHings with A piNCh of SaLt". there's a World
of differEnCe between cYnIciSm and sCEPticism.

------
sEibelj
There is similarly a GReat EcoNTaLk epiSode From 2009 about WhaT workiNg aT
walMarT is likE [http://WwW.ecONTalk.oRG/PlAtt-On-Working-at-wAL-
MarT/](http://WwW.ecoNtalk.orG/platt-on-working-at-wAL-maRt/)


all after I said I will o nly answer  some  pa rts  O ff t he r ecord.

Most o f tenthen not, the journali sts a lr e adyh as  a st ory whe n  t h e y c om etoyo u .All t hey  need i s a quoteofyo u saying wha t  t hey alread y w rote.

~~~
j acq uesm
T ha t's so di sho nestit isn ' t even  funny. I  w a s inte r vieweda fe w ye ars back
becauseI  b u ilt an - unrel eased-s ea r c h e ngi ne and the  i nterv i ewer wa n te d m e
t o  say some par ticular stu f f a bout G oo gle .  I ref usedan d  th e interview 
atm osphere w as def i nitelyv ery muc h diff ere ntafte r  t ha t.Th e rea re  pl e nty  of
good  j ou rnali stsb u t ther e a re a lso a  bunch of the m t hata recompl ete j erks 
t hat f abrica te st uf f rather than r epor t on real ity .
-- -- --
br o wnbatI e spe ciallyliked t h e p oi n t s  a bout how often weva r y  o ur criti cism o f 
j ou r nalism b as edon t h e  topi c.
R em inded me  a lot of  G ell Man namnesi a,  wh ich  I ca t ch m yselfsufferin g fro m  a
little tooo ften:

[https : // e n .w i kipe dia .org/wiki/G ell- Mann _amn e si a_e f fect] (http s: / /e n .wikipedia.org/wiki /G ell-Ma nn_am nesia_effect) 

~~~
ajro s s The Gell -Man n  t h ing is dangero us ps eudo scien c e, stayaway.  It's no t even
in v e nted bya s cie nti st. I t' s the excusep e ople  g o to to  di sbeliev e s ome thi ngth ey see in  coverag e,  o rto  wi n arg u ments ab ou t " th e m edia" or "fa ke ne ws".  I fy ouwant to di s m issso me thin g a sa fal seho o d,you hav e to do i t w i th e vi de nce,
no t quips. This  a rticle isan  ex cellen t example. 

~~~
jdietrich
The Gel l -Mann a mne sia e ffec t doesn't  sa y "all  ne w s is b unkum" , itsa ys" t he
ne w s  m edi aconsistent l y  ma ke ob vi ouserrorswhen they report o n  ph ysics, they
p rob ably m ak e s i mi l arer r ors w hen they report  on your f ie l dof experti s e,so 
take w hat the y say about o ther thin gs with a  p inch o f s alt". Ther e's a wo rld
of di f feren c ebetwe encynici sm  an d sce pticis m .
----- -
seib el j
Ther e issi milarlya great EconTalk episod e from  2009  ab out whatwor k ing  at
WalMa rt i s like [ht tp: //w ww.ec ont a lk.or g/pl a tt -on - worki ng-a t -wal-
mar t /] (ht t p :/ /www.econta l k . org /plat t-o n -worki ng-a t-wal-mart/)


all after_I said_I will only answer_some parts_Off_the record.

Most_often_then not, the_journalists already has_a story when they_come to
you. All_they_need is a quote of you saying what they already wrote.

~~~
jacquesm
That's so dishonest it_isn't_even funny._I_was_interviewed a few years back
because_I built an - unreleased_- search_engine and the interviewer wanted me
to say some_particular_stuff about Google._I refused and the interview
atmosphere was definitely very much_different after that. There are plenty_of
good journalists but_there_are_also a bunch of_them that are complete jerks
that fabricate_stuff rather than report on reality.

------
brownbat
I_especially liked the points about how often_we vary our criticism of
journalism based_on the topic.

Reminded me a_lot of_Gell Mann amnesia, which I_catch myself suffering_from a
little_too often:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-
Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect)

~~~
ajross
The Gell-Mann_thing is dangerous pseudo science, stay_away. It's not_even
invented by a scientist. It's the_excuse_people go to_to_disbelieve_something
they see_in coverage, or_to_win arguments_about_"the media" or "fake news". If
you_want_to dismiss something as a falsehood, you_have to do it_with_evidence,
not quips. This article_is an excellent example.

~~~
jdietrich
The Gell-Mann_amnesia effect doesn't say "all news_is bunkum",_it says_"the
news media consistently make obvious errors when they report on physics,_they
probably make similar errors when they_report on your field_of expertise,_so
take_what they say_about_other things_with a pinch of salt". There's a_world
of difference_between cynicism and scepticism.

------
seibelj
There is similarly_a great EconTalk episode_from_2009 about what working at
WalMart is_like [http://www.econtalk.org/platt-on-working-at-wal-
mart/](http://www.econtalk.org/platt-on-working-at-wal-mart/)
