
Dear Newsweek: RTFM - oskarth
http://thoughtcrook.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/dear-mainstream-media-rtfm/
======
higherpurpose
I think this could also be a watershed moment for the "war" between "real
journalists" and "bloggers", where the "bloggers" have reached a tipping point
where they are in many cases _better_ at finding evidence than the "real
journalists", especially as you're now required to do increasingly more
Internet research to find evidence for something.

I remember a few years ago a lot of people were worried about what would
happen with journalism if the "media corporations" died. As others have said
in the past what matters is the "act of journalism", which can be done by
anyone, not necessarily that you have a journalist diploma and badge.

We live in a time when everything is getting "democratized", i.e. "amateurs"
can now do a lot of stuff only "professionals" could do in the past, and we'll
see increasingly more of it and in many other industries, too.

And yes, as with all democratization processes, there will be a lot of _crap_
, especially in the beginning, but in the end you also start getting really
good stuff, out of all the crap, that rises to the top, and ends up being much
better than what the traditional gate-keeping "professionals" could do, and
that's how you get significant progress overall, in that industry.

~~~
rayiner
Here's the thing: bloggers can only research up to the scope of what's on the
internet. And the fact is, most interesting things are not on the internet.
Frequent users of the internet fall into a mode of "if it's not on Google it
must not exist." But you'd be shocked by the things that aren't on Google.
There will always be a place for journalists that have "centralized
credibility." There is a reason Snowden leaked to Glen Greenwald instead of
just putting the data up on the internet for bloggers to crawl through.

~~~
dllthomas
_" Here's the thing: bloggers can only research up to the scope of what's on
the internet."_

I think this is clearly false in terms of potential. It's probably the case
that too many bloggers _do_ limit themselves to internet research.

------
bhouston
I am not completely sure the Newsweek article is debunked.

~~~
Svip
If Dorian Nakamoto is not Satoshi Nakamoto, why did he deny he was to AP? Did
he suddenly discover that he could not handle being in the public light?

You'd think the reason that the real Satoshi Nakamoto has kept himself hidden
is exactly for that reason; that he is quite aware of the consequences,
particularly now. Moreover, the Newsweek article doesn't provide any interest
titbits about Bitcoin from its creator, only a statement that might indicate
he was creator, given the right context, which the reporter maintains. But
given Dorain Nakamoto's grasp of English, that might be a language barrier
resulting in a confusion.

I'd argue that the Newsweek article wasn't even proved to begin with. Why
would the real Satoshi Nakamoto suddenly do an interview now that he is
discovered? He could simply deny having ever heard of Bitcoin, rather than
'somehow' confirming it and then denying it later.

~~~
danielweber
Felix Salmon has a nice write-up on this: [http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/2014/03/07/the-satoshi...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/2014/03/07/the-satoshi-paradox/)

I like his summary: Both answers ("he is Satoshi" and "he isn't Satoshi") are
improbable, yet one of them must be true.

~~~
mikeash
I don't buy that conclusion. The arguments for "isn't" are pretty compelling,
starting with the ridiculous idea that this secretive person would use _his
own name_ as a "pseudonym" and going from there.

The arguments for "is" are silly. The guy is a libertarian (no shortage of
those in the tech community). The guy is described as "brilliant"... by his
family (what an unbiased source). The guy is obsessed with money (that only
describes 90% of humanity).

He paints it as this extremely improbable coincidence that this guy is named
Satoshi Nakamoto and has _exactly_ the attributes that the creator of Bitcoin
would have. But it looks to me like Satoshi Nakamoto isn't a particularly
uncommon name (Wikipedia comes up with quite a few famous people named
Satoshi, and quite a few named Nakamoto, and the combination doesn't seem like
it ought to be rare). The attributes described aren't _that_ uncommon. What
are the odds that one of the Satoshi Nakamotos in the world happens to have
these fairly general attributes, purely by coincidence? Pretty high, I would
say.

~~~
roc
To say nothing of how we're supposed to take his denial of being Satoshi, as
_evidence_ of his being Satoshi.

That catch-22 (he either admits it or you take his denial as admission) would
give you a false positive rate of damn near 100%.

Surely that has to be essentially written off as noise if we're going to use a
probabilistic approach.

That said... while people are talking about the amazon reviews as counter-
evidence, due the clear ESL attributes, that bike mirror review throws an
interesting curve.

Either Dorian has a habit of dictating through someone with far more fluent
(and precise) English [1] or he's far better with English than he generally
lets on. [2] Which is an interesting wrinkle, but hardly enough to tip any
scales.

[1] "(i.e., clear though convexed)"

[2] Which is something of a stereotype of older, professional Japanese.

~~~
thrill
_To say nothing of how we 're supposed to take his denial of being Satoshi, as
evidence of his being Satoshi._

See if he can float?

------
Alex3917
If Satoshi wanted to post a more credible denial he could easily do so. Why
not just tweet a photo of today's newspaper in front of some Japanese
landmark, where Dorian Nakamoto couldn't possibly be? The fact that Satoshi
posted a denial but couldn't be bothered to take the extra 5 minutes to do it
in a way that proves it wasn't Dorian almost makes it seem more likely that
Dorian was just posting this from his basement.

~~~
roc
Because the newspaper, landmark, and the photo itself would all leak
information that very well _might_ point to them.

If you were the real Satoshi, and you took your anonymity seriously, why would
you particularly _care_ if the press had descended on some other fellow? If
the world decides the wrong man is Satoshi, the real Satoshi(s) could breathe
a lot more easily.

Satoshi sticking their neck out to keep the hunt alive would only exacerbate
the side of the bitcoin story that they've been trying to avoid and downplay
for quite some time.

------
JackFr
In terms of brand perception, I think Newsweek is far more concerned that
people know they exist, rather than the quality of journalism. I thought they
had gone out of business years ago.

~~~
smackfu
They stopped printing a real magazine in 2012. They were purchased by a new
company and this issue is the first one in print again.

So, I think it was a very effective tactic.

~~~
davidgerard
The brand name was purchased by a new company (Daily Beast), then that company
didn't want it either and sold the brand name to a smaller company who thought
the brand name might lend them credibility (IB Times).

tl;dr this only has the name in common with the long-running weekly magazine
of old.

~~~
smackfu
From the cover they released, it seems like they also got the design. The logo
is the same, at least.

------
hartator
Even if we all agree the Newsweek are jerks, it's not sure they were wrong.
Specially now when Satoshi awaken himself for the first time in 2 years.

~~~
hackerboos
There has been a lot of guesses as to who Satoshi is and this is the first
time (I believe) he has come out and denied it.

Which makes the accusation worse as it adds credibility.

~~~
Dosenpfand
Do we know with a certainty that it was him who denied it?

I think the real Satoshi would have at least signed the message.

~~~
berberous
Occam's razor says it is him. I don't think Satoshi ever signed any of his
messages, so why start now? Especially when the Newsweek article is so clearly
based on such extraordinarily flimsy evidence, that really, his denial should
be enough.

------
lucb1e
> The article has, of course, now been debunked

How so? I don't see why, or moreover, why it would be "of course" (as if it
goes without question).

------
coldcode
Journalism these days is not about truth or even information, but attracting
random eyeballs.

~~~
fit2rule
Journalism has never been about the truth. It has _always_ been about getting
to as many people as possible with whatever it takes. If it means abusing the
subject: so be it.

~~~
randomsearch
> It has always been about getting to as many people as possible with whatever
> it takes. If it means abusing the subject: so be it.

What about the BBC? What about the Guardian, which until recently was run by a
trust? What about non-profit organisations? What about news that makes money
based on quality reporting of a niche rather than general attention-grabbing?

To be hopelessly cynical is probably even worse than to be hopelessly naive.

~~~
fit2rule
What about the BBC? It runs stories that it knows will capture eyeballs and
ears. And? The Guardian - the same?

None of these organizations survive without mass acceptances of the stories
they intend to run .. whats your point? That these are altruistic
organizations? I think not!

~~~
randomsearch
> None of these organizations survive without mass acceptances of the stories
> they intend to run .. whats your point? That these are altruistic
> organizations? I think not!

Yes, they do. The BBC relies on a license fee, which is not linked to viewing
figures.

The Guardian has been loss-making for years, and is not run primarily for
profit.

------
chippy
News. It's in the public interest trumps privacy. Sadly.

~~~
jgalt212
Also, one can argue that Bitcoin is so big that creator of Bitcoin is ipso
facto a public figure.

I know this is not a popular opinion on this site, but I personally have more
confidence and trust in Bitcoin, or any other cryto currency, if I knew who
was behind the creation of it.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Possibly true. But that only applies if you can prove _with an incredibly
strong case_ who the actual creator of bitcoin is.

------
danielweber
What did _Newsweek_ mean when they said he used reverse polish notation? I
know what RPN is, but did he use it in his code?

~~~
moomin
Suspect they meant hungarian notation.

------
roel_v
Lol, it's funny how these people all get up in arms because some reporter did
in two weeks using old school methods what people so proud of their doxing
skills spend years on and didn't get anywhere.

Also, the barrier of proof these people are setting is laughable. It's like
sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'na-na-na-na-na' because you
don't want to hear something.

~~~
sanderjd
...I'm curious: what did you find convincing in the Newsweek article?

~~~
roel_v
...

What is _not_ convincing? If one assumes the facts as they were presented
there are actually true (which is not a stretch, they aren't _that_
unreasonable), it's 90% as credible as an actual admission. And I have yet to
see why the facts _aren 't_ as they are presented, except some generic 'media
are all liars, they must by lying here as well'. The backpedaling by the guy
himself, about how 'he meant something else' about what he said when he was
unprepared, included. What normal person stops emailing after one mentions
Bitcoin? What normal person calls the police when somebody asks about it? I'll
tell you what any normal person who is _not_ actually 'the' Satoshi would do
when a bunch of reporters show up on his door: he'd sell interviews to anyone
who would want one, plainly saying 'it's not me'.

What is also funny, btw, is how people call the guy 'Dorian' to make sure he
seems very different from 'Satoshi'. 'It's not him, see, he's called
'Dorian'!'. Yeah, uh, except that 50 years ago he actually _was_ called
'Satoshi'. Why are you all so emotionally invested in the guy remaining a
'mystery'?

~~~
sanderjd
A few points: You seem much more emotionally invested than me. I would
absolutely be freaked out if a camera crew showed up and started asking me
questions like that, and cashing in on interviews would be the furthest thing
from my mind (maybe I'm not a normal person either, though, I dunno). Maybe
people are calling him 'Dorian' because that is reported to be his first name
(which is what we usually refer to people by).

------
the1
newsweek uses openresty haha

Server: ngx_openresty/1.2.6.1

~~~
Jgrubb
Why is that haha?

