> You are creating a ridiculous straw man... The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at all.
Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
> He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars.
He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general". I don't see how you can read anything else other than that out of my comment, so I would appreciate it if you would point out the part of my comment claiming he said that the media is bunch of liars.
> The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts.
His comments are literally unverifiable personal stories from his own experiences, there is no way around it. He could have at least said "companies have been known to do x" and then shown evidence of x (though his own argument precludes his ability to use any media sources as evidence of x), then we could examine the particular case he presented and determine if the facts of that case align with the opinion he is presenting. As as of now we're just taking his word for it.
> If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established.
... OK? Once again, you're just repeating my own reasoning back to me, he's a random person on the internet spitting out anecdotes to bolster his opinion, not someone presenting evidence that can be independently examined without trusting his stories.
> On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way
First of all, it is impossible to demonstrate proof that "companies always x" and it is disingenuous to ask for such evidence because we don't rely on "always"-level confidence for proof of anything. Further, I am not trying to "undercut his argument" at all, I am critiquing the flawed reasoning that his personal anecdotes are a legitimate reason to disregard this particular story and the media in general.
>> it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)
I fail to see the relevance of assigning blame here. If you grant what he suggests then you can apportion blame in a variety of plausible ways.
>>... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
I'm not sure there is any reasonable solution here. Industry claims, especially projections, can be quite dubious at times. It's difficult to explain why when you are trying to appeal to a wide audience, however. The media just isn't in a good position to verify or discredit claims like that.
>> Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
You just said his argument was "don't trust this story or the media in general." His claim was that in certain circumstances the surface implication of the media's reporting of PR numbers is very misleading. That's it. It's quite a simple statement that in no way implies what you have repeatedly suggested he claims.
>> He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general".
I'll take your word for it; he must have deleted it or it is hidden although I can't find it on the thread. I would be surprised if he did that because it is quite a ridiculous statement that would expose him to ridicule and is logically unnecessary for his argument.
Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
> He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars.
He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general". I don't see how you can read anything else other than that out of my comment, so I would appreciate it if you would point out the part of my comment claiming he said that the media is bunch of liars.
> The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts.
His comments are literally unverifiable personal stories from his own experiences, there is no way around it. He could have at least said "companies have been known to do x" and then shown evidence of x (though his own argument precludes his ability to use any media sources as evidence of x), then we could examine the particular case he presented and determine if the facts of that case align with the opinion he is presenting. As as of now we're just taking his word for it.
> If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established.
... OK? Once again, you're just repeating my own reasoning back to me, he's a random person on the internet spitting out anecdotes to bolster his opinion, not someone presenting evidence that can be independently examined without trusting his stories.
> On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way
First of all, it is impossible to demonstrate proof that "companies always x" and it is disingenuous to ask for such evidence because we don't rely on "always"-level confidence for proof of anything. Further, I am not trying to "undercut his argument" at all, I am critiquing the flawed reasoning that his personal anecdotes are a legitimate reason to disregard this particular story and the media in general.