"You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. . . In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
"You see a subordinate making a mistake."
"Your cab driver took a wrong turn."
I suspect that some form of the amnesia effect is necessary for us to function in a complex society.
Just because one journalist sucks doesn't mean the next one does, and slagging on the next guy only because the former one did a poor job amounts to a combination of genetic and adhom fallacies. Editors were never intended to be subject matter experts on everything their writers write about - stick to scientific journals if that's the level of assurance you want. (And depending on how you feel about the reproduction crisis, even that might be questionable.)
> Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel.
What do you think Crichton's genuine intent was in including misleading footnotes referencing real scientific studies in a book about a real scientific phenomenon he's on record as denying the severity of?
If your point is that Crichton is a jerk or a climate change denier, I don't disagree. It jibes with what I've heard. Much beyond that, I'm not sure it's possible for us to interpret his motivations accurately.
Is there a better name for this though? from behavioral sciences or psychology?
"Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true--except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge."
Skoglund et al. (2016) paper "Genomic insights into the peopling of the Southwest Pacific.", doi: 10.1038/nature19844, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27698418
"Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths — or Falling Into Old Traps?", https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/magazine/ancient-dna-pale...
Never printed by the nytimes, but it would have been nice if he had linked to a personal copy.
Ha! You're of course right. A lecture finished right as I was typing so I didn't quite finish. I lead with the comments on his personality because I had intended to close with a comment about how I've never seen him take up such a fierce posture before, and I wanted to make a comment that this was definitely not his usual tone.
As opposed to the journalists who wrote the initial article, who are not masters of their own profession and do not have incentives besides impartially reporting the truth?
Is anyone under the impression that when someone believes they have been falsely represented by a major news outlet and issue a rebuttal that they are trying to maximize impact and make it look like -- i.e., show -- that the outlet was unfair to them?
That’s a very big assumption and a rather naïve view of modern journalism. Impartially reporting the truth is what we like to think journalists do, but it isn’t safe to suggest that’s what they actually do.
I think a sarcasm is not the right word to describe this. What is it called? Not quite irony either...
If an article is found to be at fault, the publishing outlet will be required to publish a retraction/correction/apology, depending on the offence. During the review, the outlet can make their case against the complaint.
Does the US not have something similar? Because these complaints sound like the perfect fit for something like this.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press, including the freedom to make mistakes and even outright lie. There is no godlike authority that can tell truth from fiction without fail, and having government censors telling people what they can say (especially w.r.t. political speech) would invert the relationship between the people and their government, making government the master instead of the servant.
Instead, we rely on an educated readership to identify bias and mistakes and call them out, as has been done here. People get the journalism they deserve. To the extent we're failing to teach our children critical thinking skills, we're putting our democracy at risk.
The NY Times and other resources currently considered "credible" have earned that credibility from the people not through government permission but by generally providing a useful service to its consumers, despite all the mistakes they make and biases they present.
The NY Times in particular has unfortunately been burning through that hard-earned credibility capital at an alarming rate, even long before the current last few years, with the result that there are large portions of the country that no longer trust it like they did, with good reason. More recently they have taken the bait proffered by Trump and his ilk and lowered themselves to his level, spinning most articles I've seen with more political or oppositional bias than in the past.
I can only hope this is a cyclical phenomenon, where the citizenry/readership becomes ignorant of the related history and its challenges, simply because we've lived through a period where the battles were won and we could take such things for granted. Just like our predecessors, this generation is going to painfully relearn that everything printed (or typed) should be taken with a grain of salt and cross-checked against multiple sources.
A word from Herbert Marcuse on this notion:
"This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought.
In the contemporary period, the democratic argument for abstract tolerance tends to be invalidated by the invalidation of the democratic process itself."
Do you really feel that that's happening?
You've been given an example of a system that might work in a civilized, modern country called Denmark. Maybe it's worth looking into it rather than repeating your First Amendment / "government is the servant" saw.
>The NY Times in particular has unfortunately been burning through that hard-earned credibility capital at an alarming rate
Ah, never mind you got it.
>More recently they have taken the bait proffered by Trump
How this isn't being observed by more people is stunning. 100% of the time, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo are running what they think is an effective awareness and information campaign - and is in reality going to cause scandal fatigue and hurt their credibility. Everyone complains about his Twitter... stop airing every single one of his tweets. In another two years, the country won't be on fire, and statistically Trump has a good chance at re-election.
All the media pearl clutching, faux-rage, and surface depth "activism" aren't helping... well, it's not helping them anyhow.
I agree but it takes 5 minutes to write an article about how 'terrifying' the latest tweet is by the president and that article will generate a lot of clicks to have a high margin on return so I don't expect to see this stuff go away.
They're a business and have to publish articles to make money and can't just sit on every thing waiting for a big story so I understand. I think all you can do is just ignore it.
But right now it's good for those sweet clicks. They have an audience who loves to get worked up about Trump, just as there's an audience that loves to get worked up about the kind of people who get worked up about Trump. They have their own content, too.
And accompanying interview with Jill Abramson.
But, basically... yes, what you said. And newspapers mostly lack any credible business plan ideas that don't rely on this.
There is currently no real demonstrated business model to sustainably pay for good journalism. Some are hoping they can at least fund good journalism with clickbait and sponsored content... ugh.
I think most of those who work at the NYT would like Trump not to be president, and most of those who work at Fox News would like him to be president.
_Covering_ Trump is good for business for both of them though. And if Trump is out, there will be some other topics that are either way too.
This would be part of the executive branch, and run by someone appointed by the President. Do you think that would be net positive or negative?
I don't know a whole lot about this, but I do know that if you write something to show that you were misrepresented in an article you need to be extremely careful to not misrepresent the article.
>The article wrongly states that in 2015 my colleagues I argued that the population of Europe was “almost entirely” replaced by people from the Eastern Europe Steppe
When the article says:
>Almost entirely replaced existing commmunities [snip] in Central and Northern Europe.
"The New York Times Magazine is a Sunday magazine supplement included with the Sunday edition of The New York Times. It is host to feature articles longer than those typically in the newspaper and has attracted many notable contributors."
I also was curious as to how supplement was defined within the context of publishing and again according to wiki:
"A supplement is a publication that has a role secondary to that of another preceding or concurrent publication. A follow-on publication complements its predecessor, either by bringing it up to date (e.g. the Index Catalogue), or by otherwise enhancing the predecessor's coverage of a particular topic or subject matter, as in the Tosefta."
In my opinion the difference is insignificant.
There's also the obvious difference that one is a newspaper and the other is a magazine; I think it's just a bit unclear what is being meant when they claimed they are "different publications".
I suppose if you ignore the differences between the print versions you get closer to a purely pedantic distinction, but really I think the problem is that the measure of difference is unclear.