U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
This interview with the NY Times' executive editor is the establishment media equivalent of Zuckerberg's widely-panned Georgetown speech. Both spend most of their time justifying past decisions while missing the big picture point on how 2016 has shifted the information ecosystem.https://twitter.com/mathewi/status/1223650901929484288 …
Here is a discussion between @mathewi and I about Zuck's speech. My big problem was the collapse of different kinds of online platforms into one messy free-speech ball. To me, as amplification increases so does responsibility as privacy rights decrease.
https://galley.cjr.org/public/conversations/-LsHiyaqX4DpgKDqf9Mj …
The full interview with Baquet is worth a listen. The Daily is one of my favorite podcasts, and @mikiebarb deserves a lot of credit for asking hard questions of his boss.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/podcasts/the-daily/2020-election.html …
I can't find a transcript, but try to find where Baquet jokingly threatens reporters who have questioned his decisions! I'm sorry, but if a tech CEO did that it would be a scandal. Also note how much time he spends justifying decisions instead of on lessons he has learned.
Barbaro smartly asks about the Times' articles based upon documents that were hacked and then strategically leaked. Baquet recognizes some mistakes, but basically says that if it is newsworthy (he uses tax returns as an example) then the Times will run with stolen documents.
This is where the Baquet/Zuckerberg parallels are strongest. Just as Zuck didn't address amplification, Baquet doesn't seem to recognize that the GRU was able to shape the tone of coverage in the critical final weeks. He equates "newsworthy" with "multiple front pages".pic.twitter.com/HTOGOo2LoN
He says that the Times will run with newsworthy leaks without explaining how they could frame said leaks or take into account that a professional intel source would clearly leak a misleading subset. He is telling the IRGC, PLA/MSS and SVR/GRU that the Times is open for business.
Unfortunately, the podcast doesn't address another disastrous story from the last days of the campaign, where the Times was possibly played by pro-Trump leakers. I can't believe this story still doesn't have an editor's note at the bottom.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html …
It is unfortunate that the NY Times has not set good standards for the rest of the industry on how to *not* becoming an unwitting part of a foreign influence campaign. Hopefully the @washingtonpost does a retrospective with a bit more humility and some concrete recommendations.
cc @karaswisher
Something for us to discussion on stage at Michigan!https://twitter.com/UMKnightWallace/status/1222648323506462720 …
Ugh, typos. I guess I need an executive editor.
Another way to sum up: Baquet and Zuckerberg are both focused on the equities surrounding each individual decision on what to publish or moderate without properly considering the big picture of how the information environment is being professionally manipulated.
Zuck is focused on the free speech rights of individuals. Baquet on the critical role of journalism. Both men are right about the importance of these considerations, but they also need frameworks that take into account that our cherished freedoms are being used against us.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
