Conversation

Replying to and
Not just accessible but relevant. Engineering has a natural advantage in that tech produces artifacts you can use whether or not you understand how they work. I don’t need you to study navier stokes equations before complaining about airlines. The airplane itself is “relevance”
1
7
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to and
I think I’ve read pieces by a couple of people in the thread, yes. But my basic attitude is: leave your credentials and references to your prestigious field and profound work at the door when you enter the public arena. Show me what I can value without all that.
3
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to and
That is not my complaint. I’m specifically objecting to “there’s a whole field of study” as a line of defense/attack. That specific phrase makes me flip the bozobit on scholars.
1
3
Well I’ve also flipped the bozobit on the NYT entirely. It works purely to perpetuate its own profitable media hegemony at this point and will serve any other interest and co-opt any other tool to that end. Wordle and the occassional deep investigation piece do not redeem it.
1
5
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Ezra is of course a prime mover of explainer journalism in the last decade and I have a whole other problem with that, which I did a rant about over the weekend.
Quote Tweet
Just hit me that explainer journalism is the one genre of modern pre-Weirding media that survived the Great Weirding completely intact. Didn’t miss a beat. It got big explaining the subprime crisis and has taken everything since 2007 in its stride.
Show this thread
1
3
I am somewhat sympathetic to both POVs here since I started to straddle both spaces (so you can argue I have no cred to critique either!). I have definitely had editors in popular press edit out all references to theory, even accessible “pop theory”, in writing I submit.
2
6
Show replies