Your daily reminder that "in a nutshell, so-and-so said..." should raise flags, even when you're reading that line in an ostensibly reputable publicationhttps://twitter.com/balajis/status/1187151642572906497 …
Show this thread
-
IMO, the job of a journalist, when writing about any person, is to produce work that their subject, when acting in good faith, **may agree or vehemently disagree with re: the conclusions drawn, but does not consider themselves mischaracterized by.**
Show this thread
Of course, not everyone is acting in good faith. But some contexts are easier to evaluate than others: a talk given to a relatively large audience, transcribed, etc. vs. e.g. a private conversation. FWIW, I fully believe Balaji to be a deeply sincere person across the board.
-
-
The important thing is that the typical reader ought to be able to very easily make the distinction between what the subject has said or done, and the writer's interpretation of those statements or actions. This is an absolutely sacred line, IMO.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I believe the reporter and not Balaji here - the number of times sources don’t think they said something and get all irate and then get presented with a tape of them saying that exact thing is enormous.
-
I think this reflects poor judgment on your part, frankly. As conmon as that may be, journalists misrepresenting the speech — even public speech! — of figures w/ complex arguments is also pervasive. When I asked around for advice re: my own interview requests, I was shocked.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.