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.**
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likesShow 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.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
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.
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @webdevMason
Did you feel like "secession" was an unfair way to summarize Balaji's proposal? “build an opt-in society, ultimately outside the United States, run by technology" I went into the article expecting that to be a misrepresentation (because Anand does that a lot) but it seemed apt?
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @juliagalef
I think an exodus is meaningfully different from a secession, with one implying a large movement of willing actors & the other implying an exit by something that is or akin to a state, with presumably far from total buy-in. The connotations are appropriately worse for the latter
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @juliagalef
i characterized
@balajis’ proposal as “secession” in a talk i gave several years ago, was pretty plain i think abt what that did and didn’t mean. the audience seemed to understand this as “secession”. slides 3 to 7 here, was this a mischaracterization?https://www.slideshare.net/SteveWaldman/engineering-economic-security …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah, I think you're at least taking quite a lot of artistic license with your usage e.g. herepic.twitter.com/BBVizaPnmb
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
hmm! i don’t think so, other than in the sense that when speaking part of the art is to use evocative comparisons to interest people without misleading, and i don’t think i’ve misled. but of course it is always for others to judge, humans are not good self-juries.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
FWIW, I don't think it's necessary (or good) for language to always be used ultra-literally in all contexts. I'm certainly not one to be all that conservative re: flowery language. But a different set of standards ought to be expected when you're writing or reading the news
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.