tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496482.post2206228107018583810..comments2024-03-26T03:20:19.840-04:00Comments on For Some Value of "Magic": The Media We Deserve?Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15732819755000554717noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496482.post-90872542470176975262008-05-02T20:10:00.000-04:002008-05-02T20:10:00.000-04:00If your angst is a matter of scale, Ok. But there ...If your angst is a matter of scale, Ok. But there is nobody that does not whore a little in their daily economic pursuits. But the expectation that the pundit is 'pure of heart' is niave, at least from the perspective of what was reported. [I won't subscribe it to you as we haven't tipped a few.]<BR/><BR/>Mark me cynical as I never expect anything other than most parties are working to their own economic interests. Hell of a lot fewer surprises that way. <BR/><BR/>As a close. I would rather have your opinion on Python vs Rails than a man on the street opinion. I can filter out what is appropriate and what is not. But you have an informed opinion on the subject.Tucanae Serviceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935170696138248693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496482.post-509726237912653522008-05-02T12:51:00.000-04:002008-05-02T12:51:00.000-04:00@john: There's both a quantitative and a qualitati...@john: There's both a quantitative and a qualitative difference between your hypothetical and the story I reported. In the situation being reported the people concerned stand to make large financial gains if the war continues. Frankly I think you would be foolish to rely on my "unbiased" judgment if Holden Web stood to gain a contract for $3bn if the choice went to Python, and you would be doing your readers a disservice if you didn't disclose that fact.<BR/><BR/>Here's another quote from the article: "In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access."<BR/><BR/>That's why reporters aren't allowed to accept the kind of "assistance" that these "defense advisors" have been taking from the Ministry of War - sorry, Department of Defense. Full disclosure would at least let viewers make their own mind up about the biases of the commentators. Right now they don't have the necessary information, and the networks aren't interested in giving them it.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732819755000554717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496482.post-90203015712182259842008-05-02T12:25:00.000-04:002008-05-02T12:25:00.000-04:00Ok, lets change the scenario. You code python for ...Ok, lets change the scenario. You code python for food I presume.<BR/><BR/>I come to you as a journalist and ask your opinion as to whether Python or Ruby-Rails is the better open source framework. I then post a excerpt of the whole interview. Now which is the better source? You or some schmuck off the street whose knowledge of Python is limited to a snake?<BR/><BR/>Under the purported criteria being espoused in the articles you as a source would be 'tainted' due to your industry contacts in using Python for profit. Yet you are exactly the type of source that SHOULD be consulted due to your intimate knowledge of the subject. <BR/><BR/>Finally if you draw this line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion then anyone who is an 'expert' in any topic would never be used as a reference by journalists. Most experts are experts because they are paid for their services. By inference the end game is journalism articles devoid of meaning. Which in many cases exactly where we are at. <BR/><BR/>No one lives in a society purse as the driven snow. The question to be asked is -- does the 'expert' deliver the intended data based on a reasonable knowledge of the subject without bias were it reviewed by a jury of their peers?Tucanae Serviceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935170696138248693noreply@blogger.com