If people have not figured it out, they soon will. The Media and Journalist that work for them are trying to remake the world in their own image, they want the world to operate how they see it should be. They are story tellers not fact communicators, the story in their head is far more important than the any facts.
I agree that reporting on Apple reliably misses the point, and D.E.D. is right to call them out on it... however I think it's entirely possible to do this without lumping in "The Media and Journalist."
I'm curious as to what you consider to be a reliable arbiter of true factual reporting... or if you're at the point where you've decided that objective truth just isn't a thing.
Dilger, Dediu, Cybart, Ritchie
There is no one, and I mean no one, else worth reading if you want to know the good and bad on Apple.
If people have not figured it out, they soon will. The Media and Journalist that work for them are trying to remake the world in their own image, they want the world to operate how they see it should be. They are story tellers not fact communicators, the story in their head is far more important than the any facts.
I agree that reporting on Apple reliably misses the point, and D.E.D. is right to call them out on it... however I think it's entirely possible to do this without lumping in "The Media and Journalist."
I'm curious as to what you consider to be a reliable arbiter of true factual reporting... or if you're at the point where you've decided that objective truth just isn't a thing.
I read a number of different sources and where those sources cross the facts usually lie somewhere in the middle of the crossing points. The fact you have to read multiply sources to weed through peoples opinions disguised as facts is the problem we all have deal with. Art least DED lets us know what is his opinion and what he believes are the facts.
I tell people this all the time, anytime anyone puts out stats to back their point they are most likely lying to you knowingly or unknowingly. I rather they put out the hard numbers and let everyone do their own calculations and decide for themselves if it something they should react to. You can hide lots of miss information in Stats, when you start running a calculation on numbers the output has no value unless you know the all inputs. Most sources today do not tell you where their numbers come from or how they got to the information they are sharing. Also many reporters tend to report on other people's reporting so it hard to find the person with first hand knowledge.
Lastly, and this comes from many years of experience and working for a number various companies and traveling to various places I have good sense if what is being said adds up. Keep in mind very few journalist are independent today, they work for large media companies and like any company they have various agenda's. The reporters if they want to keep their jobs they report as they are told to report. Also add in the fact reporters do not have time to do all the research and fact check to get their work product out each day and week they are relying on others who also have their own agenda. Then add in the fact many reporters are not knowledgeable on the subjects they report on, information is rapidly changing, therefore, you need to be involved in the subject on daily bases to know what is going on and they can not do that.
To answer your question I am my only arbiter of facts and I work at and those how take what is being report on its face it going to find themselves on the wrong end of story.
Because the state of journalism today is in utter shambles. The New York Times has no credibility.
According to you, of course. Some misses, sure, but still the paper of record, like it or not.
Is the “paper of record” a self declared thing? Or just a title people gave them for having the most paper subscribers?
The state of journalism is no different today then it was decades, centuries, to millennia ago. Yellow journalism didn’t just happen recently. It’s a mixture of facts, propaganda, and fiction woven together to tell a story that would help sell whatever they are selling (subscriptions, culture, et al). Sometimes, the actual truth of the events will be published, sometimes not.
Remember, the NYT helped promulgate GWB’s war in Iraq on blatantly stupid premises. For whatever reasons, they decided that that was a good course of action, rather than treating stuff like that with journalistic skepticism and trying to figure out the truth. That’s not a miss that should so easily be forgiven if we are to imbue that with “paper of record” type trust. There is a continuous fight between creating a popular story and a boring just the facts story for news shops. What caused bad decisions in the past still remains there, and will continue to remain as long as the basis of their business is to sell subscriptions, not to report facts.
You always have to view news with a lens of skepticism and what makes sense. At minimum, actual corroboration with independent sources.
especially the section titled “So why is there so much stupid?”.
Many thanks for that. That article and particularly the section you pointed out finally clarifies once and for all, at least for me, the most cogent answer to that very question they, and I, have asked for all these years. Their answer makes so much sense … in a tragically sad way.
If people have not figured it out, they soon will. The Media and Journalist that work for them are trying to remake the world in their own image, they want the world to operate how they see it should be. They are story tellers not fact communicators, the story in their head is far more important than the any facts.
I agree that reporting on Apple reliably misses the point, and D.E.D. is right to call them out on it... however I think it's entirely possible to do this without lumping in "The Media and Journalist."
I'm curious as to what you consider to be a reliable arbiter of true factual reporting... or if you're at the point where you've decided that objective truth just isn't a thing.
Dilger, Dediu, Cybart, Ritchie
There is no one, and I mean no one, else worth reading if you want to know the good and bad on Apple.
Agreed, although I would also add Gruber and Dalrymple to that.
All Apple stock holders should be thanking these ignorant reporters, people who know better buy as soon as one of these articles comes out.
Ostensibly, the job of these stock or business analysts is to report the truth or the facts in their area of coverage when they go on TV “news”. Probably shouldn’t be thankful that they are either incompetent at it, or worse, lying about it.
They do have a hard job as their job is essentially trying to predict the buying behaviors of big fund managers - the little buyers don’t matter - and predicting human behaviors is a bit of a crapshoot at times. And it can get recursive as what they say can affect what these managers do, and some of these folks try to do the mind games and misinformation to get stocks to move their way. When they get on TV “news”, where there is some buy-in from the audience that what is being talked about is the truth, the network really shouldn’t let that happen and possibly the feds, as that does effect the little buyers who can’t afford to lose like the big fund managers can.
The quality of news articles (and hard right wing opinion pieces) in the last few years has deteriorated sharply (Apple bashing, Tesla bashing, etc. is a sport), coinciding with Murdoch taking control. On many days it is a pain to read but they make it really, really hard to quit (you need to call at certain times instead of allowing to cancel through email or online customer service.). The experience and performance of the WSJ app is old fashioned and poor, responsive design of the wsj web site is dismal at best....making it a pain to use on an ipad..... I want to get out !
Comments
There is no one, and I mean no one, else worth reading if you want to know the good and bad on Apple.
I'm glad they said it.
It's like they've written a cast-iron guarantee that Apple TV will be a massive hit.
Should Apple be a $200 stock
http://blogs.reuters.com/bethany-mclean/2013/02/06/should-apple-be-a-200-stock/I tell people this all the time, anytime anyone puts out stats to back their point they are most likely lying to you knowingly or unknowingly. I rather they put out the hard numbers and let everyone do their own calculations and decide for themselves if it something they should react to. You can hide lots of miss information in Stats, when you start running a calculation on numbers the output has no value unless you know the all inputs. Most sources today do not tell you where their numbers come from or how they got to the information they are sharing. Also many reporters tend to report on other people's reporting so it hard to find the person with first hand knowledge.
Lastly, and this comes from many years of experience and working for a number various companies and traveling to various places I have good sense if what is being said adds up. Keep in mind very few journalist are independent today, they work for large media companies and like any company they have various agenda's. The reporters if they want to keep their jobs they report as they are told to report. Also add in the fact reporters do not have time to do all the research and fact check to get their work product out each day and week they are relying on others who also have their own agenda. Then add in the fact many reporters are not knowledgeable on the subjects they report on, information is rapidly changing, therefore, you need to be involved in the subject on daily bases to know what is going on and they can not do that.
To answer your question I am my only arbiter of facts and I work at and those how take what is being report on its face it going to find themselves on the wrong end of story.
The state of journalism is no different today then it was decades, centuries, to millennia ago. Yellow journalism didn’t just happen recently. It’s a mixture of facts, propaganda, and fiction woven together to tell a story that would help sell whatever they are selling (subscriptions, culture, et al). Sometimes, the actual truth of the events will be published, sometimes not.
Remember, the NYT helped promulgate GWB’s war in Iraq on blatantly stupid premises. For whatever reasons, they decided that that was a good course of action, rather than treating stuff like that with journalistic skepticism and trying to figure out the truth. That’s not a miss that should so easily be forgiven if we are to imbue that with “paper of record” type trust. There is a continuous fight between creating a popular story and a boring just the facts story for news shops. What caused bad decisions in the past still remains there, and will continue to remain as long as the basis of their business is to sell subscriptions, not to report facts.
They do have a hard job as their job is essentially trying to predict the buying behaviors of big fund managers - the little buyers don’t matter - and predicting human behaviors is a bit of a crapshoot at times. And it can get recursive as what they say can affect what these managers do, and some of these folks try to do the mind games and misinformation to get stocks to move their way. When they get on TV “news”, where there is some buy-in from the audience that what is being talked about is the truth, the network really shouldn’t let that happen and possibly the feds, as that does effect the little buyers who can’t afford to lose like the big fund managers can.