https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
Wouldn't it make more sense to study the field and sort journalists into groups based on their performance over time? Even casual sports fan do that kind of work reflexively. I don't get why journalism should be treated any different, and I especially don't get the desire to find an anecdote that could reject the entire field out of hand.
Put differently-- if Glenn Greenwald publishes another leak-based story about state-level corruption, I'll read it and ascribe more veracity to him than I will Crichton's cocktail story. I'll bet you a dollar that when/if I do that, nothing bad will happen as a result.
"That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say."
The last 4 years of US politics (and 20? of UK politics) have given the lie to that belief.
[edit: added UK politics because they're just as bad]
So many AI models have been ridiculed for the same flaw - learning correlations.
There are currently 15 parties to vote for here in Denmark, with a government on average being based on 2-3 of them. A single person rarely get more votes than 1% in our elections because most vote for the party, not the person.
People distrust politicians ... except. Except for their favorite politician, except for their party, except for the ones they voted for, except...
You see this with Congress writ large. People hate Congress, its approval ratings are through the floor. But they like their own Congresspeople. Sure, gerrymandering, safe districts, etc, but by and large people are much happier with their own Representatives than everyone else's.
As I wrote in another reply I believe this to be A Very American Thing. At least I have never heard of anyone here (in Denmark) seeing themselves as represented by a person. It is more of a party thing. I'm sure I live in a bubble (don't we all) so my experience might not match any official numbers but in my experience people seem to just change to another party at the next election if they feel the representation does not match their expectation. This likely makes it easier not to get caught up in having to defend a specific person that "can do no wrong". But again, I have not looked it up and it is all based on my own experience and intuition. I do know that election day sees a much higher turnout here (~%85) than in the US (>65%?) though, but is it related to distrusting politicians? Who knows.
This might be a parliamentary democracy thing. In the US, everything is about borders and leaders. You're happy with corrupt politicians because corrupt politicians are connected politicians, and they might bring benefits to your state/district.
In short, every politician is trustworthy to the people who voted for them, but not the rest- kindof an inverse of the effect, really.
Let's not act like news readers or politicians are different sorts of humans than anyone else.
Google Plus and Google Glass were big bets in my view. That doesn't take away from Google being unscrupulous in ending unsuccessful offerings. That's part of what made them succesful, I assume.
Journalists often use hyperbole or simplify complex facts to deliver an interesting and easily understandable story. That doesn't make every sinplification a gross misrepresentation.
You're free to dive deeper into any topic you want, but it's delusional to expect every reader to be an expert in every field.
Bashing journalism as a whole has become common gospel, but to me it seems that the effect of that thinking is not that people become better informed.
The article sounds Google-friendly and uncritical to me, but it's also very common to cover interviews in a way that represents the views of the interviewed person.