I will typically always defend most writers/ journalists on these kinds of points.
They are not the problem, we are!
They write about whatever we read. We know that it's this way and not the other way because on *all* news sites there *are* articles that are 'sensible' and 'contextual' etc: people just don't get read.
I'm involved in the Nutrition world (mid-MSc), and this is arguably even more prominent here. If you let it it will drive you crazy and you'll become incredibly frustrated (arguably rightly so), but at the end of the day it is what it is: biology
I also feel that 'misleading articles' are actually *good* for writers who *do* have domain knowledge and *can* help contextualise etc: they are providing more material for you to write and expand on!
It's just basic biology/evolution: for us novelty is interesting, and for our ancestors it was risky and thus we evolved to pay extra attention.
Again, 2 things:
1. The 'proper' articles do exist, they just don't get read thus no incentive to write more
2. Writers with greater domain-knowledge (which we cannot necessarily expect the journalist to know) benefit more than anyone from said 'poor' articles! Nutrition is AI x100!
I guess we disagree. 1) The NYT doesn't need clickbait. 2) attention-seeking is not omnipotent; there are great articles that are also popular that are not clickbait. Clickbait is merely the easy route. Taken by those who have little respect for truth (or hidden interests)
Disagreements are good! As said, that’s why we’re paying to be here on your Substack allowing you to make a very comfortable income!
Writers, especially employed ones, write about what humans read. We can’t expect journalists to want to write about “another million people die from CVD that was entirely preventable”.
It took me a while to get past those charts. Even more stark than the one featured in this piece was one in the Helen Ritchey article showing global causes of death. Noncommunicable disease is the big baddie with 74% of attributed deaths. 0.2% are attributed to war (as of 2019).
Just about every night I hear from my wife about how the world is going to hell. She is probably a lot worse than most at resonating with bad news in the media. Fear and stress from this kind of media spin is probably having a much bigger impact on her likely lifespan than any of the things she fears.
The larger point of your essay is excellent, however, and I will use this when I encounter the scare stories of how chatbots are the greatest nemesis ever known to mankind. They may become so, but they have a long way to go to dethrone the champs.
Exactly. The broader point is much more important than anything AI related actually. I love our world in data and similar websites because they illuminate aspects of reality no one else can. They do gods work
"This is what drives views"
I will typically always defend most writers/ journalists on these kinds of points.
They are not the problem, we are!
They write about whatever we read. We know that it's this way and not the other way because on *all* news sites there *are* articles that are 'sensible' and 'contextual' etc: people just don't get read.
I'm involved in the Nutrition world (mid-MSc), and this is arguably even more prominent here. If you let it it will drive you crazy and you'll become incredibly frustrated (arguably rightly so), but at the end of the day it is what it is: biology
I also feel that 'misleading articles' are actually *good* for writers who *do* have domain knowledge and *can* help contextualise etc: they are providing more material for you to write and expand on!
But what do you think about Our World in Data's chart? Can you defend the NYT on that because "we" somehow are the problem? Not even Google searches!!
Of course!
It's just basic biology/evolution: for us novelty is interesting, and for our ancestors it was risky and thus we evolved to pay extra attention.
Again, 2 things:
1. The 'proper' articles do exist, they just don't get read thus no incentive to write more
2. Writers with greater domain-knowledge (which we cannot necessarily expect the journalist to know) benefit more than anyone from said 'poor' articles! Nutrition is AI x100!
I guess we disagree. 1) The NYT doesn't need clickbait. 2) attention-seeking is not omnipotent; there are great articles that are also popular that are not clickbait. Clickbait is merely the easy route. Taken by those who have little respect for truth (or hidden interests)
Disagreements are good! As said, that’s why we’re paying to be here on your Substack allowing you to make a very comfortable income!
Writers, especially employed ones, write about what humans read. We can’t expect journalists to want to write about “another million people die from CVD that was entirely preventable”.
It took me a while to get past those charts. Even more stark than the one featured in this piece was one in the Helen Ritchey article showing global causes of death. Noncommunicable disease is the big baddie with 74% of attributed deaths. 0.2% are attributed to war (as of 2019).
Just about every night I hear from my wife about how the world is going to hell. She is probably a lot worse than most at resonating with bad news in the media. Fear and stress from this kind of media spin is probably having a much bigger impact on her likely lifespan than any of the things she fears.
The larger point of your essay is excellent, however, and I will use this when I encounter the scare stories of how chatbots are the greatest nemesis ever known to mankind. They may become so, but they have a long way to go to dethrone the champs.
Exactly. The broader point is much more important than anything AI related actually. I love our world in data and similar websites because they illuminate aspects of reality no one else can. They do gods work