One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 668560 |
| Date de publication | 2018-05-23 18:45:27 (vue: 2018-05-24 01:05:06) |
| Titre | The devil wears Pravda |
| Texte | Classic Bond villain, Elon Musk, has a new plan to create a website dedicated to measuring the credibility and adherence to "core truth" of journalists. He is, without any sense of irony, going to call this "Pravda". This is not simply wrong but evil. Musk has a point. Journalists do suck, and many suck consistently. I see this in my own industry, cybersecurity, and I frequently criticize them for their suckage.But what he's doing here is not correcting them when they make mistakes (or what Musk sees as mistakes), but questioning their legitimacy. This legitimacy isn't measured by whether they follow established journalism ethics, but whether their "core truths" agree with Musk's "core truths".An example of the problem is how the press fixates on Tesla car crashes due to its "autopilot" feature. Pretty much every autopilot crash makes national headlines, while the press ignores the other 40,000 car crashes that happen in the United States each year. Musk spies on Tesla drivers (hello, classic Bond villain everyone) so he can see the dip in autopilot usage every time such a news story breaks. He's got good reason to be concerned about this.He argues that autopilot is safer than humans driving, and he's got the statistics and government studies to back this up. Therefore, the press's fixation on Tesla crashes is illegitimate "fake news", titillating the audience with distorted truth.But here's the thing: that's still only Musk's version of the truth. Yes, on a mile-per-mile basis, autopilot is safer, but there's nuance here. Autopilot is used primarily on freeways, which already have a low mile-per-mile accident rate. People choose autopilot only when conditions are incredibly safe and drivers are unlikely to have an accident anyway. Musk is therefore being intentionally deceptive comparing apples to oranges. Autopilot may still be safer, it's just that the numbers Musk uses don't demonstrate this.And then there is the truth calling it "autopilot" to begin with, because it isn't. The public is overrating the capabilities of the feature. It's little different than "lane keeping" and "adaptive cruise control" you can now find in other cars. In many ways, the technology is behind -- my Tesla doesn't beep at me when a pedestrian walks behind my car while backing up, but virtually every new car on the market does.Yes, the press unduly covers Tesla autopilot crashes, but Musk has only himself to blame by unduly exaggerating his car's capabilities by calling it "autopilot".What's "core truth" is thus rather difficult to obtain. What the press satisfies itself with instead is smaller truths, what they can document. The facts are in such cases that the accident happened, and they try to get Tesla or Musk to comment on it.What you can criticize a journalist for is therefore not "core truth" but whether they did journalism correctly. When such stories criticize "autopilot", but don't do their diligence in getting Tesla's side of the story, then that's a violation of journalistic practice. When I criticize journalists for their poor handling of stories in my industry, I try to focus on which journalistic principles they get wrong. For example, the NYTimes reporters do a lot of stories quoting anonymous government sources in clear violation of journalistic principles.If "credibility" is the concern, then it's the classic Bond villain h |
| Notes | |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | 000 2018 @gepeto42 about absurd abusing abysmal accident adaptive adherence adjusted again agree all already analyst announced anonymous antipravda any anyway apples are argues audience autopilot back backing basis because beep begin behind being billionaire blame blinks bloomberg bond breaks business but call calling can capabilities car cars case cases ceos choose chose claimed claims classic clear close com com/graphics/2018 come comment communist comparing concern concerned conditions consistently control core correcting correctly covers crash crashes create credibility criticize cruise cybersecurity deceptive dedicated demonstrate devil did didn different differs difficult diligence dip distorted document does doesn doing don drivers driving due each elon established ethics every everyone evil exaggerating example facts fake feature find fine first fixates fixation focus follow freeways frequently from gap get getting going good got government guillaume handling happen happened has have headlines hello here himself his how https://www humans ignores illegitimate incredibly industry instead intentionally ironic irony isn its itself joke journalism journalist journalistic journalists just keeping lagging lane legitimacy let little lot low make makes many market may measured measuring meeting mile mistakes model much musk name national new news newspaper not now nuance numbers nytimes objective obtain official only oranges other overrating own party pedestrian people per permission plan playboy point poor practice pravada pravda press pretty primarily principles problem problem: problems production professor proven public questioning quoting rate rather real reason record registered reporters russian safe safer satisfies see sees sense serious side simply smaller some sources soviet spies standards start statements states statistics stole stories story street studies such suck suckage targets technology tesla than that them then there therefore thing thing: those thus time titillating title track tracker/so truth truths try tweet:the twice unduly union united unlikely upset usage used uses version villain violation virtually walks wall ways wears website what when whether which who without word would wrong www year yet |
| Tags | |
| Stories | Tesla |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.