Yeah, journalists call that "balance". They did the same thing with climate change denial. Give one side to people who have no clue what they are talking about, and the other side to people who do.
They have zero clue what actual objectivity, or balance is. Its just the truth, nothing more. Its not entirely journalists fault though, given…
Yeah, journalists call that "balance". They did the same thing with climate change denial. Give one side to people who have no clue what they are talking about, and the other side to people who do.
They have zero clue what actual objectivity, or balance is. Its just the truth, nothing more. Its not entirely journalists fault though, given the corruption of data scientists in the tech industry. They don't know what the science is. They do know that they should seek out all scientific opinion and get a good sense of it.
I listened to Gary Marcus on radio new zealand, and it was a fine interview. But they just had to put an AI doomer on nextweek to balance it out. It bothers me because that radio station is not even commercialized. Its the last bastion of media that isn't corporate or capitalist controlled, or runs for profit.
Yeah, journalists call that "balance". They did the same thing with climate change denial. Give one side to people who have no clue what they are talking about, and the other side to people who do.
They have zero clue what actual objectivity, or balance is. Its just the truth, nothing more. Its not entirely journalists fault though, given the corruption of data scientists in the tech industry. They don't know what the science is. They do know that they should seek out all scientific opinion and get a good sense of it.
I listened to Gary Marcus on radio new zealand, and it was a fine interview. But they just had to put an AI doomer on nextweek to balance it out. It bothers me because that radio station is not even commercialized. Its the last bastion of media that isn't corporate or capitalist controlled, or runs for profit.