I found this a pretty good critique of the Hanania article although that was a target rich environment. I like the frame of comparing media coverage to just no coverage at all rather than a hypothetical neutral coverage.
One comparison I've never seen made that strikes me as interesting is main stream media reporting and business reporting. Not reporting on business from the media, but reports created in businesses where there is a direct economic incentive to try and produce an accurate model of the world. The ideal manager wants their reports to be accurate even if they say bad things about the current strategy, in fact especially if they say bad things about the current strategy because then the strategy needs to change. Bad managers favor reports that make them look good over true reports. This is all pretty uncontroversial and most bad managers tend to even think they're good managers, after all they never tell their directs to give them pleasant lies. Thing get interesting when you look into the actual dynamics that develop between a manager and their directs. A good manager rewards people who bring them bad but true reports and punishes people who bring them good but false reports. This produces a healthy incentive pattern that creates value for everyone involved. Bad managers don't even need to directly punish people who bring them bad but true reports, it's enough to just have report accuracy uncoupled from reward/punishment. As long as the manager is acting on the reports anyways having accuracy not be rewarded gives the directs wiggle room to optimize for reports that help them personally over the good of the company. Maybe a direct starts adding bias in to make all of their personal projects seem successful while all of his competitor's projects stall. The report instead of being a valuable way of keeping track of the world is corrupted into petty politics.
There are endless tricks I could play on my manager to deceive him into thinking my projects are going better than they are. I could even get away with it for some time. But I don't because we have a healthy department and honesty is more rewarded than lies which would be punished harshly if they were found. I don't think we have this relationship with our media. There never seem to be reckonings for clearly biased reporting and as managers our directs seem to hold us in contempt. I think we should rebuild the department from the ground up.
There's a reason why smart socialists actually respect a paper like the Financial Times - because, yes, it's written for the rich, but the type of rich person who subscribes to the Financial Times wants accurate information, which means, almost by accident, the Financial Times sounds more left-wing than much of the mainstream media on some economic issues.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I found this a pretty good critique of the Hanania article although that was a target rich environment. I like the frame of comparing media coverage to just no coverage at all rather than a hypothetical neutral coverage.
One comparison I've never seen made that strikes me as interesting is main stream media reporting and business reporting. Not reporting on business from the media, but reports created in businesses where there is a direct economic incentive to try and produce an accurate model of the world. The ideal manager wants their reports to be accurate even if they say bad things about the current strategy, in fact especially if they say bad things about the current strategy because then the strategy needs to change. Bad managers favor reports that make them look good over true reports. This is all pretty uncontroversial and most bad managers tend to even think they're good managers, after all they never tell their directs to give them pleasant lies. Thing get interesting when you look into the actual dynamics that develop between a manager and their directs. A good manager rewards people who bring them bad but true reports and punishes people who bring them good but false reports. This produces a healthy incentive pattern that creates value for everyone involved. Bad managers don't even need to directly punish people who bring them bad but true reports, it's enough to just have report accuracy uncoupled from reward/punishment. As long as the manager is acting on the reports anyways having accuracy not be rewarded gives the directs wiggle room to optimize for reports that help them personally over the good of the company. Maybe a direct starts adding bias in to make all of their personal projects seem successful while all of his competitor's projects stall. The report instead of being a valuable way of keeping track of the world is corrupted into petty politics.
There are endless tricks I could play on my manager to deceive him into thinking my projects are going better than they are. I could even get away with it for some time. But I don't because we have a healthy department and honesty is more rewarded than lies which would be punished harshly if they were found. I don't think we have this relationship with our media. There never seem to be reckonings for clearly biased reporting and as managers our directs seem to hold us in contempt. I think we should rebuild the department from the ground up.
There's a reason why smart socialists actually respect a paper like the Financial Times - because, yes, it's written for the rich, but the type of rich person who subscribes to the Financial Times wants accurate information, which means, almost by accident, the Financial Times sounds more left-wing than much of the mainstream media on some economic issues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link