Read on Twitter
Left is the New York Times' description of the Google Memo in its piece on Slate Star Codex. Right are some direct quotes from the version of the memo Gizmodo published. I don't understand how someone could get this so wrong in 2021, but it obviously warrants correction.
2/ Because there's so much disagreement in journalism right now about the question of whether or not it's important to accurately report on someone else's statement or writing, this will be interpreted as "defending the memo," as though there's not another, higher principle here.
3/ I think the fact that you cannot point out someone is twisting someone else's argument without being seen as 'defending' that person can partly why journalistic rigor is nosediving at the moment, including in the New York Times.
4/ You often lack access to a reporter's process. But certain hints can provide a useful sense of how diligent they were in their reporting and how much you should trust them.
If they couldn't get the argument of a memo that is freely available online correct, well...
If they couldn't get the argument of a memo that is freely available online correct, well...
5/ Don't wanna lose sight of the fact that this is very, very bad. Obvously don't do this. It's inexcusable.
6/ Even if you don't think this is immoral -- and of course it is -- it is only going to backfire spectacularly. Now you have a bad-faith hit piece that *accurately* points out that some on the other side of the conflict openly considered fighting such journalism with harassment!
7/ Refresh my memory... There were other examples of major outlets misrepresenting the memo this badly, right? As in, straightforwardly false claims rather than matters of interpretation?
8/ Also this might be of interest to some peple reading this thread, though, as luck would have it, we recorded it the day before this story came out. https://twitter.com/TheBARPod/status/1360701468957884420
9/ Not gonna rag on this forever but... what does this even mean? Similar how? This is the end result of misrepresenting the Damore memo. Some of it was just straight sex-differences research, stuff Pinker has written about, etc. It's like this piece is trying to murder context.
