How to detect bad journalism
Was reading this article.
When I read an article. Especially one which says something contrary to what I personally think/believe/feel, I'm open to being wrong. In fact, I WANT to be wrong. There is no reason for me to read a competing argument if I have no openness to accepting it, if it provides just cause for doing so. In fact, I'm always interested to find that piece of information I overlooked which teaches me something new and useful.
This article does not do that.
It contradicts itself. It holds the opinions of one individual above another with no justification or explanation and some times resorts to simply being petty.
First. Self contradiction. Point #1 clearly mocks Mueller for NOT making a decision. But, then in the closing argument it states that Mueller ruled that there was no collusion and thus Steele should be investigated. Not only is that not how the law works... but if #10 were true, then it would mean #1 was a lie and Mueller did come to a conclusion. And if #1 is true, then #10 is a lie.
Similarly, points #6 and #7 contradict each other (and these are gems because combined they tick all three boxes, contradicting, elevating Burr's views over Mueller's [and reality] and simply being petty). In #6 Mueller is criticized for writing Burr a letter he deemed as "snitty". In that same passage Burr is quoted as speculating that MAYBE a staffer wrote it.
Then in #7 Mueller is accused of hiring idiots, because he hired someone who wrote the letter in #6.
For reference here is the relevant chunk of #6:
#4 and 5 were where I had hope for more substance. But, all we get is the author, without any justification siding with Burr and against Mueller. I'd have loved some case law cited with reasons for why it is felt that these cases are similar enough that their precedent should apply here. But, no such information is provided.
The rest is a smear campaign against Mueller. It doesn't make any other useful or particularly valid arguments. Certainly nothing objective. And nothing backed up by anything other than Burr's words or the author's emotions.
It is an exercise in confirmation bias.
Even having citations for research or case law, etc... doesn't guarantee the quality of an article. You can almost always find research to support any side of any argument. But, the presence of citations at least shows a willingness to investigate which implies (though not always true,) a willingness to accept your own mistakes.
What is truly egregious is the absence of citations in an article like this. This article is discussing the difference in opinions, sometimes in legal terms, of two very distinguished experts in that field. The average person really has no qualifications to rule on many of these matters. And the remaining arguments in the article are so subjective that while the author is within his rights to feel and make those expressions, they shouldn't be presented as anything other than personal opinions.
I have made no citations in this article. Though, I'm not paid to do this, nor am I a journalist, nor even expect another human being to ever read this. But, for that reason I will end this by stating that the above is purely my opinion. If you disagree, I highly recommend you do your own research into what makes good journalism and why those points are important so you can come to your own conclusions.
Frankly, the most baffling part is how the author didn't even appear to notice that #6 and 7 contradict each other. They appear one after the other in the article. And they are both incredibly weak and highly subjective arguments to begin with. It is sloppy journalism, even if the author's original intent was simply to smear Mueller or deceive his audience.
In the end, it makes the author look even less credible than their target. Which, incidentally, ends up having the opposite effect of the one the article would seem to be promoting. If these are what people think are legitimate arguments against Mueller, then I'll have harder time taking Burr seriously.
But then, maybe the article is actually written by a Mueller supporter, and this is all an even deeper level of subterfuge.
When I read an article. Especially one which says something contrary to what I personally think/believe/feel, I'm open to being wrong. In fact, I WANT to be wrong. There is no reason for me to read a competing argument if I have no openness to accepting it, if it provides just cause for doing so. In fact, I'm always interested to find that piece of information I overlooked which teaches me something new and useful.
This article does not do that.
It contradicts itself. It holds the opinions of one individual above another with no justification or explanation and some times resorts to simply being petty.
First. Self contradiction. Point #1 clearly mocks Mueller for NOT making a decision. But, then in the closing argument it states that Mueller ruled that there was no collusion and thus Steele should be investigated. Not only is that not how the law works... but if #10 were true, then it would mean #1 was a lie and Mueller did come to a conclusion. And if #1 is true, then #10 is a lie.
Similarly, points #6 and #7 contradict each other (and these are gems because combined they tick all three boxes, contradicting, elevating Burr's views over Mueller's [and reality] and simply being petty). In #6 Mueller is criticized for writing Burr a letter he deemed as "snitty". In that same passage Burr is quoted as speculating that MAYBE a staffer wrote it.
Then in #7 Mueller is accused of hiring idiots, because he hired someone who wrote the letter in #6.
For reference here is the relevant chunk of #6:
The attorney general added that “the letter is a bit snitty and it was probably written by one of his staff people.”Note that Burr does not KNOW that a Mueller staff member wrote it. No such direct claim is ever made. And yet, #7 ASSUMES this is fact. Despite the fact that if true, then #6 is false. Mueller didn't write a letter to Burr if he hired idiot staff who wrote. It can't both be Mueller AND idiot staff member who are to blame.
#4 and 5 were where I had hope for more substance. But, all we get is the author, without any justification siding with Burr and against Mueller. I'd have loved some case law cited with reasons for why it is felt that these cases are similar enough that their precedent should apply here. But, no such information is provided.
The rest is a smear campaign against Mueller. It doesn't make any other useful or particularly valid arguments. Certainly nothing objective. And nothing backed up by anything other than Burr's words or the author's emotions.
It is an exercise in confirmation bias.
Even having citations for research or case law, etc... doesn't guarantee the quality of an article. You can almost always find research to support any side of any argument. But, the presence of citations at least shows a willingness to investigate which implies (though not always true,) a willingness to accept your own mistakes.
What is truly egregious is the absence of citations in an article like this. This article is discussing the difference in opinions, sometimes in legal terms, of two very distinguished experts in that field. The average person really has no qualifications to rule on many of these matters. And the remaining arguments in the article are so subjective that while the author is within his rights to feel and make those expressions, they shouldn't be presented as anything other than personal opinions.
I have made no citations in this article. Though, I'm not paid to do this, nor am I a journalist, nor even expect another human being to ever read this. But, for that reason I will end this by stating that the above is purely my opinion. If you disagree, I highly recommend you do your own research into what makes good journalism and why those points are important so you can come to your own conclusions.
Frankly, the most baffling part is how the author didn't even appear to notice that #6 and 7 contradict each other. They appear one after the other in the article. And they are both incredibly weak and highly subjective arguments to begin with. It is sloppy journalism, even if the author's original intent was simply to smear Mueller or deceive his audience.
In the end, it makes the author look even less credible than their target. Which, incidentally, ends up having the opposite effect of the one the article would seem to be promoting. If these are what people think are legitimate arguments against Mueller, then I'll have harder time taking Burr seriously.
But then, maybe the article is actually written by a Mueller supporter, and this is all an even deeper level of subterfuge.
Comments
Post a Comment