\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

CharlesXII, how much of a problem is stupidity in journalism?

most journalists are not 170+ lsat types. their reasoning is...
''"'''"'''"'
  09/13/17
"reasoning" is no part of a journalist's job
WilburXII
  09/13/17
not a journalist here, but i'd say 100%. "journalists&q...
juan jacob
  09/13/17
(Not Charles XII)
Dan Kaffee VII
  09/13/17
...
donny
  09/13/17
they have a mindless moral confidence and a desire to attach...
CharlesXII in Charge
  09/13/17
like half of white men get above a 170 on LSAT. at least pic...
leolenin
  09/13/17
What a world we'd live in if this were true.
twins
  09/13/17
It's not stupidity, it's lack of real world experience and n...
Deranged CharlesXII
  09/13/17
listen we all grew up being taught the most important heroes...
leolenin
  09/13/17
It's a complicated question to answer. -True stupidity i...
a tool of the white cisheteropatriarchy
  09/13/17


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:36 PM
Author: ''"'''"'''"'


most journalists are not 170+ lsat types. their reasoning is atrocious and laughable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200105)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:38 PM
Author: WilburXII (Wilbur Mercer)

"reasoning" is no part of a journalist's job

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200123)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:40 PM
Author: juan jacob

not a journalist here, but i'd say 100%. "journalists" are just effeminate dorks with notepads and pens. most have no idea what the hell they're talking about, lack any kind of curiosity, and fail to conduct real investigations into things that could actually make a difference. they're also lazy.

even "experienced" journalists are narrative-pushing dipshits that ask stupid, irrelevant questions despite being given the platform to ask something useful.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200134)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:41 PM
Author: Dan Kaffee VII

(Not Charles XII)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200141)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:46 PM
Author: donny



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200160)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:45 PM
Author: CharlesXII in Charge

they have a mindless moral confidence and a desire to attach their byline to anything. many are smart, many are dumb strivers who just brute force their way through. i knew plenty of dumb "badgers". a few of them are really talented writers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200153)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:46 PM
Author: leolenin

like half of white men get above a 170 on LSAT. at least pick a more meaningful standard of intelligence

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200162)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 2:18 PM
Author: twins

What a world we'd live in if this were true.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200777)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:46 PM
Author: Deranged CharlesXII

It's not stupidity, it's lack of real world experience and not possessing expertise themselves. If you come out of j school you are qualified to write good copy and talk to people, but you have no idea how your industry works. This why people like Daniel Gross or Andrew Rosss or Matt Levine are such revelations. They actually understand what they're really covering.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200163)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 12:47 PM
Author: leolenin

listen we all grew up being taught the most important heroes in world history were civil rights figures in the 60s, being a workaday journalist that just does his job is not appealing and an affront to the "cause bigger than yourself"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200168)



Reply Favorite

Date: September 13th, 2017 2:17 PM
Author: a tool of the white cisheteropatriarchy (CharlesXII)

It's a complicated question to answer.

-True stupidity is pretty rare. It's hard to be genuinely rock-dumb in journalism because most people do have to produce coherent written copy for people to read, and hardcore dumbs are incapable of doing this. I have seen some people whose unedited work is pretty rough, but these people tend not to last.

-Ignorance is a somewhat larger problem than stupidity, but it can come from surprising places. One that absolutely blew my mind recently was an American-born Ivy League graduate who didn't know that U.S. senators are elected statewide rather than from districts that split the state in half. He's fresh out of college, but come on, man. Still, this is most common with rookies and if people have been on a beat for any substantial length of time they become a lot more knowledgeable. Of course, the percentage of people in journalism who are inexperienced has gone up in recent years, I'd guess, but it's not really the root of journalism going bad.

-A lot of people can be really bad at applying basic reasoning, though XO overstates it because the worst examples are always posted here while pieces that avoid such failures rarely are. Still, there are some embarrassing ones; I've met data journalists who knew how to use STATA but somehow didn't understand basic shit like Simpson's Paradox.

-I'd say the most recurring problem with journalists is that they are increasingly stuck in bubbles where groupthink is easy to achieve and there is a resulting lack of rigor to their thoughts. This isn't just on big things like Trump v. Hillary; I've been in large conversations where I was the only one who didn't oppose the Redskins nickname. A very good example of this bubble, though, is the whole campus rape stat thing. A large number of journalists just uncritically cite very flawed studies supporting the 1-in-5 thing because editors and writers aren't really even conceiving of the possibility those studies could be way off. I once met a statistician who did surveys for WaPo, and we discussed some WaPo-run survey that supported 1-in-5. Notably, their rate included a large number of people who said they'd been assaulted while "incapacitated" by alcohol. I asked whether they'd explained to respondents that "incapacitated" means literally knocked out and dead to the world, and not simply drunk. They had not, and it actually had never occurred to him that people might misinterpret that question in a way that would drive up the supposed rape rate.

-A lot of journalists, even lib ones, know a great deal and are able to do a lot of heavy lifting to find information. Remember, the Rolling Stone UVA story may have been the work of an incompetent journalist, but it was also reporters at WaPo who exposed the whole thing as a sham.

-As was stated by someone else above, journalists can be really lazy which can cause a lot of problems and half-assed work. Not really the same thing as stupidity, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3730304&forum_id=2#34200763)