this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
586 points (90.1% liked)
Technology
59232 readers
3103 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree with Steve on everything, this was a huge blunder and fail in messaging from Linus. But you are supposed to reach out and ask for comment before running a story. I was a news reporter and have a master's in public relations.
Edit: Called Linus "Linux"
You ask for a comment regarding an accusation, this wasn't something to get a comment for, it was the details and evidence itself which is not refutable.
If there was a claim against someone of an event that cannot be shown, you would ask them for their version of events, if the news had a clear video of an irrefutable event they would not require comment for what the video itself would clearly demonstrate.
Steve's video was demonstrable information through explicit evidence, it wasn't something that a comment would have shed light to as the only appropriate comment that could be made be a public response.
The content of the video could not have been changed and given what was demonstrated, it did not serve the viewerbase to wait for the response of the larger platform with greater reach.
Linus Tech Tips has the reach needed to be seen by at least as many viewers with their response.
Nope. You call them up and go, "This is happening and we're running a story. Care to comment?" You should even have a list of questions to ask if they agree. They can give you bullshit answers if they want, then you point those out and add that to the story. It doesn't have to affect the story. Facts are facts, and they can try to explain it away, but can't. You're still holding them accountable. You're just also giving them a chance to apologize or own up to it. And if they dont' comment, you include that.
Steve and crew are amazing tech journalists. They're doing great work. But that's a miss in this whole thing.
Did you watch the video above? Steve spend some time explaining exactly his thoughts behind not reaching out for comments. I think he argues well.
He said that he 'aggrees with Steve on everything', so no, he didn't watch the video lol.
I did watch the video. And I don't agree with him. He needs to ask for a comment.
Then the literal first sentence of your first comment was a lie.
Thats how I am used to it as well. There is always more than pure facts. And giving the other side a change explain themselves is a part of it.
That's a courtesy you can extend, but mostly it's a protection against libel - if they take you to court about a claim they dispute, being able to say "your honor, we gave them a chance to respond before going public"
In this case, there's no dispute over facts - they didn't bring up any accusations, they just took what LTT posted publicly and presented criticisms of it
For example, if you report on the president being accused of misconduct you might ask the white house for comment, but if you are criticizing a speech they made or their public actions you probably wouldn't (unless you think they'll give you something that improves the story)
OK, this I can agree with. And in fairness I was never writing about a big, constantly-updated video channel that was continually talking about itself. But it still screams to me there needs to be a chance at letting them respond.
I'm not sure I agree that you have to give a chance to respond - I think context matters.
I think if you make an accusation or cover a specific incident, they should be able to give their context, not out of fairness but as this might give a more accurate view of the truth
In this case, they presented a specific series of events showing a pattern of behavior, and a timeline of communication they made with billet (including their public comments in the subject
What truth could they add here? They could add more details or make excuses, but that waters down the message - the point isn't "Linus did something bad and made factual mistakes", it's "Linus has shown a pattern of doing bad things, and frequently publishes factually incorrect figures"
I think you're coming at it from a place of "you have to give them a chance to respond out of fairness", but journalism isn't about fairness, it's about distilling an easily consumed message from the endless complicated facts that make up any situation. Journalistic integrity is about making every effort to give a "good take", and should put accuracy above all
Being fair to the people you're covering should follow naturally by pursuing the truth, doing the opposite is what we call "softball journalism"
In certain cases yes. This is not one. What comment could Linus have given that would contextualize the story in such a way to excuse factual information?
Steve was absolutely vindicated in refusing to ask for comment due to Linus's behavior. Had he asked for comment, Linus would have contacted Billet prior to the release. Instead, Linus makes a statement that heavily (if not outright) implies that had Steve asked for comment he would have context to know that an agreement had been made between LMG/Linus and Billet Labs before the video dropped. Because Steve did not reach out for comment we now know that this was a lie or an attempt to obfuscate the truth.
If you are extolling factual information you do not owe the subject a comment. If your work could be damaged (see above) by doing so you do not owe the subject a comment. If a person has already commented publicly you do not owe the subject a comment.
Steve reported objectively factual information that cannot be excused with any context. The story that was written at the time would have been damaged had he asked for comment. Linus has a public presence and has made his feelings known about previous scandals before, and his actual response was entirely telegraphed in tone, if not also content, by long time viewers.
There is not some ethics masterclass that would have come to the conclusion that Steve violated journalistic integrity by running this story without comment from Linus. You may not like it, but you're also not some ethics in journalism arbiter.
I agree it's generally good practice to ask the subject for comment, and Steve seems to know that because he explains at length why he didn't here. I criticized him for this when the last video came out, but I thought his explanation in this new video for why he didn't contact Linus first is pretty good; I'm not sure why you're being downvoted here, but since you are a former reporter I'd be interested in hearing specifics on why you disagree with it.
Yea, I think that and a few other nitpicky things are the only flaws in GN's argument. Otherwise, the testing results and Billet's response speaks for itself. LTT is going too loose and fast and while that's bad, it's understandable if you're a fledging company. That's all LTT had to point out. And instead of being humble and retrospective they put out this PR nightmare of a response.
I used to be a regular watcher of LTT, but really noticed their latest videos have declined in quality and it's apparent that they're just pumping out as much videos as possible.