Re:Rules for Choosing Nonfiction Books
by mc32 on Friday February 08, 2019 @03:33PM
(#19118371)
To do journalism well, I think you need insider help: a whistleblower without ulterior motive, corroborating evidence and subject matter experts who can confirm suspicions. So, I think there are ways for journalists to marshall resources and then do their part which is to write a coherent story based on credible evidence and opinion, but much of what comes from journalism is hurried and often put together after having formed a conclusion and finding data supporting the conclusion and omitting data which would weaken the conclusion.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
This is an answer to some question, but to neither of the questions I actually asked. Did my questions not make sense?
I’m implying this journalist had the luck of right resources at the right time for the right subject and proceeded in a manner to seek the truth rather than to simply want to bring Theranos down.
W/re economics. We have the likes of Fukuyama and Krugman who have influence on Americans with regards to economics but who are often taken as oracles, rather than accepting they are economics thinkers who can be wrong.
Krugman won a Nobel prize in economics. Like him or not, you can't use him as an example of a "journalist" writing about a technical subject with which they have no expertise.
My argument isn't "all books are good". That would be a stupid argument. My argument is that these rules suck.