the6thwonder
The best evidence for recklessness would be a pattern of failures.
Hearing something else would require a journalist to formulate an alternative narrative. Not only would that conflict with their peers, it's not very interesting for readers ("actually that guy with the sub took a sufficient level of care").
Have you every had insider knowledge about a public story? How different was it from reality?
> no actual engineers who were well informed on the subject and experts in the domain were supporting this guy.
How did it get designed and built then? I wouldn't own up to this project with bad press. Would you?
Doctors are like engineers. There is a body of science and research for their field. They were once trained on part of it. But day to day each individual doctor is a practitioners. What they say is often just their own anecdotes. Research on a topic may exist but it's up to personal interest and work style whether they read it.
Turns out engineers and other experts disagree with each other all the time.
I assume you are an expert in your field. Do you always get listened to?
> just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to
I didn't say that. People expressing concern, is not enough evidence to say the management was wrong. All good managers consider criticism. It's then up to them to use judgement to decide what to do.
> This guy played fast and loose with safety
I guarantee if he spent 10x more on safety and still had the same outcome, the articles would be the same. Risk is just not easy for the public to reason about.
Maybe you're right, but once again the gossip the journalists dug up doesn't tell us that.
(Whether the project actually was reckless or not, it's just irresponsible journalism)
What's the point of motivation of you don't believe what you do matters? The antitode to these kind of arguments is always to bring it to a closer level. Can you control how clean your house is with work? Would hard work help you tend to a farm better? Where does it stop helping you?
I don't agree.
In my experience, there are people with a talent for talking, and have a natural attraction. People just want to talk to them. But that's not most people in sales (even if they are often top).
The key skills to be successful in sales are similar. Dedication, problems solving, and an interest in what you're doing. Many here could pick it up.
Seriousness and truthfulness are separate axis. Serious branding gives the appearance of authority.
> frauds like all the folks at FOX
You will find they have similar credentials as the outlets you enjoy. In fact, they probably used to work there.
> every single one of them is fake.
It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it.
Can journalists provide valuable information? Certainly. But they have their own systematic and personal biased. In particular, they are an extremely tight knit community performing for their peers.
Joe's podcast is obviously goofy as can be. But I actually prefer being explicit about your biases, instead of faux objectivity.
What you are referring to is called branding and this particular form appeals to your sensibilities.
All the top media outlets try to use a similar brand. Ultimately you are consuming a second hand synthesis woven into popular narratives, not anything more true.
Even sophisticated people like paulg make comments like "why doesn't someone just make factual news".
It suggests to me that thinking about epistemology and marketing is a learned skill.