Skip to main content

Dave: Consider the way interviews are written

Dave Winer,

"But these lies have gone on and on, he just doesn't stop. Permanent link to this item in the archive."

To be fair, you never know what the original source for the interview was. I've seen numerous instances where someone says "we" and the writer changes it into "I". The writer wants good copy - and it doesn't sound good if you're interviewing one person and they only refer to a group - it makes the writer feel like the story isn't just there but everywhere.

In short, "better copy" may make terrible truths and distort facts - but sells more paper.

You've listened to Adam's show so you know he doesn't usually come off as "I'm the one who does everything" - he always talks about the group of people who helped create it and always tries to NAME names.

And not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but it actually stands to benefit the MSM (mainstream media) to create a bunch of divisions in the Podcasting, etc world.

So many people hear about Podcasting and immediately say (like Carl Franklin did) - but we already do that on our Internet show - we'll just rename it.

I suspect he'll be "explaining" the interview - the way he's done with the BBC and other interviews in the next daily source code.


Is he hijacking Podcasting? I don't think so - but I think the MSM (mainstream media) want a "star" and thus, grab the first one they can find. (and Dawn and Drew are actually the biggest "stars" right now if you think in terms of US popularity)

I'm not making a point of being Adam's defender but he IS one of Podcasting's "faces" at this point in time. Despite his continued promotion of some shows that I absolutely can't stand, his is typically a call for more content and yes, better quality and content and that is obviously something that I would hope everyone would shoot for. (it's a call I constantly hear at TechPodcasts.com)

FYI - Loved the podcast re Pisa - that was great stuff.

Scripting News: 5/15/2005

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....
Post a Comment
Read more