Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nailer 3177 days ago
> This one touches on the effects of Uber’s behavior and misbehavior, why capitalism is like a rogue AI, and whether Jeff Bezos might be worth voting for in the next election.

I'd prefer 'Why OReilly believes capitalism is like a rogue AI'. Having Wired repeat OReilly's statement, rather than attribute it to him, makes it seem like they're not critically examining a very significant claim.
1 comments
saulrh 3177 days ago
Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book? Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book? And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying than either this interview or the book?
link
nailer 3177 days ago
> Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book?

Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint?

> Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book?

Justification is provided in the comment you're responding to.

> And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying

I'd find an article that quotes OReilly rather than adopting his viewpoint more satisfying because it distinguishes OReilly's viewpoint from Wired's. This is the difference between journalism and marketing.

link
saulrh 3177 days ago
> Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint?

Because simply quoting the author won't suffice. The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter plus several preceding chapters of explanation. Paraphrasing or skimming won't work because then you'd accuse them of being even more biased.

This article gives a factual list of the topics the book covers, asks the book's author several questions about those topics, and directly quotes the book's author's responses. Yeah, that's marketing. Anything they could have written in that format would have necessarily been marketing. The only way not to support the book in that format would have been to not publish the article at all. Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

If you just want to never see anyone advertise anything, uh, okay? Every bit ever communicated is an opinion designed to accomplish some goal in the mind of another person. To escape this I suggest renouncing all interaction with other humans and moving to an uncontacted area in the depths of some rainforest.

link
nailer 3177 days ago
> Because simply quoting the author won't suffice.

It would establish a separate voice from OReillys and the publication that should be reporting on, not marketing, his new book.

> Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?

Already answered multiple times in this thread.

> The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter

Or they could review it. 200 words. There's a lot of books reviewed that way, many far more complex than OReilly's.

link