|
|
|
|
|
|
by katovatzschyn
5423 days ago
|
|
|
I think there's the same dichotomy in tech journalism as there is in science journalism, perhaps other journalism as well but I'm not qualified to comment on other topic's veracity, namely, that the people who in fact understand the topics and are qualified to talk about them much more often actually work in the field and don't merely report about it. From that nature, I am more inclined to rely on journalism for facts and overview alone, and less inclined to rely on them for their opinion than I am actual professionals in the field. |
|
|
And this isn't a particularly recent phenomenon, it's largely always been thus, at least for values of "always" dating to the late 1970s / early 1980s.
Idea (wo)men need to find money (wo)men, so recruit a PR agent to spread good buzz to churn up investment. There are the occasional hits, but a hell of a lot of misses. And if you're sitting on the churning dust cloud that is the expanding edge of the boom / development, there's a hell of a lot of noise and false leads.
Truly enduring changes tend to be based in deep, deep technology, most are a minimum of a decade old, if not several, and the truly good concepts are decades to centuries old (there's a reason they keep emerging: they serve a real need). Fads are often fanciful, contrived, or serve a narrow set of interests.
Unfortunately it gets really hard to detect the signal amidst all the sound and fury. Age and a solid grounding in history help more than the young might think.