[Dr. Cutress weighs in] The Problem with Tech Media: Ego, Dogmatism, and Cult of Personality

[swimtome]

 

As the current top comment put it: Steve critiquing might be like your paper being graded by a strict processor, but Dr. Cutress is like being called to the Dean’s office.

[dizmo]

His videos are almost harder to watch than Steve's. It's like listening to an AI generated voice.

[ToboRobot]

I love Ian's presentation style, just neutral facts. 

About 1/3 of the way in and this is a good look at the situation thus far.

Ian's unkind critique of some parts of this community are absolutely warranted and needed.  

Ian's critique of Steve's opinion interjection is very interesting.  

The review process where he talks about teams....

A small team that is totally on page from technicians, to writers to editing all working together with excellent communication, can be assembled within a larger organization, at least on an ad hoc basis for key projects like new GPU/CPU launches.  

[rcmaehl]

Mods stated this should go in the existing thread in the existing thread

[Uttamattamakin]

19 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Mods stated this should go in the existing thread in the existing thread

Really? We'll I'm glad that this is not buried.  If LTT and LMG want an "anonymous" outside peer reviewer, who the people at the top would have to trust, and who has the background to review their work, it's Dr Cutress.  One need not be in the same place to fact check a video. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ToboRobot said:

I love Ian's presentation style, just neutral facts. 

About 1/3 of the way in and this is a good look at the situation thus far.

Ian's unkind critique of some parts of this community are absolutely warranted and needed.  

Ian's critique of Steve's opinion interjection is very interesting.  

The review process where he talks about teams....

A small team that is totally on page from technicians, to writers to editing all working together with excellent communication, can be assembled within a larger organization, at least on an ad hoc basis for key projects like new GPU/CPU launches.  

Ian did a fantastic job of not only highlighting the situation, but offering good thoughful criticism on bothsides as well. Linus and LMG need to make improvements for sure, so I don't t have any issues with GN calling them out, but Steve also has areas to improve as well. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes and will continue to do so...

 

I hope Steve takes this as good honest feedback and not go on the defensive. There's room to improve all around. What impressed me the most was how Ian was using critical thinking rather than just stating opinions as fact. Situations aren't always as simple as its made to be, nor are changes as simple as they appear to be... especially when you are dealing with two different companies of vastly different sizes.

[ToboRobot]

1 minute ago, Spec7re said:

Ian did a fantastic job of not only highlighting the situation, but offering good thoughful criticism on bothsides as well. Linus and LMG need to make improvements for sure, so I don't t have any issues with GN calling them out, but Steve also has areas to improve as well. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes and will continue to do so...

 

I hope Steve takes this as good honest feedback and not go on the defensive. There's room to improve all around. What impressed me the most was how Ian was using critical thinking rather than just stating opinions as fact. Situations aren't always as simple as its made to be, nor are changes as simple as they appear to be... especially when you are dealing with two different companies of vastly different sizes.

I'm almost done this video now, and feel like LMG, GN, other tech YouTubers and the tech audience all can learn from Ian and do better as a whole community.

[rcmaehl]

48 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Really? We'll I'm glad that this is not buried.  If LTT and LMG want an "anonymous" outside peer reviewer, who the people at the top would have to trust, and who has the background to review their work, it's Dr Cutress.  One need not be in the same place to fact check a video. 

Yep. They do have a point, however. It'd be nice if there was some way to mark notable comments in a thread without pinning them at the top.
 

 

[Erioch]

I should be a medal for watching the whole thing.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Erioch said:

I should be a medal for watching the whole thing.

Hehe ya, i watched the entire video as well. I will say it was very well done and very informative. As @ToboRobot said, everyone can learn something here, not just one, or two people.

[VicBar]

I am 49 min in (where's the watering hole?) I will finish the video.

 

So far... Dr. Cutress talk a big game about analyzing language and psychology, well he was getting emotional talking about Steve and said "You" then stuttered and say "He". He felt he was talking to Steve directly right there. He also said "as someone who has actually done investigative journalism".

 

The snide remark on GN never having done "actual" investigative journalism is insane. I wonder if it slipped him or it was intentional. I will go back and look for the timestamps when I'm done. Just saying he's not as objective as he might think he is. No one is. We CAN'T be objective. So criticizing GN for that while recording his video like this? The pot calling the kettle black.

 

Another point is when he mentions how Steve sort of "degraded" The Head of Labs by just referring  to him as an old marketinglead.. He explains how The Head of Labs used to have HIS old job at Anandtech.. And is so hurtful and infuriated by that assumption to The Head of Labs but... it really comes off as personal.. as if he doesn't realize he's taken it as an attack at his credentials.

 

Anyway, I'll keep watching and come back with timestamps in.... like an hour...

 

Dr. Ian Cutress talks about the Head of Labs:

48:20 he starts talking about the Head of Labs.

ZOOM IN: "To de rate him as some senior director [...] definitely a twist of the knife, for sure"

 

The mention of where people within LMG were previously employed had nothing to do with the tests and inaccuracies. It had to do with a larger conversation of conflicts of interest and was one small part of a larger puzzle. But Dr Cutress took this personally. This man had his former job, and those qualifications were being dismissed... because they were not the point.

 

39:09

Here is where he starts and ends up saying "as someone who has actually done investigative journalism".

 

He might not be intentionally implying that GN hasn't ever done actual investigative journalism... but he's picking everything apart and "being anal", stating he analyzes the psychology behind GN's words. So I guess I'm doing the same.

[MrSuperb]

Oh wow … 3 posts just defending GN again by picking out singular statements.

if you don’t get it, let me make it clear. The Ian video is subjective, as was the GN videos.
 

if that video would have been the original answer from LMG towards GN, GN would now be burned and closed down. But luckily he had the pitch forks on his side.

[doom969]

Good Video, I am glad it has its own thread

[Legitsu]

28 minutes ago, VicBar said:

39:09

Here is where he starts and ends up saying "as someone who has actually done investigative journalism".

 

He might not be intentionally implying that GN hasn't ever done actual investigative journalism... but he's picking everything apart and "being anal", stating he analyzes the psychology behind GN's words. So I guess I'm doing the same.

but gn hasn't nor have they ever. ian is right

putting a company on blast on youtube. because YOU don't like what they are doing is NOT Investigative journalism

that qualifies as AN Opinion

Journalists report FACTS. Not Opinions thats the point being missed 

and no Opinions backed up by "FACTS" Don't count if you are the source of said "FACTS" 

[VicBar]

15 minutes ago, MrSuperb said:

Oh wow … 3 posts just defending GN again by picking out singular statements.

Dr. Ian Cutress made a 1hr+ video doing just that.

How is mine any less valid? It's less in-depth and less broad sure. I don't do this for a living. But... what was your point here?

 

fk the pitchforks I'm here rooting for LMG to do better and I appreciate GN and techtechpotato's videos.

[VicBar]

2 minutes ago, Legitsu said:

putting a company on blast on youtube. because YOU don't like what they are doing is NOT  Investigative journalism

that qualifies as AN Opinion

"Putting a company on blast" is a consequence of doing an exposé isn't it?

 

If your argument is that "that's all they are doing", or their "main objective"sure, it isn't investigative journalism. But that assumption is an interpretation of that kind of GN content.

 

The fact that it's on youtube is because that is GN's medium... does that make it any less? Genuinely curious. I admit I don't have a definition of what constitutes journalistic investigation then.

[ProbablyNotFidel]

I don't perceive Ian taking anything personally about what Steve's mentioned on Gary. It's the fact that the statement was worded to make it sound like Gary is little more than a marketing inside man at ASUS, rather than someone who also has extensive testing experience of his own. It's the assertion made that Terren and Gary are an ethical problem, without evidencing that they are an ethical problem.

 

About someone who has "actually done investigative journalism," for me his quote as a whole states what he's getting at. His gripe is lacing opinion in as fact.

 

What he did seem to take at least a bit of personal offense to is where it sounds like Steve is talking for everyone in the tech/tech review space. Again, seeming more of a stating opinion as fact gripe.

[Legitsu]

10 minutes ago, VicBar said:

"Putting a company on blast" is a consequence of doing an exposé isn't it?

 

If your argument is that "that's all they are doing", or their "main objective"sure, it isn't investigative journalism. But that assumption is an interpretation of that kind of GN content.

 

The fact that it's on youtube is because that is GN's medium... does that make it any less? Genuinely curious. I admit I don't have a definition of what constitutes journalistic investigation then.

No just stop. 

its about Journalistic Integrity

there are unwritten rules about Journalistic Integrity & Reporting for exactly these situations so they DON'T Turn into a circius ... like this did 

you report facts you are generally not allowed to go 'fishing' for 'facts'  if you go fishing and catch something that is generally frowned apon unless you have a really good reason 

a good example of what would be considered breaking one of the commandments 

truth in service of an opinion 

thats a big one and what ian was getting at 

 

example: dave sucks at carpentry. there for the house he built is full of rats, and since we KNOW dave lives with rats he must also be a RAT

 

you can't present a 'fact' then follow it with a 'opinion' 

[YoungBlade]

13 minutes ago, VicBar said:

"Putting a company on blast" is a consequence of doing an exposé isn't it?

 

If your argument is that "that's all they are doing", or their "main objective"sure, it isn't investigative journalism. But that assumption is an interpretation of that kind of GN content.

 

The fact that it's on youtube is because that is GN's medium... does that make it any less? Genuinely curious. I admit I don't have a definition of what constitutes journalistic investigation then.

In my high school journalism class, we learned about what separates journalism from other media. I was on the student paper for a year, including getting to be Editor in Chief for our last issue of the year. I took my role there seriously.

 

When it comes to journalism as a means of sharing truth, an important thing to do as a writer, is to never put an opinion into an article. Never. Not even at the conclusion.

 

By "article" I don't just mean a written article, but also a news piece like you'd see on TV, or in a YouTube video. The medium doesn't matter. But as soon as you inject your own opinion into something, it's now an editorial - an opinion piece - it's not an article. It's not journalism anymore.

 

A journalist needs to only stick to the facts of the situation. Event A happened. Then Event B happened. Any opinions presented must be the opinions of others. If you want to share an opinion in your article, you need to go out and find someone who holds that opinion, and report on that. Your own opinion, and the opinion of anyone working at the media outlet, need to stay out of the article.

 

This is absolutely essential for journalism. Anyone who fails to do this has not done journalism.

 

Now, whether or not this is the best way to share information is up for debate. You don't need to do journalism, and there is a place for opinion. That's why real newspapers have opinion sections, but the best papers clearly mark what is an article and what is just an editorial, because giving the reader just the facts of the situation, separate from any opinion, is what makes it journalism in the first place.

[VicBar]

1 minute ago, Legitsu said:

you report facts you are generally not allowed to go 'fishing' for 'facts'  if you go fishing and catch something that is generally frowned apon unless you have a really good reason 

if it's an "unwritten rule" i guess that's why there's such a gray area. Facts can also be misconstrued or twisted. FACTS. Dr. Ian says that for many things that's what Steve did and he created a narrative through that. His main gripe was adding opinion in sprinkles all around the video without declaring them as such.

 

It seems to me that a lot of that is due to the format of GN videos. Dr Ian said so himself "it might be for retention". If you've seen many GN videos you notice that's exactly right. Their videos are long and people tend to not watch the videos all the way through. So a typical review will start with a summary and that holds opinions.

[Cooldoe]

21 minutes ago, VicBar said:

if it's an "unwritten rule" i guess that's why there's such a gray area. Facts can also be misconstrued or twisted. FACTS. Dr. Ian says that for many things that's what Steve did and he created a narrative through that. His main gripe was adding opinion in sprinkles all around the video without declaring them as such.

 

It seems to me that a lot of that is due to the format of GN videos. Dr Ian said so himself "it might be for retention". If you've seen many GN videos you notice that's exactly right. Their videos are long and people tend to not watch the videos all the way through. So a typical review will start with a summary and that holds opinions.

I think you cannot accept any valid criticism directed to Steve at all.

I totally agree with Ian, I do not have issue with Steve critic to LMG but I do have issue on how the video was made.

 

It is not a gray area, it is a clear line in journalism that people hold true but it is not coded into laws. There a reason why Fox news label themselves as news entertainment network as they do a lot of opinions and insinuating without giving actual proof. It is highly unethical in journalism.

 

Even Paul Hardware take a dig to Steve ethic for not even contacting the other side on this on his video.

[merch22]

23 minutes ago, VicBar said:

It seems to me that a lot of that is due to the format of GN videos. Dr Ian said so himself "it might be for retention". If you've seen many GN videos you notice that's exactly right. Their videos are long and people tend to not watch the videos all the way through. So a typical review will start with a summary and that holds opinions.

However, in this case, I don't think it's a REVIEW to LMG, maybe the format itself is wrong in this case.

Wasn't there a lot of suggestion in the GN video leading you to a conclusion.

From point of view there was quite a bit of it.

[Waifu4Life]

Stopped watching the video at the Madison part. Listen and Believe, are we back in 2016 or something? I really shouldn't be surprised with such a response coming from someone who lives in a country where 7 police officers dragged a 16 yo autistic girl from her home for a "hate crime". Thank God for the Depp v. Heard public court case, with that, everyone got to see that a woman can lie and hurt for her own benefit and at the expense of others.

[Lupino]

Continued after watching the Madison part and think especially that part should be transcripted, printed and nailed onto the wall of every last internet commenter.

[Rex Hite]

Cosplay investigative journalism.