Elon Musk buys and ruins Twitter

domalino said:
Did he expose him? Or did he brush aside the fact numerous independent organisations tracking racism and hate speech have shown there’s more racism and hate speech on twitter now because the interviewer couldn’t name a specific example?
Click to expand...
If he could name a specific example, would that prove anything anyway? No, it'd (rightly) be dismissed as a single bit of anecdotal evidence. Studies done by independent organisations are real evidence, not whether a single journalist has noticed an increase.

I noticed an increase in annoying posts about Trump and loads of other 'culture wars' bollocks before I left Twitter. Could I name a specific example off the top of my head right now? Nope.

But of course Musk knows this, which is why he asked it.
 
Rammy Blue said:
Hahaha, Musk fucking destroyed him, made him look a right ****.
Click to expand...

He did. He made himself look a right **** too. I'd like to say it is easy, deflecting through repeat whataboutery, but it isn't. It takes being a total **** to do it. The bbc guy never regained any composure though.
 
domalino said:
There's a reason Musk's next interview is with Tucker Carlson.

He's not accepting interviews from seasoned news editors with decades of interviewing experience and a big team behind them to prep and cross examine his sentences live.

The BBC said the interview was set up last minute, they probably made the mistake of accepting the interview Musk wanted, but it's still provided some pretty interesting tidbits of information, like Musk lying about advertisers coming back, and his absolute best case scenario being a return to break even (which means he's losing $1Bn to interest payments)
Click to expand...
Agree. Its clear that the BBC got a break with the offer of the interview and took it.

I listened to the whole thing and what is clear is Musk is a BSer. He just wanted to give some shit to the BBC. But in order to do that he had to BS his way through a load of questions. He has no real concept of journalistic integrity. He thinks that just because the BBC may some times fall short of 100% accuracy that on that basis its fine to let anyone say any old bollocks and give it equal weight.
 
domalino said:
There's a reason Musk's next interview is with Tucker Carlson.

He's not accepting interviews from seasoned news editors with decades of interviewing experience and a big team behind them to prep and cross examine his sentences live.

The BBC said the interview was set up last minute, they probably made the mistake of accepting the interview Musk wanted, but it's still provided some pretty interesting tidbits of information, like Musk lying about advertisers coming back, and his absolute best case scenario being a return to break even (which means he's losing $1Bn to interest payments)
Click to expand...
Of course Musk is going to have a media strategy that favours compliant channels. But the answer to that isn't for the BBC to send someone who is inexperienced.

The BBC should be far, far cuter and understand the damage it does to their standing - people don't say "ah well he's a tech reporter not a political journalist". They just see "BBC" and expect more.

At the very least he should have been given some better prep - the areas he fell over really were the basics and could have been prevented through a few hours with a senior political journalist.

I agree re the tidbits - the problem though is it's interesting to you having analysed what he said. Musk isn't interested in you though - he's interested in the masses who just saw a BBC journalist get eaten alive.
 
che_don_john said:
Weird interview. Early on, Musk asks "Who/what is the arbiter of what is misinformation and what is not?". I'd think that the clear and obvious answer is that there are verifiable, objective truths to things, which are the only way (and the best way) of knowing what is misinformation and what is not, and they do exist. Maybe not for everything, but for most things.

You can cite many examples of misinformation that have been permitted on social media under Musk's apparent interpretation of free speech, to which there are truths and evidence showing them to be bullshit. The link between MMR jabs and autism, for example - we know it was based on false research concocted by a charlatan (Andrew Wakefield was struck off for it), yet I still see people push that narrative on Twitter occasionally. There is no need for an arbiter to decide if that is misinformation - the facts tells us it is.

For the interviewer to stumble on that, so early on, it's no wonder he came out looking second-best here.
Click to expand...
The example there is a good one where you have seen information (mmr jab/autism) and worked out for yourself by taking in more information that it is misinformation. Well done

It would appear then that the problem is not misinformation as such, but that some of us that consider ourselves better or more capable than the majority of the population feel they are not up to (or to be trusted) reaching a similarly informed conclusion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.