What looks goofier than someone trying on a virtual reality headset? Maybe an entire room of well-dressed journalists and other attendees holding cardboard virtual reality headsets to their faces and swiveling their heads in every direction. That was the scene from the premiere of a virtual reality experience called “The Displaced” created for a new New York Times VR app. But there’s nothing silly about the New York Times effort to make virtual reality journalism go mainstream.
CATALONIA’S referendum on independence, planned for November 9th, will not now happen. Or might it, after all? On October 14th the Catalan president, Artur Mas, admitted that, with the referendum officially suspended by Spain’s constitutional court, it would have to be scrapped. But, he added, some other sort of public consultation will still happen on that day—and it will involve ballot boxes.
Mr Mas refused to provide details. He claimed that he did not want to give the Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, too many clues about his plans. Given the legal obstacles, even Mr Mas may not be sure how to proceed. Catalonia’s more radical and leftist separatists were angered by his decision to obey the court while calling for a watered-down, pseudo-referendum. They want an early election in this rich and populous region of north-east Spain. Mr Mas is trying to deflect the separatists’ claims of cowardice by ramping up the war of words. “The Spanish state is the adversary,” he declared.
To The Editors Of The Economist
I am writing this missive addressed to you as I am outraged, nay scandalized, by the level of your reporting on the Catalan question. The source of my discontent are two recent pieces – both signed by one GT – the first of which appeared on the Charlemagne Blog (Getting to “sí”, 19 September 2014), while the second was published under the rubric The Economist Explains (Catalonia’s independence movement,14 October 2014.)
Of the two, I consider the second much more reproachable since it purports to be an informative document, and not a mere opinion piece. My issue with your journalist is not his opinion – to which any journalist is entitled – but that he attempts to pass off opinion as fact. My view is the that the level of journalism being demonstrated is not what you should be seeking in a publication with your high level of international prestige.
At the end of the day, of course, whether this is the case or not is an editorial decision on your part. I fully understand why the Economist originally took the decision to publish non-editorial unsigned articles, but in the modern age I think this be a double edged sword as it leads to confusion about what is an Op-ed and what isn’t. Personally I think the practice is now more trouble than it’s worth, but again that’s for you to decide.
In order to try and demonstrate my case I have gone to the rather tedious lengths of re-reading the two offending articles and identifying what I consider to be factual inaccuracies (see below).
Satoshi Nakamoto stands at the end of his sunbaked driveway looking timorous. And annoyed.
He's wearing a rumpled T-shirt, old blue jeans and white gym socks, without shoes, like he has left the house in a hurry. His hair is unkempt, and he has the thousand-mile stare of someone who has gone weeks without sleep.
He stands not with defiance, but with the slackness of a person who has waged battle for a long time and now faces a grave loss.
Two police officers from the Temple City, Calif., sheriff's department flank him, looking puzzled. "So, what is it you want to ask this man about?" one of them asks me. "He thinks if he talks to you he's going to get into trouble."
"I don't think he's in any trouble," I say. "I would like to ask him about Bitcoin. This man is Satoshi Nakamoto."
"What?" The police officer balks. "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life."
Oh, the things you hear on Amtrak's Acela service! Screaming kids, complaints about Wi-Fi and — oh yeah — a former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA seemingly spilling secrets to reporters.
We learn this from the Twitter feed of Tom Matzzie, former Washington director of MoveOn.org Political Action, who sat near retired Gen. Michael Hayden. Matzzie's tweets suggest that Hayden took calls from reporters digging into the ongoing NSA spy scandal and asking about President Barack Obama's BlackBerry and CIA secret prisons overseas.
Hayden apparently insisted on being quoted anonymously.
"FAIL," as they say.
Here is Matzzie's story, as tweeted from Amtrak Acela 2170, which left Washington at 3 p.m.:
There are lessons to be taken from even the most rant-y or misguided efforts of pseudo-science and un-science and general misrepresentations of science provided you know where to find them. One aspect of the near congenital media screw-up of science is the idea that one vocal dissenter to a well recognised hypothesis or theory makes this either controversial or uncertain. In fact I recently found a great quote by a science journalist on this very issue: “Journalism, which relies on “balance”, has never dealt with science, which relies on consensus”. (Sharon Weinberger).
