Quality of Opinion Journalism
So Dave has been somewhat out of touch - I'm kind of hurt - but the show must go on.
So a big question, I think, is the quality of punditry. Why does Friedman have such a huge audience, if he thinks the world is flat (and more importantly, if he doesn't seem to know what flatness means)? Should we put more trust in "the experts," or is their advice just as flawed? What should we expect from our pundits?
I have my own opinion on these questions, but I'll confine it to the comments section to create the illusion that we're all on equaly footing here at the Society.
[UPDATE: for an example of why Friedman is, shall we say, frustrating, see this post on Friedman's analogies.]
[ANOTHER UPDATE: a cottage industry seems to have sprung up, the entire purpose of which is to mock Friedman. Every review of The World is Flat I've read mentions his weird extrapolation from level playing fields to a flat world. So maybe I'm giving Friedman too much credit, but these seem like cheap shots to me.]
So a big question, I think, is the quality of punditry. Why does Friedman have such a huge audience, if he thinks the world is flat (and more importantly, if he doesn't seem to know what flatness means)? Should we put more trust in "the experts," or is their advice just as flawed? What should we expect from our pundits?
I have my own opinion on these questions, but I'll confine it to the comments section to create the illusion that we're all on equaly footing here at the Society.
[UPDATE: for an example of why Friedman is, shall we say, frustrating, see this post on Friedman's analogies.]
[ANOTHER UPDATE: a cottage industry seems to have sprung up, the entire purpose of which is to mock Friedman. Every review of The World is Flat I've read mentions his weird extrapolation from level playing fields to a flat world. So maybe I'm giving Friedman too much credit, but these seem like cheap shots to me.]
Labels: Leamer