I found this video refreshing, yes some people are still annoyed at his lack of preparedness, but can we not appreciate the fact that 99.99% of youtubers just would have made their video anyway,...
I found this video refreshing, yes some people are still annoyed at his lack of preparedness, but can we not appreciate the fact that 99.99% of youtubers just would have made their video anyway, and he stopped to say "I could be wrong a lot"?
People being ready to admit their own faults is so rare in media these days I just can't imagine having anything other than praise for his attitude here.
Like most popular science youtubers, I wouldn't take anything that is said as a fact. However they usually are decently well researched and entertaining, which is why i'm watching not necessarily...
Like most popular science youtubers, I wouldn't take anything that is said as a fact.
However they usually are decently well researched and entertaining, which is why i'm watching not necessarily to get the exact facts.
Iffy, I dunno. Sometimes Tom Scott's editorial approach rubs me the wrong way; guy always has an answer for things. He hedges himself in weird ways and I have no trouble believing that he's mostly...
Iffy, I dunno. Sometimes Tom Scott's editorial approach rubs me the wrong way; guy always has an answer for things. He hedges himself in weird ways and I have no trouble believing that he's mostly decided what he wants to say before he meets his interviewees. The list of corrections doesn't have much on it -- which might be a credit to him -- but anyone else I've seen maintaining a list of corrections does so to ward off more comprehensive criticisms... Why not skip the video altogether rather than hack out a tortured bit about how even the best research sometimes misses the forest for the trees? Seems like the guy just couldn't get out of his own way.
What do you mean? This video was my primary example. I felt it came off as disingenuous. He effusively describes his good intentions and the ethic of his research, but forgot to google the name of...
What do you mean? This video was my primary example. I felt it came off as disingenuous. He effusively describes his good intentions and the ethic of his research, but forgot to google the name of an interviewee? Perhaps it is an easy mistake to make, perhaps, but I think that should have been a sign that he ought to have left the thing alone -- instead of declaring it too steeped in conflict to be sussed out in his capacity as a youtube presenter. But look at the list of corrections. It is short and many of its entries are pedantically hedged as typos or editing errors, rather than resembling the broader misapprehensions described in this video which had gestured to the list as a sign of his integrity?
I'm not saying he's a bad guy, I just think he ought to have taken his hand off the narrative here. Instead of salvaging a presentation on how "you shouldn't believe everything you hear, buddy!" he could have editorialized less and found a different (or just smaller?) story to tell in the conflicting descriptions he received in his interviews. To me it sounded like he got embarrassed over his incomplete preparation but then lacked the humility to let that guide him to a new course of action.
I feel Qis is not appreciating the fact that the vast vast majority of youtubers wouldn't have even had any introspection in the first place. Tom Scott is clearly trying to do the right thing...
I feel Qis is not appreciating the fact that the vast vast majority of youtubers wouldn't have even had any introspection in the first place. Tom Scott is clearly trying to do the right thing here, and you'd have to be pretty ungenerous to find fault in that.
Ugh, I have been such an ingrate. I think "Tom Scott's Intentions Are Good" is a better title for the video, actually. It would get the vibe across that he would still like credit for the work he...
Ugh, I have been such an ingrate. I think "Tom Scott's Intentions Are Good" is a better title for the video, actually. It would get the vibe across that he would still like credit for the work he did, going all the way to Australia for that quarrelsome muddle of a town!
No, I'm not prepared to demonstrate any other inaccuracies in his videos, but also no, I've seen almost everything the man has published and my opinion is formed generally from those. If I've not...
No, I'm not prepared to demonstrate any other inaccuracies in his videos, but also no, I've seen almost everything the man has published and my opinion is formed generally from those. If I've not given him the benefit of the doubt here it is because I often perceive his presentation to be somewhat inauthentic. I had the impression that the content of his interviews did not often effect his approach to storytelling, and he confirms that as a part of his process here.
I have also noticed -- and perhaps this is another example? -- that this extends beyond the interviews. Often when Tom Scott shoots himself giving a reaction to something he's presenting on, like the cornered zip line in another recent video, his first response is to loudly exclaim a reaction for the camera. "THAT! was ---" I find that grating; I think it comes off as scripted, overbearing in its interpretation, that often the footage could have spoken for itself.
I agree that a presenter should be candid about the limitations of their approach, and do what they can to help their audience remain mindful and canny. But I still have a hard time recognizing the difference between the standards of accuracy for work as a journalist -- something which Tom Scott says he is not -- and those for the researching, presenting, and editing work of a video documentarian, or a traveloguist, or a science educator.
Even if his script didn't match the facts, he probably still could have pulled together a presentation on the town which did not hinge off the original premise of his own explication. Or he could have committed to a new format, like a blogpost, where whether he spoke face-to-face with someone wouldn't have been the limiting factor on their inclusion or introduced supposed ethical conflicts. I got the message -- sometimes he goes places and it's actually all a muddle and Tom Scott doesn't think he can pull a compelling video out of it. I just don't think that represents a question of journalistic integrity so much as it does a question of ego.
Apart from being unable to spot the "question of ego" in this video of admitting one's own failures and fallibility, I also fail to see how this is not about journalistic integrity. The video...
I just don't think that represents a question of journalistic integrity so much as it does a question of ego.
Apart from being unable to spot the "question of ego" in this video of admitting one's own failures and fallibility, I also fail to see how this is not about journalistic integrity. The video sheds light on a topic and behind-the-scenes process we scarcely know of if not not at all; I found it interesting, informative and sincere. You are reading so much between the lines that you mistake tiny splatters of ink for the letters of an obfuscated narrative.
I have alleged no conspiracy, but yes, it appears to me disingenuous to introduce a dilemma and apologize for its handling in the same breath. It came off to me as a "she doth protest too much"...
I have alleged no conspiracy, but yes, it appears to me disingenuous to introduce a dilemma and apologize for its handling in the same breath. It came off to me as a "she doth protest too much" sort of situation, which played to my general sense that the man tends to overcontrol the narrative in his presentations. Honestly, I think he likes to hear himself talk.
I think I've expressed my opinion pretty thoroughly here. Which of my personal reactions seems unfounded to you? Presumably, the video played well to you; you found the delivery charismatic and...
I think I've expressed my opinion pretty thoroughly here. Which of my personal reactions seems unfounded to you? Presumably, the video played well to you; you found the delivery charismatic and his description and framing of the situation convincing. I would agree that it's all very plausible.
Is it ironic that I am doing as the man said, not to trust him as a singular authority? Spare me, please, if you've got no argument to make. I've been describing my own impressions, not advancing some scurrilous critique against a youtuber you like. I didn't like the video, shoot me.
I found this video refreshing, yes some people are still annoyed at his lack of preparedness, but can we not appreciate the fact that 99.99% of youtubers just would have made their video anyway, and he stopped to say "I could be wrong a lot"?
People being ready to admit their own faults is so rare in media these days I just can't imagine having anything other than praise for his attitude here.
Like most popular science youtubers, I wouldn't take anything that is said as a fact.
However they usually are decently well researched and entertaining, which is why i'm watching not necessarily to get the exact facts.
Iffy, I dunno. Sometimes Tom Scott's editorial approach rubs me the wrong way; guy always has an answer for things. He hedges himself in weird ways and I have no trouble believing that he's mostly decided what he wants to say before he meets his interviewees. The list of corrections doesn't have much on it -- which might be a credit to him -- but anyone else I've seen maintaining a list of corrections does so to ward off more comprehensive criticisms... Why not skip the video altogether rather than hack out a tortured bit about how even the best research sometimes misses the forest for the trees? Seems like the guy just couldn't get out of his own way.
What do you mean? This video was my primary example. I felt it came off as disingenuous. He effusively describes his good intentions and the ethic of his research, but forgot to google the name of an interviewee? Perhaps it is an easy mistake to make, perhaps, but I think that should have been a sign that he ought to have left the thing alone -- instead of declaring it too steeped in conflict to be sussed out in his capacity as a youtube presenter. But look at the list of corrections. It is short and many of its entries are pedantically hedged as typos or editing errors, rather than resembling the broader misapprehensions described in this video which had gestured to the list as a sign of his integrity?
I'm not saying he's a bad guy, I just think he ought to have taken his hand off the narrative here. Instead of salvaging a presentation on how "you shouldn't believe everything you hear, buddy!" he could have editorialized less and found a different (or just smaller?) story to tell in the conflicting descriptions he received in his interviews. To me it sounded like he got embarrassed over his incomplete preparation but then lacked the humility to let that guide him to a new course of action.
I feel Qis is not appreciating the fact that the vast vast majority of youtubers wouldn't have even had any introspection in the first place. Tom Scott is clearly trying to do the right thing here, and you'd have to be pretty ungenerous to find fault in that.
Ugh, I have been such an ingrate. I think "Tom Scott's Intentions Are Good" is a better title for the video, actually. It would get the vibe across that he would still like credit for the work he did, going all the way to Australia for that quarrelsome muddle of a town!
No, I'm not prepared to demonstrate any other inaccuracies in his videos, but also no, I've seen almost everything the man has published and my opinion is formed generally from those. If I've not given him the benefit of the doubt here it is because I often perceive his presentation to be somewhat inauthentic. I had the impression that the content of his interviews did not often effect his approach to storytelling, and he confirms that as a part of his process here.
I have also noticed -- and perhaps this is another example? -- that this extends beyond the interviews. Often when Tom Scott shoots himself giving a reaction to something he's presenting on, like the cornered zip line in another recent video, his first response is to loudly exclaim a reaction for the camera. "THAT! was ---" I find that grating; I think it comes off as scripted, overbearing in its interpretation, that often the footage could have spoken for itself.
I agree that a presenter should be candid about the limitations of their approach, and do what they can to help their audience remain mindful and canny. But I still have a hard time recognizing the difference between the standards of accuracy for work as a journalist -- something which Tom Scott says he is not -- and those for the researching, presenting, and editing work of a video documentarian, or a traveloguist, or a science educator.
Even if his script didn't match the facts, he probably still could have pulled together a presentation on the town which did not hinge off the original premise of his own explication. Or he could have committed to a new format, like a blogpost, where whether he spoke face-to-face with someone wouldn't have been the limiting factor on their inclusion or introduced supposed ethical conflicts. I got the message -- sometimes he goes places and it's actually all a muddle and Tom Scott doesn't think he can pull a compelling video out of it. I just don't think that represents a question of journalistic integrity so much as it does a question of ego.
Apart from being unable to spot the "question of ego" in this video of admitting one's own failures and fallibility, I also fail to see how this is not about journalistic integrity. The video sheds light on a topic and behind-the-scenes process we scarcely know of if not not at all; I found it interesting, informative and sincere. You are reading so much between the lines that you mistake tiny splatters of ink for the letters of an obfuscated narrative.
I have alleged no conspiracy, but yes, it appears to me disingenuous to introduce a dilemma and apologize for its handling in the same breath. It came off to me as a "she doth protest too much" sort of situation, which played to my general sense that the man tends to overcontrol the narrative in his presentations. Honestly, I think he likes to hear himself talk.
I think I've expressed my opinion pretty thoroughly here. Which of my personal reactions seems unfounded to you? Presumably, the video played well to you; you found the delivery charismatic and his description and framing of the situation convincing. I would agree that it's all very plausible.
Is it ironic that I am doing as the man said, not to trust him as a singular authority? Spare me, please, if you've got no argument to make. I've been describing my own impressions, not advancing some scurrilous critique against a youtuber you like. I didn't like the video, shoot me.