> That's my core point. It's not enough that the didn't deliberately spell out the implication. Most people -- yes, probably even you when you're not really trying to argue for a preferred conclusion -- read articles with a context, being aware of the history and subtext. Yes, cool, you can show that they didn't explicitly say the words. So what? Obviously there's more to consider.
All right then. Find an article and walk us through it, in detail (because the devil can be in the details). Prove your point.
But, you were claiming that "that buzzfeed-style news sites were casually promoting the idea that any laid-off worker could just learn to code and make that their new job," with the implication that justified drive-by "learn to code" comments targeted at laid off journalists. We're getting a long way away from "casual promotion" when we're analyzing (for instance) the coal miner story in Guardian for subtext.
Also, the edit I made before your reply may be relevant.
Reply to late edit:
> Where do you get that? Obviously a huge portion of people (it's obviously to me at least) feel like these publications were being casual about this idea, and in that case, yes, "a word to the wise" is enough -- or three words, as the case may be.
Your word choice is getting towards my thoughts on this. If there's any genuine belief behind these harassing comments, it's a feeling that something false is actually true.
I feel the downvotes coming, but this article is unbelievably tone deaf.
Who's the audience for the article? People who are unemployed and put out of work because of technology that's displaced them? What's their reaction to this supposed to be? "Oh I guess the author uses some valid reasoning to demonstrate why I'm unemployed because I lack skills." Yeah right.
I think it's self promotion in both cases. A lot of people who put out these articles on how bad their working conditions were seem to be trying to turn their woes into a z-list internet celebrity lifestyle. They want to turn the controversy from these 'leaving' articles and videos into a larger social media presence and montly Patreon bucks.
Look at that woman who got fired after complaining about the conditions at Yelp for example. She tried to turn the situation into a personal brand.
It's the internet version of people that try and become Z-list celebrities through reality TV shows.
A lot of people don’t necessarily know about the working conditions of these employees. It’s perfectly in line with the purpose of journalism to report on such things. In a time past it might have been an article about the conditions faced by coal miners. Or lax conditions at an assembly of plant. Etc.
This article perfectly illustrates how small, steady distortions give birth to hyperbolic claims.
Actual question (in article): 62% [of knowledge workers] said that the recent waves of layoffs have made them feel less secure committing to one employer.
Preview text (below headline): 62% of knowledge workers say they don’t feel secure committing to one employer anymore.
Headline: After Callous Layoffs, Workers Are Done With the Full-Time Work Model
As Scott Alexander might say, the media rarely lies, but it loves to play telephone with itself.
I do get the joke, but to balance it a bit, the writer is a freelancer, and does appear to have pretty good chops around labor issues. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimmkelly
Yeah, I'm not sure what the article is getting it. It's a work-specific forum for mostly white collar workers, so there's a certain degree of self-moderation when it comes to what people post and how they present themselves.
>Overemployment is not an entirely new phenomenon. It’s been an “open secret” in the tech industry for years, says an overemployed worker in his late 30s in the US Bay Area who goes by ‘Isaac’ in the overemployment community. He’s been working two jobs for years, and says he makes more than $600,000 doing it.
Shoddy journalism by the BBC.... literally 1 source which basically is a anonymous worker promoting his blog and trying to sell his book.
I have never heard of worklife.news before, but it seems to be a site more targeted at managers, recruiters, HR folks, and the like. Not surprising or even necessarily bad that they would frame a headline to highlight the story's connection to its audience.
reply