What do you think people in journalism think of EA, if anything? Are there any key errors that EA is currently making or would be likely to make in the future when dealing with journalists?
I think there are a lot of journalists who think EA is very wise and sensible, and there are a lot of journalists who think it’s all neckbeard rationalist techbros, or whatever dismissive term they might use. I think the first journalists are right and the second journalists are wrong.
(TBF I think the largest group of journalists is probably the ones who’ve never heard of EA, and don’t write about things that are anything to do with EA.)
Key errors: ah man. I don’t really want to advise after I got it so badly wrong with the Scott Alexander/NYT stuff, and also I don’t feel I know the EA community well enough to say what they do now. But I do think they could do with finding a few more media-savvy, personable spokespeople who can help you get your stuff into the media when you want it there. I’m always surprised that, say, 80,000 Hours doesn’t act more like a think tank, trying to get journalists reading their latest work. But maybe if EAs start playing the game like think tanks do, they’ll end up drifting away from their purpose and start chasing headlines and so on, and that would be a shame.
And by “reading their work” you mean, be emailing and tweeting articles at journalists asking what they think? Ie what would 80,000 Hours acting like a thnk tank look like?
Though I’m curious as to what would happen here. I would probably tweet 80k stuff in different circumstances if they became written for experts rather than amateurs. There is something very successful about engaged individuals taking and sharing 80k’s stuff.
What do you think people in journalism think of EA, if anything? Are there any key errors that EA is currently making or would be likely to make in the future when dealing with journalists?
I think there are a lot of journalists who think EA is very wise and sensible, and there are a lot of journalists who think it’s all neckbeard rationalist techbros, or whatever dismissive term they might use. I think the first journalists are right and the second journalists are wrong.
(TBF I think the largest group of journalists is probably the ones who’ve never heard of EA, and don’t write about things that are anything to do with EA.)
Key errors: ah man. I don’t really want to advise after I got it so badly wrong with the Scott Alexander/NYT stuff, and also I don’t feel I know the EA community well enough to say what they do now. But I do think they could do with finding a few more media-savvy, personable spokespeople who can help you get your stuff into the media when you want it there. I’m always surprised that, say, 80,000 Hours doesn’t act more like a think tank, trying to get journalists reading their latest work. But maybe if EAs start playing the game like think tanks do, they’ll end up drifting away from their purpose and start chasing headlines and so on, and that would be a shame.
And by “reading their work” you mean, be emailing and tweeting articles at journalists asking what they think? Ie what would 80,000 Hours acting like a thnk tank look like?
Though I’m curious as to what would happen here. I would probably tweet 80k stuff in different circumstances if they became written for experts rather than amateurs. There is something very successful about engaged individuals taking and sharing 80k’s stuff.