RP’s statement is inherently a Public Media Statement, and the portions condemning certain events at FTX should be evaluated with that in mind. I think it is quite clear that RP was not intending to make a statement about hypothetical “minor” events at FTX that might be technically fraud, or that most readers would understand them as having done so.
To be clear, Public Media Statements should be as accurate as possible—but the medium informs the message and limits the writer’s ability to convey nuance, full depth of meaning, and high degrees of accuracy. The same is true of explaining things to a five-year old; trying to cram in high degrees of technical accuracy or nuance can often interfere with the goals of the communication and make it less accurate.
For instance, I suggest that one of the rules of Public Media Statements is that media outlets will quote a small portion of them, and that quote will be the main way the statement is experienced by readers. So each sentence that a journalist could reasonably quote needs to independently be a reasonably good representation of the organization’s opinion. Or the journalist may craft a short summary of the statement—so the writer needs to place a premium on making sure a reader does not get the wrong impression. And all of this needs to be done in a compact manner. These features significantly limit the range and accuracy of what can be reasonably conveyed via Public Media Statement. So a statement designed for maximum accuracy attainable under the framework of Public Media Statements may not be viewed as maximally accurate when evaluated under the norms for EA Forum Posts.
Furthermore, it is important to consider the extent to which a Public Media Statement accurately conveys the affective stance of the writer in addition to their cognitive stance. “We disapprove of any events at FTX that were fraudulent and caused depositors to lose their money” is cognitively safe—but its mildness is probably inaccuate in conveying how RP feels about those events. Again, this is limited by the nature of Public Media Statements—it isn’t viable to set up a 10-point scale of ethical lapses and then explain how strongly one feels about the known FTX ethical lapses by reference to that scale and why.
Again, I appreciate the focus on being as accurate as possible -- I just think we have to consider a statement’s accuracy in light of the limitations of the medium in which it was expressed, and that attempting to add too much nuance/precision can cause us to less accurately convey the intended meanings in some cases.
RP’s statement is inherently a Public Media Statement, and the portions condemning certain events at FTX should be evaluated with that in mind. I think it is quite clear that RP was not intending to make a statement about hypothetical “minor” events at FTX that might be technically fraud, or that most readers would understand them as having done so.
To be clear, Public Media Statements should be as accurate as possible—but the medium informs the message and limits the writer’s ability to convey nuance, full depth of meaning, and high degrees of accuracy. The same is true of explaining things to a five-year old; trying to cram in high degrees of technical accuracy or nuance can often interfere with the goals of the communication and make it less accurate.
For instance, I suggest that one of the rules of Public Media Statements is that media outlets will quote a small portion of them, and that quote will be the main way the statement is experienced by readers. So each sentence that a journalist could reasonably quote needs to independently be a reasonably good representation of the organization’s opinion. Or the journalist may craft a short summary of the statement—so the writer needs to place a premium on making sure a reader does not get the wrong impression. And all of this needs to be done in a compact manner. These features significantly limit the range and accuracy of what can be reasonably conveyed via Public Media Statement. So a statement designed for maximum accuracy attainable under the framework of Public Media Statements may not be viewed as maximally accurate when evaluated under the norms for EA Forum Posts.
Furthermore, it is important to consider the extent to which a Public Media Statement accurately conveys the affective stance of the writer in addition to their cognitive stance. “We disapprove of any events at FTX that were fraudulent and caused depositors to lose their money” is cognitively safe—but its mildness is probably inaccuate in conveying how RP feels about those events. Again, this is limited by the nature of Public Media Statements—it isn’t viable to set up a 10-point scale of ethical lapses and then explain how strongly one feels about the known FTX ethical lapses by reference to that scale and why.
Again, I appreciate the focus on being as accurate as possible -- I just think we have to consider a statement’s accuracy in light of the limitations of the medium in which it was expressed, and that attempting to add too much nuance/precision can cause us to less accurately convey the intended meanings in some cases.