Btw, I’ve been wondering for years why TV news programs call on journalists as authoritative commentators, instead of history or political science professors, who have many more years of study.
Great question, with a somewhat complicated answer. Part of the answer is structural; the news moves quickly, and academia moves slowly. Sometimes journalists reach out to professors, and those professors are teaching, researching in the archives or on sabbatical. The windows and turn-around are short and it's easy to miss an opportunity if you respond too late. But part of the answer is networks and personal connections. Scholars in academia often times don't know the producers who book the programs. And the producers don't know the scholars. Media producers do often know other journalists, however, and so they reach out to who they know to fill the available TV slots. This was one of the reasons we did an intentional project when I was director of the Lepage Center to establish connections between historians and journalists: https://niemanreports.org/articles/what-happens-to-news-when-journalists-and-historians-join-forces/
Thanks for illuminating a lot of ideas, Jason. Also the Lepage Project sounded very useful. I found a comment at the end very interesting, that, unlike journalists, historians tend to leave people out, or “use them as props.” I assume that is not true of social history, which of course is a particular branch of history which always Interested me.
I would disagree with that particular comment. In my experience, historians are very careful and sensitive to write about people in ways that grant them their humanity. Pundits and politicians are far more likely to "use" people as "props" or exclude people.
Apr 24, 2023·edited Apr 24, 2023Liked by Jason Steinhauer
Your presentation seems like it should be covered by C-Span. It sounds like just their kind of material.
But I'd like to add that one can still write using conventional citation and referencing. I've been doing it for half a century. Readers aren't all that gullible. Popular writers rarely cite their sources -- suggesting that their credibility is based on their personal authority rather than the substance of their presentation. Maybe George Packer can pull it off, but not a lot of others. Still, this seems to me to be more of a confidence scheme than scholarship. One should never neglect an opportunity to share sources. I've lost track of the number of times I've stopped reading a piece because the author made unsupported claims (eg., 43,754,258 men suffer discrimination because they can't compete against biological women in college softball) and failed to give his or her sources. I cite sources for all claims on my site BajaArizonaHistory.org. (You should have seen the notes before I cleaned them up.) I write about events, not the meaning of events. But if anyone wants to question anything I've claimed, they don't have to look far to get started. To my way of thinking, if a writer makes a sound claim and shows his or her sources and logic, he or she has something to say. But writing this way, and declining the vanity of telling the reader what it all means, doesn't fit the conventional format for writing about regional history. While I'm perfectly capable of devising a theory, and showing how material either supports it, or doesn't, I prefer to focus on reliable events. The reader can sort it out for herself. But, of course, the site is more reading list than a presentation of historical events. My hope is that the material is a starting point for the curious. The reader can see if I got it close to right, and have a head start on her own investigation. It's not a performance.
I would use AI to create an outline based on the input I provide it. In that sense, it's just my robot assistant. But to write a book for me would not satisfy the desire that stirs me to write in the first place. Those who use it in that manner are either motivated solely by money or appearance. A Game of Thrones, the way of the world, neither motivates me.
Interesting. I've never been able to use outlines for writing. I wish I could; they just don't work for me. I imagine that a Chatbot could be helpful in that regard. I just asked it for a chicken & garlic sauce recipe and it generated a pretty good one. Who's to say the next cookbook authors won't be LLMs?
The universities, publishing houses and others referred to as gatekeepers are heavily influenced by China and anti-American indoctrination. The National Pulse has reported that most well-known media outlets have been to China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) events. There's similar influence on universities. It's not clear that their gatekeeping is consistent with truthfulness, public value or free speech.
Brilliant, Jason.
Btw, I’ve been wondering for years why TV news programs call on journalists as authoritative commentators, instead of history or political science professors, who have many more years of study.
Great question, with a somewhat complicated answer. Part of the answer is structural; the news moves quickly, and academia moves slowly. Sometimes journalists reach out to professors, and those professors are teaching, researching in the archives or on sabbatical. The windows and turn-around are short and it's easy to miss an opportunity if you respond too late. But part of the answer is networks and personal connections. Scholars in academia often times don't know the producers who book the programs. And the producers don't know the scholars. Media producers do often know other journalists, however, and so they reach out to who they know to fill the available TV slots. This was one of the reasons we did an intentional project when I was director of the Lepage Center to establish connections between historians and journalists: https://niemanreports.org/articles/what-happens-to-news-when-journalists-and-historians-join-forces/
Thanks for illuminating a lot of ideas, Jason. Also the Lepage Project sounded very useful. I found a comment at the end very interesting, that, unlike journalists, historians tend to leave people out, or “use them as props.” I assume that is not true of social history, which of course is a particular branch of history which always Interested me.
Thanks as always, Jason.
I would disagree with that particular comment. In my experience, historians are very careful and sensitive to write about people in ways that grant them their humanity. Pundits and politicians are far more likely to "use" people as "props" or exclude people.
I have been learning from a language bot. I’ve been learning Spanish with Duolingo for two years.
Your presentation seems like it should be covered by C-Span. It sounds like just their kind of material.
But I'd like to add that one can still write using conventional citation and referencing. I've been doing it for half a century. Readers aren't all that gullible. Popular writers rarely cite their sources -- suggesting that their credibility is based on their personal authority rather than the substance of their presentation. Maybe George Packer can pull it off, but not a lot of others. Still, this seems to me to be more of a confidence scheme than scholarship. One should never neglect an opportunity to share sources. I've lost track of the number of times I've stopped reading a piece because the author made unsupported claims (eg., 43,754,258 men suffer discrimination because they can't compete against biological women in college softball) and failed to give his or her sources. I cite sources for all claims on my site BajaArizonaHistory.org. (You should have seen the notes before I cleaned them up.) I write about events, not the meaning of events. But if anyone wants to question anything I've claimed, they don't have to look far to get started. To my way of thinking, if a writer makes a sound claim and shows his or her sources and logic, he or she has something to say. But writing this way, and declining the vanity of telling the reader what it all means, doesn't fit the conventional format for writing about regional history. While I'm perfectly capable of devising a theory, and showing how material either supports it, or doesn't, I prefer to focus on reliable events. The reader can sort it out for herself. But, of course, the site is more reading list than a presentation of historical events. My hope is that the material is a starting point for the curious. The reader can see if I got it close to right, and have a head start on her own investigation. It's not a performance.
C-SPAN used to cover this festival, but they aren't this year. My book release last year was filmed by C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?517106-1/history-disrupted
Beautiful contribution about authorship, the internet and AI. Thank you for sharing it!
thanks, as always, for reading my friend!
I would use AI to create an outline based on the input I provide it. In that sense, it's just my robot assistant. But to write a book for me would not satisfy the desire that stirs me to write in the first place. Those who use it in that manner are either motivated solely by money or appearance. A Game of Thrones, the way of the world, neither motivates me.
Interesting. I've never been able to use outlines for writing. I wish I could; they just don't work for me. I imagine that a Chatbot could be helpful in that regard. I just asked it for a chicken & garlic sauce recipe and it generated a pretty good one. Who's to say the next cookbook authors won't be LLMs?
I can’t use them either but they make for good prompts
The universities, publishing houses and others referred to as gatekeepers are heavily influenced by China and anti-American indoctrination. The National Pulse has reported that most well-known media outlets have been to China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) events. There's similar influence on universities. It's not clear that their gatekeeping is consistent with truthfulness, public value or free speech.
The only important thing is “can I learn from this person “. If so, then this person is of value.
now you can learn from a language bot!