We've spent our week of introspection asking hard questions of ourselves and each other. We're ready to share what we've learned.Links Referenced in the Vide...
Are they going to address Linus’s active investment in companies from markets they cover? The Framework investment seems like a conflict of interest that should be addressed since it was part of Gamer Nexus’ criticism.
At some point I feel like you have to admit you are a biased entertainment show or commit to journalistic standards. I don’t know that an active investment in a subject you report on can be waved away by disclosure and a promise not to let it color your conclusions. Im sure there is a balance, and maybe I am being too critical.
can be waved away by disclosure and a promise not to let it color your conclusions.
I don’t think it’s ever been stated that the framework investment hasn’t lead to direct criticism of competing products. The disclosure is there to let us know that there is pre-existing bias in the upcoming review.
This is similar to watching Mac Address and being pissed off that they have a bias towards Macs.
Linus specifically said he wasn’t going to let the investment influence their coverage of Framework or competing product when he announced his investment in the company, though that is not Gamer Nexus’s point. It is the long term and ongoing potential for bias that is the issue. Id argue that discloure is certainly better, but that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly no longer a concern. It just means you know about it. You can’t in one breath claim to be an authoritative reliable source of knowledge and explain why you are not in the next.
The Mac Address show is a different issue. Bringing it up is either a misunderstanding or a strawman. If Apple the company had a show about Mac’s and Apple products, that would be a similar issue. If a large investor of Apple made the show, that would also be a similar issue. LMG, to my knowledge, has not disclosed a ownership stake in Apple.
Linus has made it clear from the start that the Framework investment was about supporting their mission first and making money second.
If you don’t think LMG can be objective in the laptop segment due to this investment, I would ask for evidence of bias in recent reviews because I certainly haven’t seen any.
Firstly, I want to say that I’m a fan of LMG and have greatly enjoyed their content over the years. I also acknowledge that I don’t have any specific examples of bias to point out in their reviews post-Framework investment. However, my concern centers on the subtle, often hard-to-detect type of bias that can be particularly insidious over time.
As LMG increasingly positions itself as more of a journalistic entity, I think it’s important to consider whether they are upholding the standards that come with that role.The kind of subtle bias I’m concerned about and Gamer Nexus brought up is difficult to identify, but it could influence things like the framing of a review, which aspects are emphasized, or even the choice of products reviewed. It is not even necessarily intentional.
Returning to my original point, my concern is the long-term and ongoing potential for this subtle form of bias, not necessarily any immediate, overt issues. While I appreciate the responses discussing Linus’s motives for the Framework investment and requests for concrete evidence of bias, they don’t directly address the aspect I’m trying to bring up. For what it’s worth, I’m more concerned with right-to-repair than I am with LMG as an accountable journalistic entity. I’m in line for the big AMD version when it comes out.
Since most of my old tech journals were physical media that has died off in the last few years, I noticed that rightly or wrongly I found that I have come to rely on LMG as an authoritative source. I’m guessing I’m not the only one, and I feel like that is a role LMG is actively positioning for, so I think this is a topic worthy of discussion. I’m disappointed that Linus didn’t address it.
Are they going to address Linus’s active investment in companies from markets they cover? The Framework investment seems like a conflict of interest that should be addressed since it was part of Gamer Nexus’ criticism.
At some point I feel like you have to admit you are a biased entertainment show or commit to journalistic standards. I don’t know that an active investment in a subject you report on can be waved away by disclosure and a promise not to let it color your conclusions. Im sure there is a balance, and maybe I am being too critical.
I don’t think it’s ever been stated that the framework investment hasn’t lead to direct criticism of competing products. The disclosure is there to let us know that there is pre-existing bias in the upcoming review.
This is similar to watching Mac Address and being pissed off that they have a bias towards Macs.
Linus specifically said he wasn’t going to let the investment influence their coverage of Framework or competing product when he announced his investment in the company, though that is not Gamer Nexus’s point. It is the long term and ongoing potential for bias that is the issue. Id argue that discloure is certainly better, but that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly no longer a concern. It just means you know about it. You can’t in one breath claim to be an authoritative reliable source of knowledge and explain why you are not in the next.
The Mac Address show is a different issue. Bringing it up is either a misunderstanding or a strawman. If Apple the company had a show about Mac’s and Apple products, that would be a similar issue. If a large investor of Apple made the show, that would also be a similar issue. LMG, to my knowledge, has not disclosed a ownership stake in Apple.
Linus has made it clear from the start that the Framework investment was about supporting their mission first and making money second.
If you don’t think LMG can be objective in the laptop segment due to this investment, I would ask for evidence of bias in recent reviews because I certainly haven’t seen any.
Firstly, I want to say that I’m a fan of LMG and have greatly enjoyed their content over the years. I also acknowledge that I don’t have any specific examples of bias to point out in their reviews post-Framework investment. However, my concern centers on the subtle, often hard-to-detect type of bias that can be particularly insidious over time.
As LMG increasingly positions itself as more of a journalistic entity, I think it’s important to consider whether they are upholding the standards that come with that role.The kind of subtle bias I’m concerned about and Gamer Nexus brought up is difficult to identify, but it could influence things like the framing of a review, which aspects are emphasized, or even the choice of products reviewed. It is not even necessarily intentional.
Returning to my original point, my concern is the long-term and ongoing potential for this subtle form of bias, not necessarily any immediate, overt issues. While I appreciate the responses discussing Linus’s motives for the Framework investment and requests for concrete evidence of bias, they don’t directly address the aspect I’m trying to bring up. For what it’s worth, I’m more concerned with right-to-repair than I am with LMG as an accountable journalistic entity. I’m in line for the big AMD version when it comes out.
Since most of my old tech journals were physical media that has died off in the last few years, I noticed that rightly or wrongly I found that I have come to rely on LMG as an authoritative source. I’m guessing I’m not the only one, and I feel like that is a role LMG is actively positioning for, so I think this is a topic worthy of discussion. I’m disappointed that Linus didn’t address it.