Read on Twitter
This is such obvious revisionist bullshit.
The NYT and the rest of the tech journo circle covered the hell out of Cambridge Analytica for YEARS after the election, lending credence to what I and other ad tech insiders decried as overblown, laughable conspiracy theories. https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/1313855302631071744
The NYT and the rest of the tech journo circle covered the hell out of Cambridge Analytica for YEARS after the election, lending credence to what I and other ad tech insiders decried as overblown, laughable conspiracy theories. https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/1313855302631071744
Judge by reading @nickconfessore's own summary of the NYT's Cambridge reporting: election law violations, Facebook's complicity, Silicon Valley's complicity, those wily Russians again, the Mercers, John Bolton....you name it.
What didn't CA do? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html
What didn't CA do? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html
Of course, @nickconfessore cites some rando reporting org as having figured this out in 2016, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE INCLUDING HIMSELF was reporting the opposite right about then. https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/1313856735334010881
And here he is with Carole Codswallop reporting breathlessly about the Cambridge Analytica/Russia connection he's currently citing journalism got right.
Journalists: Conveniently amnesiac narcissists who know close to nothing about everything. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html
Journalists: Conveniently amnesiac narcissists who know close to nothing about everything. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html
It would all be a grand joke if the media hadn't misled the public for years, wasting their time in fruitless conspiracies, instead of actually informing them how an increasingly important but niche technology actually works.
But there were books to write and awards to win.
But there were books to write and awards to win.
Here's co-author Carole herself winning a British journalism award for "reporting on the links between Cambridge Analytica, the UK’s pro-Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump presidential election team."
Links @nickconfessore now assures us didn't exist. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/27/carole-cadwalladr-wins-foreign-press-award-for-trump-and-brexit-work
Links @nickconfessore now assures us didn't exist. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/27/carole-cadwalladr-wins-foreign-press-award-for-trump-and-brexit-work
I'll repeat what I've *actually* been saying since day one on this affair:
What's fascinating is how the people most clueless about how digital advertising works were most willing to believe the patent CA falsehoods, while those actually in that world were the most skeptical.
What's fascinating is how the people most clueless about how digital advertising works were most willing to believe the patent CA falsehoods, while those actually in that world were the most skeptical.
Secondly, those who've made entire careers purportedly warning about 'misinformation' and crusading against tech are precisely the ones most willing to believe that $100k in ads spend and 0.0001% of election media can win a national election in a 300M-person country.
If @nickconfessore wanted to cite examples where journalism got the Cambridge Analytica story right, he'd have to look a little west of the Hudson river and to people who could actually land jobs in the companies being covered. https://www.wired.com/story/the-noisy-fallacies-of-psychographic-targeting/
One footnote, per feedback from individuals involved: yes, @ICOnews is a data watchdog organization involved in the original CA/FB investigation, I shouldn't have glossed over them so cavalierly.
