Someone pointed out in another thread that CNET has been criticized for having lots of errors in their reporting due to having AI write up their articles. That makes a lot of sense. My reply:
I didn’t realize they switched to AI writing! That would explain a lot! I was just thinking their journalism skills had deteriorated a lot lately and wasn’t sure why. That makes a lot of sense. I read this article within a couple of hours of when it published and was confused why the journalism standards aren’t as good as they used to be.
They said they couldn’t get a comment from anyone at Wyze about the issue, but then quoted a whole bunch of comments from Wyze about the issue
They apparently did no research on the company at all. They said “Wyze Forum representative WyzeDave” when talking about the co-owner and co-founder of the entire company Making themselves look incompetent with just cursory journalism skills because the FIRST THING DAVE SAYS in his initial post about the issue is “Cofounder of Wyze here” and they still didn’t understand that. If an AI wrote this article, then it makes much more sense why they didn’t understand things. I mean, it should’ve been the first thing you read from the guy in the first thing he said about the issue is that he is the cofounder. You quoted from the guy who just told you who he is. Seriously embarrassing journalism.
For an article about internet concerns for CAMERAS, they just happen to use as their main picture, a LOCK, and the one lock that doesn’t even connect to the internet and is totally unrelated to anything in this article/issue because it’s not a camera and it doesn’t use the internet.
Saying they let 13,000 people all see actual video footage of other users is factually incorrect (to be clear I am not saying this isn’t a problem, it is, but as a journalist, they should have their facts straight). Firstly, if you want to get technical, there were 13,000 accounts that had the POSSIBILITY of seeing a thumbnail image from another camera. We don’t know how many of those accounts actually saw them. We absolutely know that only 1,504 users clicked on them, and that many of them were limited to just thumbnails and no video. That is not to say it’s okay, but if you’re a journalist you should at least have your facts straight, especially when they’re in the SAME written release you were already pulling quotes from. It’s embarrassing when your reading comprehension sucks and your investigation skills suck when it is part of your high-paying job.
They say they are not recommending Wyze because they are concerned about unauthorized people seeing your video or account information, and then IMMEDIATELY recommend companies that are 100% owned by China and subject to a legal agreement to provide all data and all access to everything in their company to the Chinese Government at any time upon request without you ever knowing if or when it happens. Like…WHAT THE WHAT hypocrisy?
What kind of horrid journalism is this? I understand CNET has multiple writers, but even the editors let all that slide too? What happened to real journalism? I don’t care if it is positive or negative. There are plenty of things to be upset about here, but this is lazy and pathetic journalism from a company that should be experts in reporting about tech issues.
I appreciate you sharing that they are using AI to do a lot of their articles, it’s making a lot more sense now. A real investigative reporter would be embarrassed at publishing something this lazy.
3 Likes