News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet (even if they publish more “boring” stories that aren’t as “up to date”): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. Wikipedia does, but it happens on discussion pages and it relies on human editors who know where those discussions happened to string it together
Was about to post this list, it’s a very good overall quick reference. It correctly identifies most of the tabloids posing as “real” newspapers, too.
That is a good recipe for sneaking lies into the newspaper. Journalists should just be doing their job.
Journalists have one job: produce revenue one way or another. Informing the public of factual or fictional events is a byproduct of running this business.
This is a cynical take that would be disputed by the people you are denigrating.
Some definitely do that
Agreed. Imo, if the journalists simply cited their claims, then this question of whether its safe to appeal to authority wouldn’t need to be asked.
It’s a balance to hit in article sharing communities too.
Too much leniency, and you just end up with people posting DMG articles, and tiny un-sourced blogs with snazzy titles.
Too tough, and you end up spending your entire life justifying why various borderline sources are not suitable.DMG articles?
I’m guessing Dungeon Master’s Guide
Yep. Damn Wizards infiltrated the UK commercial media a decade ago, and they never left.
[…] Too much leniency, and you just end up with people posting […] tiny un-sourced blogs with snazzy titles. […]
Imo, in a perfect world, if everyone cited their sources, there would be a perfect chain of sources that leads directly to the original. If one collectively cited source was found to be inaccurate, then, logically, all connected references would be nullified.
[…] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources […]
Thank you for sharing that link! 😊
News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. […]
While that’s good data to have, I think that any claims should be immediately verifiable. I think it’s a disservice to the truth and public discourse to rely on appeals to authority for trust in one’s published news. Imo, an argument is either sound or unsound — an atomic claim is either accurate or inaccurate.
[…] I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. […]
It’s not immediately clear to me what you mean. Are you referring to increased transparency when a news outlet makes a mistake? Are you referring to legal action? Are you referring to something else?
Just a place where people can call out and crowdsource lies that news outlets publish
What do you mean by “crowdsource” in this context?
Hard to believe that when I’ve seen many of the “historically reputable” sources on that list flagrantly lying and spreading pro genocide props over the past 13 months
Being pro genocide is an opinion technically. If you have a “flagrant lie”, however, please post it. There was another wanker in the thread who claimed equal grand claims of lies but failed to come up with a link showing an actual lie
I see your sources. I will check Wikipedia to see if there has been discussion on it, if not, I will bring it up and get back to you.
(On phone right now so I can’t)
EDIT: Will not be posting this on Wikipedia, see response in https://lemmy.ml/post/23416718/15472127
Well good. Luck with that, but my experience trying to get changes through on Wikipedia is that it just takes one person with an agenda to stubbornly go “nuh-uh” and there nothing you can do about it
I used to edit Wikipedia for a long time, so I know what you’re saying - but if you’re actually correct, you’ll generally win (may require pinging some other people who know you to come in to mediate)
So I read through this, and unfortunately there’s nothing concrete. Every error has been corrected, and the errors that remain are opinion pieces which can’t be listed as a source on Wikipedia. Due to WP:RECENT, this means no place where Wikipedia refers to the New York Times as a source will be asserting incorrect information.
This probably isn’t the response you want, but that’s the truth about their reporting.
Edit: If you still want to try and bring it up, this is what I had written in my draft:
The following article has been brought to my attention: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2024.2394292#abstract While the issues raised in this paper tend to focus on bias, and factual errors were later corrected in many cases (which should be suffice due to WP:RECENT), the section of "Misquoting Israeli leaders" refers to multiple errors in reporting from the New York Times that remain uncorrected. ~~~~(This is before I noticed the uncorrected parts are Opinion pieces, so I stopped)
You can post it here, but you will probably be shut down for the same reasons I mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
LoL. I guess manufacturing consent for wars does absolutely nothing to harm their credibility. This list is dogshit.
The New York Times has been a full-throated government mouthpiece since at least 9/11. At this point, Teen Vogue has more credibility.
This person thinks that Ukraine invaded Russia, FYI.
Yeah, but that doesn’t make them wrong and the NYT
This person thinks that Ukraine invaded Russia, FYI.
[…] that doesn’t make them wrong […]
Nice catch of their strawman 😉
NAFO bot has arrived to defend the military industrial complex with lies. Right on schedule.
I don’t even know what a NAFO is but sure. Everyone but you is a robot. Is reality even real? Do the snozberries taste like snozberries? Are we really breathing or is the air forcing us to live?
Yes, everyone who’s on here defending western imperialism is either a bot or propagandized to hell. Either one is fair to write off.
Beep boop
If you have evidence of them lying, you’re more than welcome to submit that on the discussion pages. I don’t know which articles you’re referring to, but given my historical knowledge of wars in the Middle-East, they likely sourced US mouthpieces or analysts, rather than making the claims themself
LoL. Are people unaware of the NYT’s culpability?
Acting as a stenographer for the state isn’t “journalism.”
He asked for sources and you just act superior and yet didn’t provide sources.
The sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
Take those with necessary salt and tequila if wanted. One of them is literally “nyt is mean to apartheid musk”
If I tell him the sky is blue, and he asked for a source, am I obligated to provide that as well?
I’m not going to play along with bad faith questioning of common knowledge.
You’ll find “common knowledge” is surprisingly hard to prove when you’re wrong. Wikipedia is a big place, if you can find concrete evidence of NYT lying, you can do a lot of reputational damage to them (even as so far as getting them removed as an acceptable source)
Seeing a lot of bots defend Wikipedia the past couple months. Is that because it’s so easily manipulated by y’all?
If I tell him the sky is blue, and he asked for a source, am I obligated to provide that as well? […]
Imo, while not exactly proper science, a quick source for such a claim could be a simple color photo of the sky.
[…] I’m not going to play along with bad faith questioning of common knowledge.
Leaving aside the “bad faith questioning” component, how would you handle requests for proof of what you are calling “common knowledge” in general?
I mean, yeah.
Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.
We really should get way more research methodology stuff into school curriculums from much earlier.
Or maybe we require large newspapers and other single owner/large audience influencers to cite sources if they make claims and make them liable if it turns out to be false… because we‘re unable to read our medications instructions or the terms of the products we use.
I‘m not against education. But i would like to hold people who make claims accountable additionally to enabling the public to do research.
Well, that works if the only vector of misinformation is broadcast-based, but it’s not. There are far fewer gatekeepers now than there were last century, you don’t just have to fact check what comes up the traditional media pipe, also social media claims and claims from marginal sources. Both of which look pretty much identical to traditional media in the forms that most people consume them, which is a big part of the issue.
And, of course, anonymous sourcing and source protection still has a place, it’s not as trivial as that.
In any case, there are no silver bullets here. This is the world we live in. We’re in mitigation mode now.
Of course not. My point stands though.
The eu is doing a somewhat decent job pushing for platform liability although I would say we need more and harder measures in that case.
Of course all your points apply too so the skill of fact checking needs to be honed. But keeping potential drivers of misinformation accountable is paramount.
Sure, it’s a hard line to walk against free speech, though.
I am more concerned about access. Reliable, high quality information is increasingly paywalled, while disinformation is very much not. That is a big problem and, again, one with no easy solutions. If people with the skillset and the disposition need to charge to keep their jobs while meme farmss keep pumping out bad faith narratives funded by hostile actors it’s going to be hard to reverse course.
I alsmost wonder if accuntability takes the shape of public funding for information access on outlets meeting certain oversight standards, but that is a very hard sell in a political landscape where some political groups benefit from the current situation.
Yes indeed.
Free speech or freeze peach as I call the populist american approach is no right. It is just a way for people to manipulate the lesser privileged.
The european way of free speech is you are allowed to say whatever you want as long as you harm noone with it. Knowingly spreading lies is the latter. If thats anti free speech to you, then tough luck.
Europe’s approach to free speech (in general, there are tons of countries with different takes) is that it’s a right along with a bunch of others and it gets limitations like all others. I agree, the US view of rights as places where you do whatever you want and everybody else has to deal with the fallout is fundamentally different to the social democracy approach.
But free speech remains a fundamental right for democracy. If you allow governments to have too much control over resources, private speech or news reporting you end up on the other end of the spectrum, where public resources are spent reinforcing the position of whatever the current government is.
This is and has always been one of the hardest balancing acts of healthy democracies, and it’s borderline impossible in a world dominated by for-profit social media and hostile actors deliberately using communication as a weapon.
We have gone far into the fight on principles here.
Yes, free speech
No spreading lies, period.
[…] anonymous sourcing and source protection still has a place […]
I agree. Though, anecdotally, I’m not exactly fond of how some news outlets that I’ve come across use such types of sources — they use some adulterated quote snipped buried within their article; I think it would be better if they, for example, post explicitly the entire unadulterated (within good reason) transcript of the anonymous source with all relevant metadata cited along with it, and then cite that in whatever article.
Yeah, it’s a problematic tool, for sure. In politics in particular it can be used to present interested or partisan information as factual or to manufacture a story. Happens all the time.
That’s why loopholes are loopholes and controlling misinformation is so hard. Perfectly legitimate tools can be used maliciously or unethically and there are very valuable babies in that bathwater that shouldn’t be sacrificed in pursuit of easy solutions.
Well, that works if the only vector of misinformation is broadcast-based, but it’s not. […]
Could you elaborate on what you mean?
I’m saying that holding a news outlet accountable for accuracy could work in a news landscape where people get their information from a handful of outlets that all reach a broad audience. In a world where a lot of people get small pieces of misinformation from thousands or millions of tiny sources spread across social media it is much harder to keep a centralized control on accuracy for all those communications, even discounting all the issues with free speech and opinion.
I’m saying that holding a news outlet accountable for accuracy could work in a news landscape where people get their information from a handful of outlets that all reach a broad audience. In a world where a lot of people get small pieces of misinformation from thousands or millions of tiny sources spread across social media it is much harder to keep a centralized control on accuracy for all those communications
Hm, I do agree that many outlets/sources may make things “messier”, but I don’t think that it would mean that the laws could no longer apply — for example, I think, defamation laws could still apply to anyone.
As I think someone else already pointed out, defamation is not a major part of the issue and it’s already in place quite strictly in many places without making a dent on the issue.
And yes, it’s absolutely defeated by scale. You can’t start a legal process against every single tweet and facebook post (let alone every message in a Whatsapp group you can’t even see in the first place). As with paywalls, the aggregate effect ends up being that large outlets are held to a high standard while misinformation spread through social media is not just cheaper to make but less accountable.
[…] You can’t start a legal process against every single tweet and facebook post (let alone every message in a Whatsapp group you can’t even see in the first place). […]
Imo, theoretically one could, but I think that it would be impractical, or at least prohibitively expensive.
[…] without making a dent on the issue.
“the issue” being misinformation and disinformation that’s not defamation?
With respect, this shows an ignorance of the historical role of journalism in democracy.
to cite sources
Sources may have valuable information to get out, but not be willing to go on the record. Professional journalists are like doctors in that they’ve committed themselves to a code of ethics. As citizens we are called on to trust them to not make sh*t up.
For publicly available written sources, it’s only a bit different. Yes, they could cite every sentence they write, and indeed some do, but it still comes down to institutional trust. If you don’t trust where you’re getting your news from, this is a problem that’s probably not gonna get fixed with citations.
make them liable if it turns out to be false
A terrible no-good idea. Legislating for truth is a slippery slope that ends in authoritarian dystopia. The kind of law you are advocating exists in a ton of countries (“spreading dangerous falsehoods”, abuse of defamation laws when the subject involves an individual, etc). You would not want to live in any of these places.
[…] As citizens we are called on to trust them to not make sh*t up. […]
Imo, that’s an appeal to authority.
Yes, it is. It’s literally how a complex society works. Do you advocate trusting nobody about anything and somehow doing all the research yourself? Would you dismiss your doctor for their “appeal to authority” when they open a medical textbook? This is silly.
[…] Would you dismiss your doctor for their “appeal to authority” when they open a medical textbook? […]
Trusting the doctor’s word simply because they are a doctor would be an appeal to authority; whereas, referencing a medical textbook would be citing a source, and therefore not conjecture.
[…] Do you advocate trusting nobody about anything and somehow doing all the research yourself? […]
It’s more that I think reputation increases the probability that a claim is accurate, but it isn’t proof of accuracy. That being said, even if an entity is trustworthy, I think they still have a responsibility to maintain that trust by being transparent in the claims that they make — I think they shouldn’t ride on the coattails of current public opinion.
make them liable if it turns out to be false
A terrible no-good idea. Legislating for truth is a slippery slope that ends in authoritarian dystopia. The kind of law you are advocating exists in a ton of countries (“spreading dangerous falsehoods”, abuse of defamation laws when the subject involves an individual, etc). You would not want to live in any of these places.
Do you agree with the existence of defamation laws?
Of course. Hence the word “abuse”.
In your opinion, what exactly would qualify as abuse of defamation laws? Could you provide an example for clarity?
[…] If you don’t trust where you’re getting your news from, this is a problem that’s probably not gonna get fixed with citations.
Why not?
Doctors can actually face real consequences if they break their code of ethics, “journalists” get promoted for it
You’re doing exactly what you criticize others for doing.
How so?
Or maybe we require large newspapers and other single owner/large audience influencers to cite sources if they make claims and make them liable if it turns out to be false… […]
Well, defamation laws do exist [1]. Other than things like that, I think one should be very careful with such times of laws as, imo, they begin encroaching rather rapidly on freedom of speech.
References
- “Defamation”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-09T15:41Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T07:02Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Laws_by_jurisdiction.
- §“Laws by jurisdiction”.
Defamation is very far away from our current situation. Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable.
There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government but that is what we have assasins for.
[…] There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government […]
For clarity, are you referring to the government abusing the judicial system to silence someone with opinions they don’t like?
Among other potential abuses, yes.
People and companies have abused the judicial system as long as it has been in place. We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.
Defamation is very far away from our current situation. […]
How so? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by “make them liable if it turns out to be false” — I think it’s possible that defamation wouldn’t account for all possibilities, but I think it’s at least one thing that is covered by what you are talking about.
[…] Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable. […]
I’m unfamiliar with those specific laws. Could you cite what your referring to for my reference?
No problem: the digital services act and the digital markets act. The best write up I could find ad hoc is this
[…] that is what we have assasins for.
Imo, this isn’t sustainable in a stable, and civil society.
That is correct. It neither needs to be nor is a society that allows abuse of power „civil“.
This new development showed that the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote, although a horrific and regrettable one.
- “Defamation”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-09T15:41Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T07:02Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Laws_by_jurisdiction.
to cite sources if they make claims
Problematic.
If we begin divulging our sources to the companies and governments we report on, we can no longer credibly offer vulnerable sources protection and those sources would understandably not trust us and would not be willing to talk to us.
I agree. Especially 404 media is known to me. But you‘re taking my idea literally. Of course there are situations where this isnt feasible but in the vast majority, the need for backing up a claim outweighs the need for confidentiality.
For example „migrants have again attacked innocent native“ is a popular leading headline which has no real news value but drives opinions and disinformation.
A newspaper could be required to back up such a claim with sources proving that on average, migrants will unprovokedly attack native born people who are on average innocent (which all is bullshit, therefore this headline would become illegal).
Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.
Are you saying that I’m unqualified to be a journalist?
Well, I don’t know you personally. I’m saying anybody who has to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, and thus is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job.
Which explains a lot of how the 21st century is going, honestly.
is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job
Wait wait… are you saying I’m unqualified to be a journalist? Because yeah you are probably right.
Also Bayes and stat pilled.
[…] are you saying I’m unqualified to be a journalist? Because yeah you are probably right. […]
What makes you think that you are unqualified?
What makes you think that you are unqualified?
A more than cursory knowledge of statistics.
Statistics of what?
[…] I’m saying anybody who has to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, and thus is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job. […]
What, in your opinion, would determine if someone is qualified to fact check a news article? Do you have criteria?
I think you might have missed the subtle point @mudman was making about marginal probabilities. Its not about their thresholds; any reasonable threshold would exclude the vast majority of people, mostly because the vast majority of people aren’t journalists / don’t have that training.
Classic Norm MacDonald. Never gets old.
[…] any reasonable threshold would exclude the vast majority of people, mostly because the vast majority of people aren’t journalists […]
Perhaps I should clarify that I don’t agree with @[email protected]’s opinion, which was stated in my comment. By their use of the term “unqualified”, it made me think that they had qualifications in mind which would be required to be met, in their opinion, before someone could be a journalist — I was simply curious what those qualifications were.
Like I said, we should get research methods taught in school from very early on. For one thing, understanding what even counts as a source is not a trivial problem, let alone an independent source, let alone a credible independent source.
There’s the mechanics of sourcing things (from home and on a computer, I presume we don’t want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media), a basic understanding of archival and how to get access to it and either a light understanding of the subject matter or how to get access to somebody who has it.
There’s a reason it’s supposed to be a full time job, but you can definitely teach kids enough of the basics to both assess the quality of what they come across and how to mitigate the worst of it. In all seriousness.
[…] understanding what even counts as a source is not a trivial problem, let alone an independent source, let alone a credible independent source. […]
I agree.
[…] we should get research methods taught in school from very early on. […]
I agree.
[…] There’s a reason it’s supposed to be a full time job […]
For clarity, by “it” are you referring to journalism?
I’m assuming you’re in a microblogging flavor of federation and that’s why this is broken down into a bunch of posts?
Yes, I’m referring to journalism.
I’m assuming you’re in a microblogging flavor of federation and that’s why this is broken down into a bunch of posts?
No, I’m not on a microblogging platform. I personally prefer to post atomic comments. I believe that threads should be restricted in scope so that they are clearer and easier to follow. I think that it also helps prevent miscommunications.
Yes, I’m referring to journalism.
Okay, well I don’t exactly follow the relevance of your claim that journalism can be practiced full-time. I also don’t exactly follow the usage of your language “supposed to”. Imo, one needn’t be a full-time journalist to practice journalism.
[…] I presume we don’t want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media […]
Can you clarify exactly what you are referring to here?
Well, a journalist would often be expected to get in touch with a source directly, which is not feasible if we’re all doing it.
I’ll grant you, it very often doesn’t happen, but still.
Well, a journalist would often be expected to get in touch with a source directly, which is not feasible if we’re all doing it.
Are you saying that journalism only deals in novel information?
Which explains a lot of how the 21st century is going, honestly.
I agree with the conclusion, but not the premise, or at least not if used as an explicit argument — I think your premise is itself an example for your conclusion. I believe your premise is more an example of why there is, arguably, such a problem with misinformation and disinformation right now: I think it serves to increase the risk to appeals to authority; though, it’s a double edged sword as, imo, unchecked skepticism erodes one’s trust in reality.
I don’t think I know what you’re trying to say there. Can you rephrase that more straightforwardly for me?
I’m of the belief that anyone is capable of being a journalist regardless of their qualifications. I think that restricting that through elitism directly leads to appeals to authority (I’ve seen examples of that itt [1][2][3][4]) — appeals to authority, I think, is one of the root causes for why, anecdotally, news outlets have become so lazy in citing their sources — why cite sources if people will believe what you say regardless? Whether or not something is good journalism, by definition, imo, is self-evident — it doesn’t matter who did the work, so long as it is accurate.
References
- @[email protected] [To: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” (@[email protected]). “Showerthoughts” ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-11T05:03:33Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:01Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13908617.
When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source. […]
- @[email protected]. [To: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” (@[email protected]). “Showerthoughts” ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-11T08:06:53Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:06Z. https://lemmy.ml/comment/15451608.
News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet […]
- @[email protected] [To: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” (@[email protected]). “Showerthoughts” ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-10T14:54:41Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:11Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13896551.
[…] Professional journalists are like doctors in that they’ve committed themselves to a code of ethics. As citizens we are called on to trust them to not make sh*t up. […]
- @[email protected] [To: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” (@[email protected]). “Showerthoughts” ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-10T08:37:58Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:16Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13892346.
Legitimate news outlets do pretty thorough fact-checking, if only to avoid litigation
Everybody is capable of being a journalist, but not everybody knows how. Qualifications are just some confirmation that someone has gone through some training. The training is to get the required skills. Capacity to get there doesn’t mean everybody is born with the right skillset or this would not be an issue in the first place.
Hence the education angle. You train kids earlier while the subjects they study are universal and prevent a scenario where a lot of people can’t fact check their own information or aren’t aware of their own biases.
Which is to say, no, good journalism isn’t self-evident. If it was, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation because the free market would lift up good journalism, presumably.
Confirmation bias is universal, however, so it takes a lot of work to learn to bypass it.
[…] good journalism isn’t self-evident. If it was, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation because the free market would lift up good journalism, presumably.
Hm, perhaps my usage of “self-evident” isn’t super accurate here — I agree that one needs to be taught/be in possession of the knowledge for how to determine if a sample of journalism is “good”. What I mean to say is that I think articles contain within themselves all that is required to determine if they are examples of good or bad journalism — all that’s required is for someone to know what to look for in the article to determine that for themself.
[…] it takes a lot of work to learn to bypass [confirmation bias].
I agree.
Everybody is capable of being a journalist, but not everybody knows how. Qualifications are just some confirmation that someone has gone through some training. The training is to get the required skills. Capacity to get there doesn’t mean everybody is born with the right skillset or this would not be an issue in the first place.
Hence the education angle. You train kids earlier while the subjects they study are universal and prevent a scenario where a lot of people can’t fact check their own information or aren’t aware of their own biases.
I agree.
The world you are advocating cannot work. We have specialized professions for a reason.
[…] We have specialized professions for a reason.
What exactly are you inferring with this? Do you mean that journalists should be licensed?
The world you are advocating cannot work. […]
Could you outline your rationale for why it cannot work?
- @[email protected] [To: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” (@[email protected]). “Showerthoughts” ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-11T05:03:33Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:01Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13908617.
yeah sorta. journalism was supposed to be more about fact checking back in that day rather than first to post. The rumor mill filled that niche. Does seem like news nowadays is more like the rumor mill.
So I just got out of a conference talk from a guy that ran newsrooms for about 20 years and has moved on to other things. The last few years have been basically “get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows”. These people working in these rooms have been cut back 90%+ but are still expected to get the same volumes of articles published as were when there were 10X the staff.
He said it’s completely impossible to do any verification with what they have to work with, and chances are the stories are written before the people involved are interviewed. That’s why he got out.
[…] The last few years have been basically “get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows”. […]
If true, that’s terrible, imo. Anecdotally, it would explain a great deal.
Yes it would. As would the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism, despite criticizing it liberally.
While I don’t think the lack of quality journalism is all due to OP not paying for it (I have no clue if they do or don’t) but there is a lot of complaining on Lemmy and Reddit about paywalls which is annoying. The idea that people want quality journalism but get pissed off when those journalist and news organizations asked to get paid for it is ridiculous.
The hypocrisy and entitlement is infuriating.
The internet has destroyed journalism’s business model. A respected profession has been pauperized. Salaries in freefall, hardly any job security left.
And people who pay nothing (let’s be real, OP is paying nothing) add insult to injury by demanding a higher quality product.
And when we do pay for it (magazines, physical newspapers) it’s over half ads.
[…] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism, despite criticizing it liberally.
Are you saying that one’s criticism of journalism is only valid if they pay for it?
[…] The last few years have been basically “get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows”. […]
[…] Anecdotally, it would explain a great deal.
[…] it […] would [also explain] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Could you clarify what you mean?
[…] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism […]
What makes you so sure that I would be opposed to paying for journalism?
Well I’m something of a
scientistJournalist myselfImo, yes you are!
News stopped being news when the 24 hour news cycle started. Now it’s just entertainment.
Yes. An unpaid one.
[…] An unpaid one.
Is that consequential?
It is… if you don’t have the time or energy to do all that fact-checking because you have to work yourself to the bone just to afford rent.
Sounds like an intern ;)
ITT: the justification for civics education.
Could you elaborate?
Enough with the spammy questions. I’m not going to convince you and vice versa, and nobody is reading because the conversation has moved on. Good night.
[…] I’m not going to convince you and vice versa […]
First, I try to stay open to other people’s opinions. Second, I simply wasn’t sure what your comment was referring to — I was hoping that you could clarify what you meant.
Enough with the spammy questions. […]
Spamming wasn’t my intention. All of my comments have been made in good faith. At any rate, questions seeking clarification or elaboration wouldn’t be necessary if you weren’t engaging in conjecture — which is rather ironic given the topic of this post.
[…] nobody is reading because the conversation has moved on […]
Well, given the current votes on your comment [1], I’d argue on the contrary.
References
- Author: @[email protected] [To: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” @[email protected]. “Showerthoughts” [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-12T00:07:44Z. Accessed: 2024-12-12T07:09Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13923341.
- The comment’s score is +1/-3.
- Author: @[email protected] [To: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” @[email protected]. “Showerthoughts” [email protected]. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-12T00:07:44Z. Accessed: 2024-12-12T07:09Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13923341.
Legitimate news outlets do pretty thorough fact-checking, if only to avoid litigation
Are you saying that any claims made by “legitimate news outlets” can be trusted without cited sources simply because they are deemed “legitimate”?
Sure. Anyone can challenge a legit news source through litigation. How often do you think NYTimes is sent legal threats over factual questions in their reporting? Probably dozens of letters each week. Why do those letters never result in lawsuits with real results? Because the papers keep their records tight.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Lol
When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source.
When reading opinion I definitely do a bit more digging, keeping an eye out for half truths. I wouldn’t consider this to be journalism
When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source. […]
For clarity, do you mean that you don’t care if they cite their claims?
Hell, it doesn’t even need to be lies. You can paint whatever story you want with the truth.
I’m not sure I follow what you mean. Would you mind stating your point more explicitly?
Wording, the part of the truth you tell, what other truths you tell before and after.
You watch or read any big event by two papers with different views, both will probably tell the same facts but the tone, the implications, and the interpretation of the facts will be completely different.
Example:
“A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company” *And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.
“A men struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”. *And now we cut about news about serial killers.
Far more eloquent than I ever could have put it beautiful job, thank you.
I’ll look at each of your examples independently (note that all that follows is my own opinion, and should be interpreted as conjecture):
“A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company” *And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.
- “young boy”: This is opinion — what one person calls young may differ from another. Proper reporting, imo, would specify the exact age only, and cite where they know that age from. The emotionally charged language like “young”, and “boy” should be omitted.
- “justice”: This is opinion — what one person calls justice may differ from another. It may even be considered verifiably false depending on one’s definition of justice.
- “after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company”: If the reporting is only on an event that happened, this information that follows is irrelevant and only serves to emotionally charge one’s interpretation — it is not good faith journalism.
A men [sic] struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”.
- “A [man]”: Whether someone is a “man” is a matter of opinion. I’m not aware of a hard definition. It’s especially not used with an exact definition in colloquial speech. It should be omitted and replaced with the age of the individual with a source citing how that age is known.
- “struggling with mental illness”: If the reporting is only on the event that happened (ie the killing of the CEO), this information is unnecessary and only serves to emotionally charge the reporting.
- “severe medical issues”: Severity is a matter of opinion. This is emotionally charged. It can be removed for the same reason as “struggling with mental illness”.
- “assassinated”: This is pure conjecture and relies on a source — it may not be known to be an actual assassination (assuming that assassination is interpreted as a hired hit on someone).
- “a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”: Emotionally charged and can be removed if the reporting is specifically only on the event.
Both are, by definition [1], not journalism (regardless of the position they are taking), as they are mixing opinions with facts, and are attempting to interpret them, as was shown above.
References
- “journalism”. Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-12T01:34Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism.
- §2.b.
writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
- §2.b.
They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. Opinion commentators can say whatever they want because it’s their opinion. Big difference.
They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. […]
I agree that it would make it statistically likely that their claims are accurate, but their reputation isn’t proof of their claim’s veracity [1].
References
- “Argument from authority”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-10-22T14:01. Accessed: 2024-12-12T06:52Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.
- ¶1-¶2.
An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.
The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.
- ¶1-¶2.
- “Argument from authority”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-10-22T14:01. Accessed: 2024-12-12T06:52Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.
most towns used to have more than one newspaper and they used to display their political bias happily on the front page.
all the sides were represented by five or six different people discussing an issue with maybe each person bringing a different side from a different paper to the discussion.
tv and cable and internet tore apart that public dialectic.
and it forced fewer papers to try to portray more sides “equally”.
now a city is lucky if it has one newspaper. and they can’t possibly cover every angle any longer because if you have been in a newsroom in the past 15 years for most small to medium town they are like four people now when 30 was required for reporting, photography, editing, and classified section. And the big towns now might have two that both bend towards the middle from the left and right with a stripped down, skinny and pissed workers.
So sorry conversation amongst a varied and well read public is required for that to work.
and no one reads anymore we all just write and move on.
It makes you a rational human.
There have been journalists publishing accidentally and maliciously false articles since the dawn of the press.
It’s healthy to engage in appropriate scepticism of all that you read, particularly that of the press. Fact check everything that doesn’t feel right (or anything that feels too reductive or simplified), over time you get a feel for who the serial liars are and who are generally reporting faithfully
[…] Fact check everything that doesn’t feel right (or anything that feels too reductive or simplified) […]
Ideally, imo, the news outlets could lift some of that burden by citing their own sources so that I don’t have to do their investigative work for them.
[…] over time you get a feel for who the serial liars are and who are generally reporting faithfully
Sure, but even then I would still like to see cited sources; without them, my trust would begin to erode.
I wish there were a fact checking website that allowed checking any article and calculating scores e.g how many claims are linked, where do the links point to (available or not), are the linked pages trust-worthy themselves, detecting link circles ( A -> B -> C -> A), and so on. Or at least something that provided us the tools to do community fact-checking in the open.
You basically described the PageRank system, but at an article level. I suppose it’s theoretically possible with LLM tools, but not an easy task. It also has a pretty big gap of how to define a source as trustworthy.
But it might be doable on a simpler level - if you were to ask the AI if an article’s claims match other sources, you might at least find the outliers.
No? For a start, journalists write news, are you writing it down in an article afterwards?
[…] journalists write news […].
If an article hasn’t cited any sources, then, imo, it isn’t news — it’s just conjecture.
If an article hasn’t cited any sources, then, imo, it isn’t news
News are those sources for a lot of situations. Someone has to create the primary source at the point of something happening or existing. That’s a news article. This can later be cited by somebody else “As reported by Reuters at xyz…”. There exist other sources of course, which are, kinda, The News™️ in their respective areas of events. Scientific findings usually have published works as their primary source. Computer vulnerabilities use CWEs or something equivalent once made public.
What source could a reporter sitting on a street in a civil unrest cite? Signed, ID-verified, named and double-checked-against-birth-certificate statements from people around him?
News isn’t a primary source. In most cases its a secondary source. They ask the primary “what happened” or get a press release from wherever and report on that.
They can be a primary source if they are live on location recording something as it happens. In that case, only the video (or written account) and individuals are primary sources, the second it goes through the studio’s writers it becomes a secondary source.
Journalist is defined as anyone who writes for public news media. If op writes an article an publicly posts it, they are a blogger. If they post it anywhere that can be considered a news site (IMO, if their a own site is a news site, it counts), they are a journalist.
A good journalists is one who takes in many primary sources, maybe fills the gaps with some other secondaries and informs the public with the most informed information they have. Unfortunately corporate news has become an echo chamber of secondary sources with no one independently looking at primary sources. If it ain’t cited don’t trust it.
If the OP of the shower thought, basically fact checks someone else, then they are doing the work of a journalist. However simply doing a bit of work does not earn you the title, just like replacing a light switch at your house does not make you an electrician (even if you do it better then some of the “professionals”)
[…] However simply doing a bit of work does not earn you the title, just like replacing a light switch at your house does not make you an electrician […]
Hm, I’m not sure that that’s a fair comparison. If it is assumed that an electrician must be licensed in order to practice as one (and assuming that they can only call themself an electrician if they practice as one), do journalists have similar requirements? I may simply be ignorant, but I’ve not found any examples that a journalist must be licensed in order to practice. Such licensing feels like it would start infringing on fundamental rights.
No you don’t need a license to be a journalist.
My thought was more about the scale of the project. For a journalists, just fact checking someone online doesn’t make you a journalists. If you went out to fact check something at the source, compiled a bunch of evidence and presented it publicly, then you’d call your self a journalist.
Back to the electrician (ignoring license requirements), swapping out a light switch isn’t much, but if you learned how to rewired a whole house, install panels, ceilings fans, etc - you’d call you self an electrition.
And you’re right, the electrician is kind of a bad comparison.
[…] For a journalists, just fact checking someone online doesn’t make you a journalists. If you went out to fact check something at the source, compiled a bunch of evidence and presented it publicly, then you’d call your self a journalist. […]
I agree — it fits by definition [1], at the very least.
References
- “journalism”. Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-12T01:09Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism.
- §2.b.
writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
- §2.b.
- “journalism”. Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-12T01:09Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism.
[…] Scientific findings usually have published works as their primary source. […]
In that case, imo, the initial reporting would be the research paper, and the literal root source would be the data that they collected.
[…] What source could a reporter sitting on a street in a civil unrest cite? […]
Imo, footage, audio, etc.
[…] Someone has to create the primary source at the point of something happening or existing. […]
Presumably the event was recorded, or the thing existing measured. Imo, these recordings and measurements would be what’s cited and reported on as novel information in a news article. I could possibly be convinced otherwise, but I think that the mere action of recording, or measuring isn’t news on its own — it must be published.
…yes…but you do understand a journalist is someone who writes/reads news right? They’re not just sat around with sources for no reason, those sources are specifically so they can report news…that’s the point. What do you think a source is!?
I’m not sure I understand your point. Essentially the only point that I was making was that for what’s written to not be considered conjecture, any claims that it makes must be cited [1].
References
- “conjecture”. Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:47Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture.
inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence
Your original post asks if you’re a journalist for fact checking articles, we got to these comments from that.
Where do you think sources end? If I mention that biden is currently president, do I need a source linked? If 1+1 is 2, do I need to provide a source? Do I need to source the definitions of every word? Do I need a source that vaccines don’t cause autism? That 5g doesn’t cause COVID?
It’s hard to discuss this without knowing what text you’re referring to, and if I go back to check if you mentioned it I’ll lose my comment because I’m using an app. Some things don’t need sourcing because they’re accepted facts, like who the president is, basic science, simple maths, etc, but most important, the things that an article should always cite are the claims the article itself is making. I wouldn’t cite sources for 5G not causing covid, for example, unless the article was specifically about that.
[…] Where do you think sources end? […]
For anything practical, I don’t think it’s possible to give an exact answer to that — in practice, I think that, at the very least, making a conscious effort to maximize accuracy and minimize bias would go a long way. Imo, it gets tricky rather quick when debates of the veracity of sources themselves begins.
[…] Some things don’t need sourcing because they’re accepted facts […]
It think it, at least, depends on context. Personally, I strive to cite any claim that I make.
[…] I wouldn’t cite sources for 5G not causing covid, for example, unless the article was specifically about that.
How come? If one’s knowledge of a topic derives from a location, I think one should cite that location when discussing that topic, otherwise it’s just conjecture.
Same reason I don’t provide a source magic and wizards and fairy tales not existing. Anyone stupid enough to believe obvious rubbish doesn’t care what your source is.
[…] If I mention that biden is currently president, do I need a source linked? If 1+1 is 2, do I need to provide a source? Do I need to source the definitions of every word? Do I need a source that vaccines don’t cause autism? That 5g doesn’t cause COVID? […]
In an ideal world, imo, yes, those all would be cited.
- “conjecture”. Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:47Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture.
[…] journalists write news, are you writing it down in an article afterwards?
If that is the accepted definition of journalism, then you are right I wouldn’t fit (Wikipedia’s definition, however, does state that sources are required when writing [1]), but that isn’t exactly the point that I was getting at by this post.
References
- “Journalist”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-10T06:50Z. Accessed: 2024-12-10T08:44Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist.
- §“Roles”. ¶2.
A reporter is a type of journalist who researches, writes and reports on information in order to present using sources. […]
- §“Roles”. ¶2.
Ok how are you fact checking, are you finding people with expertise and contacting them or googling and using whatever shite websites come up as a source? If the latter, how are you verifying the veracity of those sources?
And yes sources are required but that doesn’t mean that’s ALL that’s required or you wouldn’t have newspapers or organisations, just some people calling themselves journalists that have a bunch of sources, but nobody knows what for because they’ve never produced a piece of journalism for them to be of use.
The idea used to be that you find a news source that is the most reliable. Now half the world just finds the one that confirms their biases the most, and their biases are fucking stupid after decades of lies and education cuts from various rich cunts.
[…] how are you fact checking, are you finding people with expertise and contacting them or googling and using whatever shite websites come up as a source? […]
It depends on the context.
And yes sources are required but that doesn’t mean that’s ALL that’s required or you wouldn’t have newspapers or organisations, just some people calling themselves journalists that have a bunch of sources.
I agree that the existence of sources aren’t themselves examples of journalism.
[…] The idea used to be that you find a news source that is the most reliable. Now half the world just finds the one that confirms their biases the most […]
How are you determining/measuring reliability?
Fact checking, obviously.
Using what method? You seemed to be making a point that an “average person” isn’t qualified to fact check claims when you said
Ok how are you fact checking, are you finding people with expertise and contacting them or googling and using whatever shite websites come up as a source? If the latter, how are you verifying the veracity of those sources?
- “Journalist”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-10T06:50Z. Accessed: 2024-12-10T08:44Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist.
I’m convinced OP is a bot. I will not cite my sources. Eat my shorts T-1000 🤖
I’m convinced OP is a bot. […]
I’m not. What made you so convinced?
[…] I will not cite my sources. […]
I only recommend that you do, based on my own personal opinions.
