Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking • Hacker News Board

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#181

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:26 PM UTC

bwest87 wrote: post #170

carrier_lost wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul Graham is entitled to his opinion. I am a professional journalist and I disagree. Journalists use the word "embattled" the way Merriam-Webster defines it: "characterized by conflict or controversy." Typically it applies to a person who has been heavily criticized, or accused of wrongdoing at length or by many people. Accurately describing a person as such is not at all the same as the journalist declaring a pers…

I think PG is getting at a larger point, which I heavily agree with, that journalists very often use words that imply a lot of "story" that is not supported by "facts". For example, I just went on to the NYTimes Economy section right now, and the second article says "Short of Workers, US Farmers Crave More Immigrants". Crave? Really? Cable news is horrendous about this. They do stuff all the time that's like, "Senato…

> I think PG is getting at a larger point, which I heavily agree with, that journalists very often use words that imply a lot of "story" that is not supported by "facts".

And he illustrates this larger point with specific claims that are, themselves, unsupported by facts and constructed around the narrative he is trying to push.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#182

Post by beat » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

fundingshovel wrote: post #172

beat wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See previous post. If you can't produce links and quotes, then that's just, like, your opinion, man.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-g... https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/maga-hat-wearing-teens-tau...

Firsthand quote from the VOX article...

“It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’” Phillips told the Washington Post in a separate interview. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.”

The article is explicit. It notes that Phillips initiated contact because they were harassing another group. But it also makes it clear, with quotes, that he believes they began harassing him instead.

Now, if you want to say Phillips is lying, you can do that, but unless you do that, at least one of your articles does not support your contention.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#183

Post by astine » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:40 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #128

jimmy1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most recent and obvious case in my mind: Covington Catholic Incident: almost every major mainstream media outlet ran with the narrative that the boys were harassing the Native Americans which was based solely on one video clip. No traditional investigative work was done. No one was interviewed (until the damage had been done). Nothing was fact checked. It was just one video, and boom: instant headlines.

I disagree. Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion. Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact, confirmed by the video and photos. If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes. That's how fact-checking works, and your response is failing it badly.

"If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes"

This is essentially what you're looking for: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwi...

The short story is that when news about the incident first emerged, it was lacking the context about the Black Hebrew Nationalists antagonizing the boys. Early coverage made it sound like the boys sought out Mr Phillips to antagonize him. When it turned out that he had inserted himself into the situation, rightly or wrongly, it changes a lot. This doesn't necessarily exonerate the teenagers--you might still find stuff to criticize about their behavior--but it does provide a more sympathetic context, one that was missing with the initial press coverage.

So yes, whatever your final takeaway, the initial coverage was incomplete and people did form and share very strong opinions based on that incomplete coverage. Once more information came out, many people changed their minds while others stuck by their initial takes. Had the coverage been more complete before people starting making opinions, we might have avoided a lot of unnecessary kerfuffle over this.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#184

Post by Macross8299 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:45 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #176

jessaustin wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I've never heard of Nicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt, or Mark Mazzetti. I don't suspect them of anything horrible, but neither do they have "reputations" on which I can rely. Taibbi in his recent essay observed that reporters without established reputations get lower-quality anonymous tips (i.e., "lies") from insiders than better-known reporters get. In this case multiple no-name authors are actually less reput…

I haven't heard of the journalists who wrote the article. I have, however, heard of the New York Times. I trust the NYT to vet its reporters carefully, and to review relevant facts. If someone wants to go off on "liberal media fake news", well, fuck them. They're not interested in facts anyway, and there's no point in debating such idiots. As for "specific knowledge of wrongdoing"... well. What's "wrongdoing" here? B…

>Apparently, people in the investigation itself are unhappy with that summary

But the article doesn't even say that they heard the investigators say that. At best it's hearsay and gossip of n-th degree, at worst it's outright misrepresentation of the facts.

Look at the weasel words: "according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations."

Who are government officials in this usage? And what qualifies someone as "familiar" with the matter? How many people work as a government official in some capacity and could claim some vague familiarity with the Mueller report? Does a park ranger in Wyoming who follows political news qualify? It wouldn't be technically lying to cite them as a "government official familiar with the matter", right?

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#185

Post by beat » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:49 PM UTC

Macross8299 wrote: post #178

beat wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the problem with that sentence? People speak to the press off the record all the time; it's part of the process. Unless the NYT doesn't actually have these sources, there's nothing wrong with it. Of course, all we have for proof is their reputation as a newspaper for integrity, and the word of any reporters involved, but reporters have often gone to jail rather than reveal anonymous sources.

>Unless the NYT doesn't actually have these sources, there's nothing wrong with it It doesn't even have to come down to bad intentions or journalists intentionally lying about their anonymous sources, it's the fact that I have no way of reasonably knowing whether the NYT got tricked or lied to. Maybe their so-called "anonymous source" is just taking credulous journalists for a ride. I'm expected to just put blind fai…

Crypto aside (I think it's useless nonsense in this case, but that's me), my gripe with journalism isn't the facts... it's the stenography. Some serial liar (coughcoughTrumpcough) says the sky is falling because the Sun rises in the West and the idea that it rises in the East is liberal fake news, and the media dutifully reports the quote and doesn't call them on their shit. And then the debate over whether the Sun rises in the east or the west is treated as he-said-she-said opinion by the media.

That is a real problem. Not anonymous sources or fact-checking.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#186

Post by jasonlotito » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:49 PM UTC

YazIAm wrote: post #21

jasonlotito wrote: post #20

How does this handle anonymous sources? Not only do you have to account for what those sources say, but also, a reporter reporting what an anonymous source said can be 100% factual (Yes, the anonymous, valid source was indeed reported accurately), but maybe the anonymous source is incorrect. The reporting is accurate. The source is not. Basically, a lot of grey area. And with that comes the issue of anything not "fac…

Only public primary sources are allowed as evidence on SourcedFact. Anonymous sources certainly have value within journalism, but the goal of SourcedFact is to make facts that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with public primary sources stand out from everything else.

Okay. I think as long as that distinction is clear, sounds good!

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#187

Post by beat » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 8:52 PM UTC

Macross8299 wrote: post #184

beat wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't heard of the journalists who wrote the article. I have, however, heard of the New York Times. I trust the NYT to vet its reporters carefully, and to review relevant facts. If someone wants to go off on "liberal media fake news", well, fuck them. They're not interested in facts anyway, and there's no point in debating such idiots. As for "specific knowledge of wrongdoing"... well. What's "wrongdoing" here? B…

>Apparently, people in the investigation itself are unhappy with that summary But the article doesn't even say that they heard the investigators say that. At best it's hearsay and gossip of n-th degree, at worst it's outright misrepresentation of the facts. Look at the weasel words: "according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations." Who are government officials in this usage? A…

Stories are leaked through cutouts like this for good reason, politically. What I'm saying is that the layers don't make it untrue, and decent journalism will catch most misrepresentation.

You say "weasel words", I say "We think you should take this with a grain of salt". They're being explicitly clear that their sources are secondhand. What's your answer? That they shouldn't run the story at all?

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#188

Post by metasj » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #109

Awkward question here... can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? Just because a bunch of people believe it's a problem doesn't mean it's a problem. I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.

My favorite example, much clearer even than Covington (and never corrected in the major media): the bus driver who drove drove his bus off of a bridge: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46068412

For whatever reason, the official police report implied that a passenger struggled with the driver causing the disaster. The next day, video footage of the entire event was released (from the security cam inside the bus), showing a different story. The driver pretty clearly decides to go over the edge, turns the wheel, and does not flinch or turn it back as they go over.

After the video came out, dozens of major outlets covered the story. Almost all ran with "passenger hits driver causing crash", one or two did not specify a cause. No major outlet suggested [what seems to me to be] the most likely account, which is "driver deliberately drives bus off of bridge during argument with passenger".

In contrast, on youtube / other social media, most commentators pointed out that the driver seemed to crash deliberately, changing course many seconds after the passenger hits him on the arm with her phone.

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#189

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

ajvs wrote: post #165

beat wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was his intent to intimidate? Why do you say that? How is that a "fact"? Where did you even hear that story? Geez, y'all don't understand fact checking at all .

Does it matter what he says his intent was? He can paint whatever story he likes in interviews, but nobody would appreciate a random person going right in their face and beating a drum, especially a young kid. You can even see him flinching because of the proximity. Not sure what you're talking about "hearing that story", the video evidence is clear as day.

[deleted unpopular opinion]

Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking

#190

Post by Macross8299 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #187

Macross8299 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apparently, people in the investigation itself are unhappy with that summary But the article doesn't even say that they heard the investigators say that. At best it's hearsay and gossip of n-th degree, at worst it's outright misrepresentation of the facts. Look at the weasel words: "according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations." Who are government officials in this usage? A…

Stories are leaked through cutouts like this for good reason, politically. What I'm saying is that the layers don't make it untrue, and decent journalism will catch most misrepresentation. You say "weasel words", I say "We think you should take this with a grain of salt". They're being explicitly clear that their sources are secondhand. What's your answer? That they shouldn't run the story at all?

>What they shouldn't run the story at all?

Well, I think as you get more and more degrees removed from a primary source, the closer the article gets to being gossip and/or somebody's opinion and not factual news. Which is fine, there's a market for stuff like that. But I don't think that's very sustainable if you want to maintain a reputation as a purveyor of fact-based reporting.

There's a reason hearsay isn't generally admissable in a court of law.