Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#11

Post by ikeboy »

camtarn wrote: post #9
ikeboy wrote: post #7

It's poor form for the guardian to not link the original article, at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fac... The guardian article is a hit piece, and a poorly written one at that. It gives very little information and a lot of vague or indirect criticism. (Makes you think how much more effective hit pieces can be when the writer actually has something to work with: even this will probably convi…

[edit] I completely misread the comment above as asking Hacker News to link to the original source article, not for the Guardian to have linked it. My bad, and I agree with the parent. For any other reputable news source I'd totally agree - but in this case, it's poor form to give the Daily Mail your ad revenue. This is not any regular newspaper: it is a mouthpiece for an organised hate campaign aimed at stirring up…

If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. They barely summarised it.

The reasons you gave don't rise to that level.

If the other critique I made—that they don't actually mention anything wrong with the mail article— wouldn't be the case, it wouldn't be as bad.

But the fact that they didn't make any substantive critiques of the article and didn't link it makes it a hit piece.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#12

Post by camtarn »

rokosbasilisk wrote: post #2

I would have agreed with this article until the forbes story broke. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dail... It makes snopes look worse run than a college newspaper. I also agree with the forbes article in that we need much much tranparency and openess from our fact checkers.

It feels like Snopes outgrew its roots in urban-legend debunking, and decided to scale up to more real-time fact-checking - either because they saw a commercial opportunity, or just because they felt that they had a duty to do so. I was really surprised earlier this year when I realized they'd employed a staff - for so many years, Snopes was just Barbara and David Mikkelson.

It's a pity if they did scale up for altruistic reasons, but in the process ended up out of their depth - fact-checking news stories in a highly controversial and partisan environment seems like an entirely different kettle of fish than unravelling easily-debunked urban legends.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#13

Post by camtarn »

ikeboy wrote: post #11
camtarn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[edit] I completely misread the comment above as asking Hacker News to link to the original source article, not for the Guardian to have linked it. My bad, and I agree with the parent. For any other reputable news source I'd totally agree - but in this case, it's poor form to give the Daily Mail your ad revenue. This is not any regular newspaper: it is a mouthpiece for an organised hate campaign aimed at stirring up…

If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. They barely summarised it. The reasons you gave don't rise to that level. If the other critique I made—that they don't actually mention anything wrong with the mail article— wouldn't be the case, it wouldn't be as bad. But the fact that they didn't make any substantive critiques of the art…

I apologise - I totally misread your comment, and thought it was a request for Hacker News to have linked to the Daily Mail article. Yes, I agree that the Guardian should have linked to it.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#14

Post by Natsu »

anigbrowl wrote: post #4
rokosbasilisk wrote: post #2

I would have agreed with this article until the forbes story broke. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dail... It makes snopes look worse run than a college newspaper. I also agree with the forbes article in that we need much much tranparency and openess from our fact checkers.

Oh please, this is a typical bullshit story from a site with famously loose editorial oversight itself. It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.” This absolut…

It's not the fact that there is a divorce settlement, but the contents thereof which are at issue. If this were entirely false (as I would have expected from the Daily Mail), they could've said as much.

But there are quite a few things, like the allegations of criminal activity (e.g. embezzlement) going on at Snopes that reasonable people might have questions about with respect to their fact-checking operations.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#15

Post by ikeboy »

camtarn wrote: post #13
ikeboy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. They barely summarised it. The reasons you gave don't rise to that level. If the other critique I made—that they don't actually mention anything wrong with the mail article— wouldn't be the case, it wouldn't be as bad. But the fact that they didn't make any substantive critiques of the art…

I apologise - I totally misread your comment, and thought it was a request for Hacker News to have linked to the Daily Mail article. Yes, I agree that the Guardian should have linked to it.

Guess I wasn't clear, I edited my comment above. Thanks for that.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#16

Post by justinlaster »

rokosbasilisk wrote: post #2

I would have agreed with this article until the forbes story broke. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dail... It makes snopes look worse run than a college newspaper. I also agree with the forbes article in that we need much much tranparency and openess from our fact checkers.

You're going to give a Forbes article more credence than Snopes? I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#17

Post by dragonwriter »

Natsu wrote: post #10
rokosbasilisk wrote: post #2

I would have agreed with this article until the forbes story broke. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dail... It makes snopes look worse run than a college newspaper. I also agree with the forbes article in that we need much much tranparency and openess from our fact checkers.

There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table. The Guardian won't even repeat, let alone attempt to refute, anything published in the Daily Mail. Just let that sink in for a moment: the Guardian is unable to dispute the Daily Mail on a factual level on this one. Instead they talk about everything and anything else rather than discuss the actual subject matter in the reports. "N…

> There's a lawyer's saying that when the facts are against you, you pound on the table.

The usual saying is, "When the law is on your side, argue the law; when the facts are on your side, argue the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table."

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#18

Post by caf »

ikeboy wrote: post #7

It's poor form for the guardian to not link the original article, at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fac... The guardian article is a hit piece, and a poorly written one at that. It gives very little information and a lot of vague or indirect criticism. (Makes you think how much more effective hit pieces can be when the writer actually has something to work with: even this will probably convi…

It's not a "hit piece" any more than your comment is. It's an opinion piece.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#19

Post by cloakandswagger »

caf wrote: post #18
ikeboy wrote: post #7

It's poor form for the guardian to not link the original article, at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fac... The guardian article is a hit piece, and a poorly written one at that. It gives very little information and a lot of vague or indirect criticism. (Makes you think how much more effective hit pieces can be when the writer actually has something to work with: even this will probably convi…

It's not a "hit piece" any more than your comment is. It's an opinion piece.

A pretty bizarre opinion at that. They seem to be suggesting that all of those knighted with "fact checker" status should be above criticism/investigation, and anyone who does shine a light at them is just "afraid of the truth."

I happen to think that the founder of Snopes embezzling $98K and spending it on prostitutes is relevant, as it throws their entire journalistic credibility into question.

Re: Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?

#20

Post by cloakandswagger »

camtarn wrote: post #12
rokosbasilisk wrote: post #2

I would have agreed with this article until the forbes story broke. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dail... It makes snopes look worse run than a college newspaper. I also agree with the forbes article in that we need much much tranparency and openess from our fact checkers.

It feels like Snopes outgrew its roots in urban-legend debunking, and decided to scale up to more real-time fact-checking - either because they saw a commercial opportunity, or just because they felt that they had a duty to do so. I was really surprised earlier this year when I realized they'd employed a staff - for so many years, Snopes was just Barbara and David Mikkelson. It's a pity if they did scale up for altru…

I don't think they are naive or altruistic at all; that same partisan environment offers huge amounts of wealth if you consign with one faction or another.

I'm sure being an Official Facebook Fact Checker is a job that pays quite well.

Post reply on HN