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

21–30 of 72 posts

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

#21

Post by Turing_Machine »

justinlaster wrote: post #16
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.

"I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted."

You have it exactly backwards. I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. The Mikkelsons were self-appointed "authorities" from the beginning, with zero actual expertise or credentials in most of the areas they opine upon.

Edit: I should add that I view any organization that feels the need to use "truth", "fact", or similar in its name with an extremely jaundiced eye. It's reminiscent of Pravda and "Honest John's Used Cars". Organizations with actual earned credibility don't use names like that, as a rule.

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

#22

Post by cloakandswagger »

justinlaster wrote: post #16
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.

Here's one: The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes. No amount of mental gymnastics can get me to look past those red flags.

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

#23

Post by Natsu »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
Natsu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Yeah, that's the one. Thank you.

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

#24

Post by anigbrowl »

Natsu wrote: post #14
anigbrowl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that unfavorable information is out there doesn't obviate a contractual agreement not to discuss it in public per the settlement. Doing something that could cost you (as here) is the very foundation of contract.

I neither know nor much care how their operation runs, and it's not my purpose to defend it. To be honest I've never especially liked the people who run it; their deconstructions of internet rumors are often snarky and shallow, and undermine their factual value with distracting tone issues - but that's how they choose to run their business. I'm just pointing to the fact of the site's general reliability as a fact-checking service over a long period.

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

#25

Post by Turing_Machine »

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…

Kalev Leetaru's c.v.:

http://kalevleetaru.com/vita.pdf

David Mikkelson's c.v.:

?

(disclaimer: I know Kalev slightly)

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

#26

Post by crucini »

Applying the idea of "fact checking" to politically charged topics inherently raises problems. Snopes was a good site to find out if there were really alligators in the sewers. The Forbes article cited by rokosbasilisk here seems to demand a high standard of quality from fact checkers - but who is to pay for it?

Now, The Guardian chose some headlines to illustrate this story with. Presumably the Guardian considers them good examples of "fake news". One of them is about the Clintons "stealing $200K worth of furniture" etc. Politifact has a surprisingly detailed page on this allegation. The result is, typically, gray. It wasn't $200K (suspiciously round number); closer to $190K. And the Clintons paid for or returned the "stolen" items; which either makes them "not stolen" or "stolen and returned".

But the whole claim of "theft" rests on the items' designation as national property, which may not have been clear at the time.

Given that this headline is an example of what the media (including Facebook) wants to shield the masses from - what then do they want the masses to hear? Is it (a) nothing, (b) inoculation/discrediting by labelling the meme as "fake news"; (c) a less sensationalized headlines?

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

#27

Post by ternaryoperator »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
Natsu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

The quote appears to be from Carl Sandburg[1]

The variant I've heard is: "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the facts and the law are against you, get a new client."

[1] http://able2know.org/topic/98689-1

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

#28

Post by ternaryoperator »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #22
justinlaster wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's one: The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes. No amount of mental gymnastics can get me to look past those red flags.

Because he married a pornstar means he doesn't do the research properly, wat?

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

#29

Post by justinlaster »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #22
justinlaster wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here's one: The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes. No amount of mental gymnastics can get me to look past those red flags.

That's not substantive, and certainly doesn't have any effect on the thousands and thousands of articles they've posted.

Would you care to link that tenuous red flag to the investigate articles Scopes produces in some fashion?

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

#30

Post by ternaryoperator »

alex- wrote: post #5

I guess a publication like the mail has two big reasons to feel threatened by a rise of fact checking sites. 1. It inhibits their ability to embellish stories and thus could effect revenue. 2. If you need to goto some trust worthy organisation to fact check. Why do you need to visit the publisher first?

It's part of the "fake news" nihilism. You attack everything and anything that can limit the scope of the deceit you're creating.
Post reply on HN