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

31–40 of 72 posts

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

#31

Post by cloakandswagger »

ternaryoperator wrote: post #28
cloakandswagger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>The former porn star/professional escort that David Mikkelson divorced his wife to marry is now an administrator at Snopes

She now works as an admin for Snopes. Read the entire comment before kneejerk replying champ

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

#32

Post by justinlaster »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #21
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.

"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…

> I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted.

Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?

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

#33

Post by api »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #21
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.

"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…

They also launched their reputation by picking on low hanging fruit. Debunking the idea that the towers were taken down on 9/11 with lasers or that Michael Jackson is still alive is not hard.

Now they are into very fuzzy realms where they are going to have to fact check claims that are plausible. That's hard work. You have to actually... uhh... check the actual claims.

Nobody really fact checks anymore because it's damn expensive. Unless someone gives them a budget for real gumshoe work, Snopes will just end up applying a bunch of political bias filters and lazy heuristics. Facebook could get that with deep learning so I'm not sure why they'd be interested.

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

#34

Post by anigbrowl »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #19
caf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does it throw all their journalistic credibility into question? When I consult Snopes, I care about the predictive power of the the information they share, ie whether it will inform me accurately enough to guess where the story will go. I use it for additional data points rather than to form a conclusion, although I appreciate the thoroughness when they go to the trouble of exploring historical context etc.

So the founder of Snopes may be financially dishonest and driven by sex thrills...but this doesn't invalidate their research on external questions. It's not like I looked to them for moral guidance about, well, anything.

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

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

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 a hit piece, but then so is the Daily Mail article, and the DM has been a scandal sheet for most of its history.

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

#36

Post by kaleidic »

I learnt from Popper that the facts are theory - laden and from Feynman that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

This whole attempt to control the discourse is doomed. There's no such thing as objectivity - ones understanding of the world is shaped by one's experiences and who one is, and that's true for institutions too.

Character matters for an editorial institution, as does form. Snopes built its reputation one way, and became something quite different. And yet they have been granted a role of high influence by Facebook and thus it's in the spirit of good journalism to look into the extent to which they deserve this influence, and the character of the people involved does matter.

One could say that the Mail also isn't a globalist paper and so that naturally sets their perspective against Snopes.

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

#37

Post by [deleted] »

kaleidic wrote: post #36

I learnt from Popper that the facts are theory - laden and from Feynman that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. This whole attempt to control the discourse is doomed. There's no such thing as objectivity - ones understanding of the world is shaped by one's experiences and who one is, and that's true for institutions too. Character matters for an editorial institution, as does form. Snopes built its re…

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by Turing_Machine »

justinlaster wrote: post #32
Turing_Machine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?

"Factual reporting" according to whom?

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

#39

Post by ikeboy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #35
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 a hit piece, but then so is the Daily Mail article, and the DM has been a scandal sheet for most of its history.

Yeah but I have higher expectations from the guardian.

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

#40

Post by cloakandswagger »

anigbrowl wrote: post #34
cloakandswagger wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does it throw all their journalistic credibility into question? When I consult Snopes, I care about the predictive power of the the information they share, ie whether it will inform me accurately enough to guess where the story will go. I use it for additional data points rather than to form a conclusion, although I appreciate the thoroughness when they go to the trouble of exploring historical context etc. So th…

I'm going to answer this question under the assumption that you truly don't understand some of the core tenets regarding journalistic integrity.

On the surface, your argument is correct; the facts are the facts, and no amount of moral corruption will change that. Things get hairy when you remember that our world is anything other than black and white: facts can be distorted, misrepresented or ignored to deliver an entirely different message, even if they are still (technically) "factual".

This is why you don't want a known sleazebag for a reporter. Not only do they have a provably skewed moral compass that would let them deviate from pure "fact-based" reporting, there is also a safe assumption that they have other, worse skeletons in their closet which would mean they're susceptible to being blackmailed into deviating from pure "fact-based" reporting.

Post reply on HN