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

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

sourcedfact.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 303 posts

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

#111

Post by ben509 »

snarf21 wrote: post #97
rootusrootus wrote: post #59

Great project, but this seems like a classic example of a programmer naively assuming a technical solution can solve a social problem.

Agreed, it is also a question of goals. Journalists can bend "facts" to support the argument they want. Title are 99% click-bait anymore. Sure there are some people who want to present fair and balanced view points but that takes a ton of work and time. Most "journalism" these days is get likes and move on.

Fact checking was very effective for publications like Readers' Digest that routinely invited guest authors. The publication wanted a variety of authors to contribute, and they also had a reputation to defend.

If you've ever been interviewed by a modern journo, you know you just get the same question reworded a dozen different ways. The reason is that they decide what story they want to write up front, and then just go shopping for facts to support it. That story is usually dictated by market pressures, which presently reward sensationalism to feed the addiction of a dwindling number of listeners in an echo chambers.

And current fact checkers are typically checking material put out by others, which is completely broken. They have all the same incentives as anyone writing a hit / puff piece, except they put a phony "truth number" at the top and other sites will tally those up as though it means something.

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

#112

Post by jimmy1 »

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.

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.

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

#113

Post by _mitch »

Just a couple quick feedback points:

I'd prefer if the currently selected fact text remained highlighted when the mouse is not hovered over it. That way you know what the active "Investigate >" link is referring to.

Also, for accessibility and convenience, it would be nice if you could tab through the instances of the fact text blocks.

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

#114

Post by smacktoward »

weberc2 wrote: post #100
snarf21 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, it is also a question of goals. Journalists can bend "facts" to support the argument they want. Title are 99% click-bait anymore. Sure there are some people who want to present fair and balanced view points but that takes a ton of work and time. Most "journalism" these days is get likes and move on.

Right. Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid. Still, it seems valuable to make it easy for readers to view the supporting or contradictory evidence. That might’ve stymied many notable media hit-pieces. Of course, many newsrooms wouldn’t want this (at least I can’t imagine The Guardian and it’s ilk would want to draw attention to their own impoverished fact:BS ratios), so it wou…

> Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid.

Or they simply can't afford to employ fact checkers anymore, now that people refuse to pay for news.

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

#115

Post by YazIAm »

_mitch wrote: post #113

Just a couple quick feedback points: I'd prefer if the currently selected fact text remained highlighted when the mouse is not hovered over it. That way you know what the active "Investigate >" link is referring to. Also, for accessibility and convenience, it would be nice if you could tab through the instances of the fact text blocks.

Thanks for the feedback, the second (accessibility) should be a quick fix.

I definitely also want to address the first issue, the tricky part is coming up with a solution that also works when there are multiple assertions on one line, but I'll give it more thought.

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

#116

Post by paulsutter »

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.

Paul Graham: "If a journalist describes you as "embattled," they're saying you're guilty as charged. The word basically doesn't exist in spoken English. Its only use, except among castle nerds, is as a (seemingly neutral and presumably also libel-proof) press code word."

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1111602566536810497

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

#117

Post by dragonwriter »

smacktoward wrote: post #114
weberc2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid. Still, it seems valuable to make it easy for readers to view the supporting or contradictory evidence. That might’ve stymied many notable media hit-pieces. Of course, many newsrooms wouldn’t want this (at least I can’t imagine The Guardian and it’s ilk would want to draw attention to their own impoverished fact:BS ratios), so it wou…

> Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid. Or they simply can't afford to employ fact checkers anymore, now that people refuse to pay for news.

> now that people refuse to pay for news

People (the audience, that is) have historically refused to pay a significant share of the cost for news, what has changed is that advertisers have stopped paying as much for news (because the share of people's attention debited to news, and therefore which news outlets have to sell access to, has dropped.)

Paid circulation used to often be important not so much because of direct revenue but because advertisers looked to it as an important measure of reach.

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

#118

Post by 50656E6973 »

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.

Claas Relotius, the Der Spiegel journalist who won CNN's journalist of the year award who was revelead to be completely inventing stories about people to make enticing click bait.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiege...

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

#119

Post by YazIAm »

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.

I maybe misunderstanding your question, but this platform only accepts public primary sources as valid evidence. A media news story is never a primary source for proving the assertions within it, it's a secondary source.

Edit: I had originally misunderstood the parent comment. Responded again here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185

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

#120

Post by smacktoward »

dragonwriter wrote: post #117
smacktoward wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid. Or they simply can't afford to employ fact checkers anymore, now that people refuse to pay for news.

> now that people refuse to pay for news People (the audience, that is) have historically refused to pay a significant share of the cost for news, what has changed is that advertisers have stopped paying as much for news (because the share of people's attention debited to news, and therefore which news outlets have to sell access to, has dropped.) Paid circulation used to often be important not so much because of dir…

That's true as well. The effect is the same either way, though -- news organizations aren't exactly swimming in money these days. They have trouble just paying journalists, much less support staff for those journalists like fact-checkers.
Post reply on HN