121–130 of 303 posts
The tech is dumb (MediaWiki on Heroku), but it's been sufficient to allow me to spend several hundred hours creating probably about 200 hundred wiki pages so far.
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
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 person guilty, and it's certainly not a "press code word."
He is seeing bias that isn't there.
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
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...
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
Interesting you mention libel. Libel law, of course, is a tremendous motivation to not posting actual lies in journalism. And courts are more flexible than "fact checking".
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.
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.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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…