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

131–140 of 303 posts

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

#131

Post by beat »

YazIAm wrote: post #119
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

Right, I get that. And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare. Hence my question.

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

#132

Post by beat »

jdminhbg wrote: post #130
carrier_lost wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're not engaging with the actual criticism at all. Nobody is disputing that "embattled" is in the dictionary; instead, he's saying that it's journalism jargon that is not actually used in real life.

No, no, no. pg is claiming that "embattled" is a journalistic euphemism for "guilty as charged". Sure, it's jargon and rarely used in "real life", but it's generally not inaccurate or deliberately misleading.

Someone who is accused yet innocent is still "embattled". Readers assuming guilt is not a problem of fact. It may not even be the journalistic intent.

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

#133

Post by notahacker »

jdminhbg wrote: post #130
carrier_lost wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're not engaging with the actual criticism at all. Nobody is disputing that "embattled" is in the dictionary; instead, he's saying that it's journalism jargon that is not actually used in real life.

The thrust of PG's claim was that journalists use the term as a synonym for "guilty" and in response, a journalist has argued that they actually use it in line with the dictionary definition of "characterised by conflict or controversy". A bit rich to accuse other people of "not engaging with actual criticism" when your reading comprehension falls that far short...

In my experience, journalists use it mostly for people who are likely to be fired shortly, many of whom are not "guilty" of anything other than being in a position of responsibility in an organization, department or team that is perceived as underperforming or being taken over by critics.

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

#134

Post by jdminhbg »

beat wrote: post #132
jdminhbg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not engaging with the actual criticism at all. Nobody is disputing that "embattled" is in the dictionary; instead, he's saying that it's journalism jargon that is not actually used in real life.

No, no, no. pg is claiming that "embattled" is a journalistic euphemism for "guilty as charged". Sure, it's jargon and rarely used in "real life", but it's generally not inaccurate or deliberately misleading. Someone who is accused yet innocent is still "embattled". Readers assuming guilt is not a problem of fact. It may not even be the journalistic intent.

That, at least, is a response to the actual argument. I disagree: I have never seen a story where "embattled" was used to describe someone the rest of the story led you to believe might be unfairly embattled, and the nice thing about "embattled" is that you do not have to actually prove anything to use it. It's just "I hear lots of people are saying..." dressed up.

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

#135

Post by iandanforth »

This is reminiscent of how some scientific papers are written. You might be able to pick up some tips from those processes as well. For example:

- Write each sentence on a different line.

This allows for better change tracking, commentary etc in a number of tools including github.

- Inline sources and compile into a references section.

I want to see that a claim is backed by more than one piece of supporting work whenever possible.

- Have a compiled / formatted version for holistic evaluation.

After you've done the hard work of writing factual statements the piece also needs to be readable. This is an orthogonal view into the same information however and should be presented as such.

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

#136

Post by beat »

jessaustin wrote: post #108
YazIAm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is to capture the fact checking process and enable any reader to review it for themselves. Certainly some publications currently have an excellent fact checking process, but very few make their fact checking open and transparent. As for "how do you replicate work like calling sources to verify statements before publication?" Good question. Currently this is only designed to open up the fact checking which in…

Congratulations on this; it looks great. Currently this is only designed to open up the fact checking which involves public primary sources. Limiting the scope to this is wise. It's a tractable problem and it's better journalism. The types of journalists who write "this unnamed source implied that this other unnamed source had implied to another unnamed source..." articles won't like this sort of tool, but those jour…

What's the problem with that sentence? People speak to the press off the record all the time; it's part of the process. Unless the NYT doesn't actually have these sources, there's nothing wrong with it. Of course, all we have for proof is their reputation as a newspaper for integrity, and the word of any reporters involved, but reporters have often gone to jail rather than reveal anonymous sources.

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

#137

Post by ddgflorida »

jimmy1 wrote: post #112
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.

Excellent example- it will be interesting to see if they win their defamation lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post.

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

#138

Post by ajvs »

beat wrote: post #128
jimmy1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion. Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact, confirmed by the video and photos. 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.

This has been debunked thoroughly. That guy went up to the kids and started beating his drum right in their faces to intimidate them and somehow the media painted the kids as the harasser.

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

#139

Post by weberc2 »

beat wrote: post #106
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…

People post contradictory evidence to journalism they don't like all the time. Their "evidence" is usually conspiracy theory crap that can't pass even logic checking, much less fact checking.

Sure, but it's not easy to find all of the debate about a given assertion in a particular article, much less contribute to that debate (given that it's probably distributed across a bunch of social media venues).

One can easily imagine hovering over a given assertion (e.g., "Damore posted an anti-diversity screed") and see the fact-checks, perhaps ranked by fact-checker's credibility in order to suppress conspiracy theory crap as well as contribute to the debate.

Anyway, that there is lots of noise among the criticism doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of valid criticism. It's only been a few months since nearly the whole American newsmedia willfully mislead the nation, sending an angry mob after innocent kids, after all.

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

#140

Post by stcredzero »

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.

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?

There have been many of these recently. One striking one was the Boston Rally for which the mainstream news pushed a "white supremacist" narrative. This was odd, as the few people who managed to come out included a large proportion of brown people, including one South Asian senate candidate. The fact checking seems to go out the window, so long as the story pushes one of the "sacrosanct" narratives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wWeksF6XZs

Another example was the coverage of the public harassment incident at VidCon between Anita Saarkesian and Sargon of Akkad. The way it was reported, it sounds like Sargon did something, whereas videos online show that all the harassment was done by Anita Saarkesian. You may not like Sargon, but the fact that the news narrative goes 180 degrees against the truth on the ground should disturb everyone.

I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves.

Manufacturing Consent covers how western media entirely fits a "Propganda Model" of operation through presentation alone. However in recent years, even facts are thrown out in favor of narratives which run entirely counter to the facts.

And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.

Not so much. I recall reading a NYT article about a storm-in-a-teacup thing involving who gets to walk first as valedictorian. The article was amazingly nearly fact free. It seems that articles and reports get a free pass, so long as they are pushing the "right" narrative. It has been this way for a very long time (re: Manufacturing Consent) but the quality of fact checking and the quality of the writing used to subtly spin the facts has gone down.

People complained mightily about how all of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" evidence was one big circle-jerk of "Citogenesis."

https://xkcd.com/978/

Now, the same media organizations are involved in the same circle-jerks of "Citogenesis," but it's given a pass for tribal reasons, because the narrative supports "our side."

Post reply on HN