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

171–180 of 303 posts

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

#171

Post by Macross8299 »

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?

The Supermicro """backdoor""" story of late last year, where Bloomberg alleged that the company had surreptitiously placed small microchips on nearly all their products on behalf of China without anyone noticing

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

#172

Post by fundingshovel »

beat wrote: post #152
jimmy1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion But when you report it as a matter of fact in an editorializing headline, then it is a problem. > Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact This was not the narrative portrayed, in the slightest bit. Had this been the headline and narrative, I would have had no issue with it, either. The stories that day were "Boy in MAGA hat harasses Native Americans"…

See previous post. If you can't produce links and quotes, then that's just, like, your opinion, man.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-g...

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/maga-hat-wearing-teens-tau...

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

#173

Post by stcredzero »

beat wrote: post #155
stcredzero wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Take a look at niche journalism. The bias and narrative pushing is quite massive there. I think the "garbage tier" label given to such organizations is well deserved. Yet, when mainstream journalism gives its attention, it follows the niche journalist…

That's an opinion, not an example. I asked for examples . I'm getting opinions .

I cited a couple of examples in another comment. In any case, I didn't proffer that as just an opinion. It's also a prescription for how you could find tons and tons of evidence. Explicitly look into people who are not "Alt-Right" but who have been labeled that way as a means of quashing their message. This will often follow the pattern of the Boston Rally: Non white people for whom the media is pushing an anti-non-white racism narrative.

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

#175

Post by pvg »

stcredzero wrote: post #140
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 So…

Your cited examples are: a 40 minute youtube video that starts with a narrator saying 'Why I think today is a win for the free speech side and a massive loss for the left', some anecdote about a youtuber spat at a tubin' conference, Manufacturing Consent, an NYT article you 'recall' but don't link and an xkcd comic.

I don't think any of these are what the question was about.

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

#176

Post by beat »

jessaustin wrote: post #168
beat wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1) I've never heard of Nicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt, or Mark Mazzetti. I don't suspect them of anything horrible, but neither do they have "reputations" on which I can rely. Taibbi in his recent essay observed that reporters without established reputations get lower-quality anonymous tips (i.e., "lies") from insiders than better-known reporters get. In this case multiple no-name authors are actually less reput…

I haven't heard of the journalists who wrote the article. I have, however, heard of the New York Times. I trust the NYT to vet its reporters carefully, and to review relevant facts. If someone wants to go off on "liberal media fake news", well, fuck them. They're not interested in facts anyway, and there's no point in debating such idiots.

As for "specific knowledge of wrongdoing"... well. What's "wrongdoing" here? Barr presented a summary of the Mueller Report to the public. Apparently, people in the investigation itself are unhappy with that summary and consider it deceptive (yeah, no shit, saying the Trump administration misleading people is like saying water is wet).

Yes, this is multi-layered, anonymous leakage, BUT. BUT. Is it untrue? Are investigators actually fine with the Barr summary, and the sources are lying to the journalists? Probably not. So despite the abstraction layers, the gist of the story is most likely true. And the NYT certainly doesn't have to run a story that says "Mueller is totally fine with the Barr summary" next week, so they're not going to print it unless they believe it true. So smell tests are fine here.

And the basic question is important. It's not whether Barr lied, but rather whether he intentionally misled - or more to the point, if Mueller's team believes he misled. That is relevant to the public, and to me.

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

#177

Post by AimForTheBushes »

beat wrote: post #152
jimmy1 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion But when you report it as a matter of fact in an editorializing headline, then it is a problem. > Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact This was not the narrative portrayed, in the slightest bit. Had this been the headline and narrative, I would have had no issue with it, either. The stories that day were "Boy in MAGA hat harasses Native Americans"…

See previous post. If you can't produce links and quotes, then that's just, like, your opinion, man.

This is an annoying sentiment for a recent national news story.

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

#178

Post by Macross8299 »

beat wrote: post #136
jessaustin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Unless the NYT doesn't actually have these sources, there's nothing wrong with it

It doesn't even have to come down to bad intentions or journalists intentionally lying about their anonymous sources, it's the fact that I have no way of reasonably knowing whether the NYT got tricked or lied to. Maybe their so-called "anonymous source" is just taking credulous journalists for a ride. I'm expected to just put blind faith in their opaque verification process and accept that anonymous sources are equally as valid as someone going on record?

Interestingly enough, the credibility (or lack thereof) of anonymous sources is an easily tractable problem that could be easily solvable with ring-signature cryptography [0] if there was the will to do so. And the trustless nature of that solution does not require journalists to be deemed the anointed arbiters of The Truth(tm). Alas, the social and cultural factors are just not there such that every government official, business leader, etc has a public crypto key.

[0]: https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/pubs/RST01.pdf

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

#179

Post by SamBam »

YazIAm wrote: post #94
SamBam wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that's not the point. That merely shows that we still need to trust someone -- you. Specifically, let's say you support belief A, and I want to add a whole bunch of facts that support belief B. You're still the gatekeeper to decide whether I get to be a contributor. There's no way for someone to know that you're going to approve equally-qualified contributors on different sides of an issue, so they're always…

Indeed, manual vetting is only for alpha. I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials. Long term every review, even those that are flagged, will be accessible. Albeit, those that are flagged will be in a separate section, but the point is they will always be accessible, so that you never have to trust me…

> I should reiterate - the point of this type of open fact checking is you can always verify everything for yourself, so you don't need to trust my credentials.

Again, not for the omission of facts, or the omission of counter-evidence.

E.g, suppose you only let in contributors who agree with you. An article is posts with "Fact A," which you happen to agree with. A bunch of your hand-picked contributors put up evidence to support "Fact A." No one ever posts the evidence debunking "Fact A."

So there's no way to "verify" anything, because we can't see what's not there. Most readers will be satisfied that "Fact A" is well-sourced.

So it's not enough to say that the reader can verify everything and not need to trust you. I mean, they could do their own research to Google the evidence debunking Fact A, but they could do that anyway and the platform doesn't support them.

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

#180

Post by 1000units »

beat wrote: post #154
ajvs wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Was his intent to intimidate? Why do you say that? How is that a "fact"? Where did you even hear that story? Geez, y'all don't understand fact checking at all .

Are you familiar with the story at all? You need to do more than "hear" about it from whomever you did. I watched a full recording of what happened, and the media coverage was absolutely ridiculously wrong. I hope the Covington kids win a defamation suit.
Post reply on HN