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

211–220 of 303 posts

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

#211

Post by scott_s »

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…

> The way it was reported, it sounds like Sargon did something, whereas videos online show that all the harassment was done by Anita Saarkesian.

He had been involved in a long harassment campaign against her, and then shows up in the front row at her panel. That is not an innocent act.

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

#212

Post by rootusrootus »

1000units wrote: post #208
rootusrootus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted unpopular opinion]

META: I recommend against deleting unpopular comments. Editing in something like "Update: I disavow!" if you've changed your mind is harmless, but in general there's a benefit to treating public statements as a sort of permanent record. This practice exposes people to potentially underappreciated viewpoints and allows others to track the development and popularity of ideas. I have many poorly rated comments preserved…

You are 100% right, I should have left it there. I only rarely edit/delete my own comments, and almost always it is because I realize I have waded into a political argument I don't want to be part of.

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

#213

Post by 1000units »

rootusrootus wrote: post #212
1000units wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

META: I recommend against deleting unpopular comments. Editing in something like "Update: I disavow!" if you've changed your mind is harmless, but in general there's a benefit to treating public statements as a sort of permanent record. This practice exposes people to potentially underappreciated viewpoints and allows others to track the development and popularity of ideas. I have many poorly rated comments preserved…

You are 100% right, I should have left it there. I only rarely edit/delete my own comments, and almost always it is because I realize I have waded into a political argument I don't want to be part of.

Fair enough! Cheers.

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

#214

Post by cheez »

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.

If you watch the video, that kid with the long face was just standing there looking goofy because he was uncomfortable as the drummer walked right up to his face. There is really no way to misread that interaction. He's a teenager for god's sake and he was being harassed by ideologues.

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

#215

Post by sedor0115 »

fundingshovel wrote: post #206
beat wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firsthand quote from the VOX article... “It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’” Phillips told the Washington Post in a separate interview. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.” The article is explicit.…

The article was modified, and the sections in your quote added. I should have used the internet archive originally. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20190120030012/https://www.vox.c...

Greatly looking forward to how beat twists himself in knots to interpret this one as "factually accurate".

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

#216

Post by abathur »

Interesting work, YazIAm. Conceptually this reminds me a little bit of the idea behind Kialo. Down the road, there might be some interesting synergy potential between fact attestation and debate.

I've had a few related thoughts, on the off chance you find them useful:

1. It would be interesting, variously for journalists and the reading public, if it was possible for journalists to generate, disclose, and research cryptographic sourcing identifiers that enable them to figure out when they share a source. This could, critically, help journalists identify sources with a record of feeding other journalists bad information.

It'd be nice if the same work could help the rest of us unravel citation chains based on a small number of unique sources, but I'm not sure there's a way to achieve that without it being fairly simple to re-identify sources via brute-force.

2. If we can drill enough to find some bedrock, I think it might be useful to have virtuous-cycle user tools, like browser extensions that warn users when visiting an article by writers/publications (and potentially even sources, per above) with repeated sourcing/attestation problems. I don't think of this as purely a journalistic thing. In the sciences it could apply to methodology, data-collection/statistical integrity. With some bedrock, tooling in place, and established trust/community practice in place here, it might also be possible to expand the scope a little and address things like headlines that aren't at all moored to evidence.

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

#217

Post by nautilus12 »

vortico wrote: post #164
volt4ire wrote: post #127

Sadly this "platform to open source factchecking" is not itself open source, as the site's source code is not available and the user content license restricts commercial use (see point 3 https://sourcedfact.com/terms_of_service and https://blog.okfn.org/2010/06/24/why-share-alike-licenses-ar... )

That's fine with me. The two concepts of "open-source" at hand are drastically different. The lack of ability to verify the website's source code doesn't prevent me in any way from seeing its content which helps me verify journalist claims. I hope the author is able to grow their service through marketing, licensing, and contracts with media agencies. Open-sourcing the service's software would be a distraction from t…

Except we are talking about journalism which is prone to things like censorship, shadow banning and the like which would defeat the purpose of it being open. The source code would reveal if there were such a functionality.

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

#218

Post by ALittleLight »

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.

>Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion

The entire event is on video. The boys are waiting for their bus. They are repeatedly insulted by a group of adult men who use racial and homophobic insults against the boys, who do not respond in kind but do talk with the adults harassing them. Into the fracas enters Phillips, who approaches the boys, and bangs a drum in the face of one boy. Most mainstream news outlets then smear the children as racists who surrounded and harassed Phillips without regard for the events on film.

If you want to describe this as a matter of different opinions, then I think you're basically in the camp of just disregarding reality and making up whatever is most pleasant to your perspective.

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

#219

Post by jessaustin »

beat wrote: post #187
Macross8299 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apparently, people in the investigation itself are unhappy with that summary But the article doesn't even say that they heard the investigators say that. At best it's hearsay and gossip of n-th degree, at worst it's outright misrepresentation of the facts. Look at the weasel words: "according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations." Who are government officials in this usage? A…

Stories are leaked through cutouts like this for good reason, politically. What I'm saying is that the layers don't make it untrue, and decent journalism will catch most misrepresentation. You say "weasel words", I say "We think you should take this with a grain of salt". They're being explicitly clear that their sources are secondhand. What's your answer? That they shouldn't run the story at all?

Wow, that's, like, meta-weasel-words. Well done.

Absolutely, a story based entirely on odious unattributable anonymous innuendo like that we see here should not be published. If the "government officials and others" want this important information to get out, they can still talk to Rep. Schiff. He will repeat anything that hypes up RussiaRussiaRussia, and he's on TV all the time. If, in fact, he isn't the "government official" to which this piece refers in the first place.

I don't say this because I support Trump or voted for him (never did, never would). I say it because this whole multiyear journalistic dumpster fire has guaranteed his reelection. TFA is all about putting out the flames, which I do support.

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

#220

Post by YazIAm »

nautilus12 wrote: post #217
vortico wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine with me. The two concepts of "open-source" at hand are drastically different. The lack of ability to verify the website's source code doesn't prevent me in any way from seeing its content which helps me verify journalist claims. I hope the author is able to grow their service through marketing, licensing, and contracts with media agencies. Open-sourcing the service's software would be a distraction from t…

Except we are talking about journalism which is prone to things like censorship, shadow banning and the like which would defeat the purpose of it being open. The source code would reveal if there were such a functionality.

I intend to move user contributed fact verifications to some sort of distributed ledger model to ensure transparency. Still in alpha though, so lots of work ahead.
Post reply on HN