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

221–230 of 303 posts

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

#221

Post by beat »

sedor0115 wrote: post #215
fundingshovel wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Greatly looking forward to more downvotes from anonymous cowards who don't like what they think are my politics and could care less if what I'm saying is accurate or not.

That said... when new facts came to light, the article was updated. Outside of the headline, which I agree is opinionated, is there anything factually inaccurate in the article? Go read it again, and find some contradictory sources with at least the same level of journalistic respectability as the (iffy) Vox. I'll wait.

Even the headline has only one disputable word... "taunt". They're white, wearing MAGA hats, and confronting a Native American elder. All of these things are incontrovertible facts. As for "taunt"... you can believe they're as innocent as pure driven snow, but that has never been my experience of teenage boys being confronted in front of their peers, regardless of race or social standing. Teenage boys are about the nastiest form of human being there is.

I anxiously await your alternative facts.

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

#222

Post by metasj »

metasj wrote: post #188
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.

My favorite example, much clearer even than Covington (and never corrected in the major media): the bus driver who drove drove his bus off of a bridge: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46068412 For whatever reason, the official police report implied that a passenger struggled with the driver causing the disaster. The next day, video footage of the entire event was released (from the security cam inside the b…

This one fascinates for a few additional reasons, which a third-party site that supports revising and completing stories could address:

* It shows how automated the echo chamber is. The real crash cause is a more interesting + rare story. (though needs A/B testing) * It shows how short-lived major coverage is. While most passengers unfortunately perished in the crash, _both the driver and the arguing passenger survived_, and will end up in court once they recover. This was mentioned by very few outlets, but will eventually help inform understanding of the event.

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

#223

Post by whatthewhatwhat »

beat wrote: post #221
sedor0115 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Greatly looking forward to more downvotes from anonymous cowards who don't like what they think are my politics and could care less if what I'm saying is accurate or not. That said... when new facts came to light, the article was updated. Outside of the headline, which I agree is opinionated, is there anything factually inaccurate in the article ? Go read it again, and find some contradictory sources with at least th…

> They're white, wearing MAGA hats...Teenage boys are about the nastiest form of human being there is.

Good grief, you're such a bigot! And proud of it, too!

But it's okay on HN, because you're a "founder" with 12k karma.

I hope that you wake up someday. And I don't mean, "get woke."

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

#224

Post by colechristensen »

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.

"An article on Sunday about once-dominant N.H.L. teams adjusting to an evolving league misstated the number of conference finals appearance by the Kings, the Ducks and the Blackhawks since 2009. It is 10, not nine. Because of an editing error, an earlier version also misstated the number of playoff appearances by those teams in that span. It is 24, not 27."

An example from the new york times from yesterday. Obviously not an earth shattering error, but there it is. Something trivially easy to be detected by anyone who cared to check.

For more check out https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections

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

#225

Post by will4274 »

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.

Perhaps. But the question of who approached who is a matter of fact. Initial reporting claimed the teenagers approached a group of Native Americans. The videos clarified that the Native Americans approached the teenagers.

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

#226

Post by fundingshovel »

beat wrote: post #221
sedor0115 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Greatly looking forward to more downvotes from anonymous cowards who don't like what they think are my politics and could care less if what I'm saying is accurate or not. That said... when new facts came to light, the article was updated. Outside of the headline, which I agree is opinionated, is there anything factually inaccurate in the article ? Go read it again, and find some contradictory sources with at least th…

Neither your, nor my politics have absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of your information, though if anything, we should hold our own side to a higher standard. There are so so many easily verifiable things to write about, that its beyond pointless to trash our credibility over things that are proven inaccurate with a little bit of fact checking. I mean, Phillips being the wrong age to have been in Vietnam, as he claimed to Vox, would have been trivial to detect with any fact checking at all, and should have raised flags about the rest of his narrative.

No one here is even trying to advance narrative high school boys are angels, with a bit a of digging it's pretty easy to find things that Covington Catholic does may well deserve the level of public shaming that this story got.

However in this case, the entire narrative has been pretty widely disputed, Caitlin Flanagan does it much more elegantly than I could.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must...

As for the source, why not go to the original, like any responsible journalist should have, copy of the full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwNyOD8FIQk

Feel free to tell me when you hear them chanting "Build a wall", I haven't heard it.

The first widely reported, and easily proven incorrect fact is that Nathan Phillips is a Vietnam Veteran, see fairly through coverage of that here:

https://www.businessinsider.com/native-elder-nathan-phillips...

So really you're asking me to believe the narrative of someone who is proven to be lying about his military service, with no corroborating video of his claims, which just seems a bit ludicrous.

edited: spelling

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

#227

Post by macspoofing »

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.

And why couldn't media conglomerates get the facts right?

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

#228

Post by drilldrive »

penagwin wrote: post #102
jtuente wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't anything said about Wikipedia being a bad idea, but rather that it shouldn't be your sole source for fact-checking. I've learned that people only trust Wikipedia to the point at which it confirms their biases.

Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is generally pretty darn accurate. Everybody always talks about funny vandalism stories, but generally it's pretty good. The issue of course is that there's parts of it that definitely aren't correct. This makes it easy to say "Well if it's accurate 99% of the time then it must confirm what I thought!".

I have found that Wikipedia is pretty great, with the sole exception for anything that is remotely political. I would look elsewhere for such content.

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

#229

Post by mikedilger »

I appreciate the recognition that there is a problem in journalism. But I'm afraid that the fundamental problems are problems in the nature of humans and aren't ameniable to this sort of solution. Those problems include:

1) Many people choose to believe what feels right to them, rather than dispassionately seeing things for what they are. Unfortunately there are a great many of people that do this regularly, and they have practiced this their entire lives. Richard Feynman cautioned us in saying that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." That caution was aimed at scientists who are already among the most objective of us, yet they can still suffer from this ailment.

2) When people talk about the facts, they rarely just lay out the facts dispassionately and without judgement. Humans need a motivation to tell a story, and most people's motivations include convincing other people to support their ideology, or else berating those who dont. Facts are organized within a mental framework of the ideology of the teller, wrapped up in beliefs, desires, and biases andcarry additional information about which ideological position you ought to hold -- sometimes they are even intended to mislead and manipulate the listener.

The modern news media is composed of businesses in search of profits. That goal is often not aligned with a straight reporting of facts. By pandering to an audiences ideology they increase ratings. By reporting on salacious and exciting news, even if incorrect, they get ratings. Buyer beware.

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

#230

Post by Razengan »

mikedilger wrote: post #229

I appreciate the recognition that there is a problem in journalism. But I'm afraid that the fundamental problems are problems in the nature of humans and aren't ameniable to this sort of solution. Those problems include: 1) Many people choose to believe what feels right to them, rather than dispassionately seeing things for what they are. Unfortunately there are a great many of people that do this regularly, and they…

3) Whenever there is a chance to gain wealth and/or influence without immediate disadvantages, humans will usually take it.
Post reply on HN