What would you say if a well known, analytical journalist approached you to be able to perform fact checking, but you knew they were openly biased on many topics?
Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
231–240 of 303 posts
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#232The main fault I see is how do we augment your "facts" with other "facts".
For instance, I clicked on Net Neutrality. It's tough to truly appreciate the "net neutrality" dynamic of the past few years without understanding the backstory of Reed Hastings battling the ILECs (https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-CEO-Comcast-Want...), buddying up to Obama (https://www.businessinsider.com/house-of-cards-obama-2013-12), getting the law changed in his favor (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/technology/fcc-releases-n...), and now rewarding Obama in kind: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/barack-obama-....
It's almost as if it had nothing to with actual "net neutrality" at all since none of the horrible things have come to pass that were predicted.
Broadband isn't as good as it could or should be, but it isn't getting worse.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#233This is really cool!!
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#234Awkward 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.
justin smollet? 99% of the media?
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#235Earlier 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…
Don't bother with the "you don't know my politics" shtick, your overly sensitive reaction leaves the writing all over the wall on that point. You wouldn't be so defensive if it didn't strike close to home.
This would be less silly if what you were pretending is so obscure and nuanced was not actually as plain as day.
I took your invitation to reread, and only needed to go as far as the second paragraph: "In some shots, the teens appear to be shouting “build that wall, build that wall.”"
This is false. Not an opinion, not a narrative, a plainly false statement.
My "contradictory sources with at least the same level of journalistic respectability" is any of the videos of the event themselves, is that a credible enough source for you? The full-length video was available at the time of the writing of this article and Vox did not make any effort to verify what they wrote against it.
They lied, period. This is not that difficult to understand. Do try to keep up.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#236Awkward 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…
Yeah, and they corrected the error themselves and published the correction. This is why they are trustworthy.
Making a mistake is not the same as lying.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#237Awkward 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.
justin smollet? 99% of the media?
You realize that "being wrong" is not the same as "lying" right?
Every news source reported on the inconsistencies in Jussie Smollett's story, and continued to update their reporting as the facts turned against him.
They're newspapers, not oracles.
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Don't bother with the "you don't know my politics" shtick, your overly sensitive reaction leaves the writing all over the wall on that point. You wouldn't be so defensive if it didn't strike close to home. This would be less silly if what you were pretending is so obscure and nuanced was not actually as plain as day. I took your invitation to reread, and only needed to go as far as the second paragraph: "In some shot…
Your argument would be more interesting to read if it didn't include personal attacks (which are against HN rules).
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#239What problem does this solve that existing reputation systems don't? When I read a New Yorker article, for example, part of what my subscription is paying for is considerable skilled labor by a group of in-house fact checkers. How does moving this work to an outside free platform improve the situation? Moreover, how do you replicate work like calling sources to verify statements before publication? I wrote a short pi…
> What problem does this solve that existing reputation systems don't? To turn its slogan into an analogy: the New Yorker is high quality closed source software. If you disagree with the New Yorker, you can't file a bug report. You might say, "I wouldn't want to," either because of something on your end, or something on the New Yorker's end. Continuing the analogy, there are closed-source models, open-source-but-clos…
Do you not think that closed source software allows bug reports? That's news to every closed source op in the world.
Every news source has bug reports too. They're called "letters to the editor".
Re: Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking
#240Earlier 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'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.
Two of these people have multiple Pulitzers between them. Schmidt is on tv practically daily. These are not low quality tips to no-name reporters - that 'fact' you made up to fit your preferred narrative. Or at least, did not bother to fact-check!