Show HN: I made a platform for journalists to “open source” their fact checking • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by colechristensen » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:28 AM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #236

colechristensen wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Corrections are often the result of external people pointing out errors.

Who said anything about lying?

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

#242

Post by terryd » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

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…

Even after you have fallen victim to the very thing you are arguing isn't a problem - you still don't see it as a problem? It is a very big problem that these articles are being destructively modified. They are whipping up people that are already so freaked out that they think the President is both Hitler and a Russian agent, and people like you are left wondering what the big deal is when you look at the results of stealth edits.

   -- a young man wearing a self-assured smirk and a red “Make America Great Again”
   ++ a young man wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat

   -- More video shows Phillips wiping away tears in reaction to the harassment.
   ++ More video shows Phillips wiping away tears after the incident.

You can be sure that a huge number of tweets and facebook posts, by politicians and journalists/pundits promoting the story, frequently found in the sidebar of articles like this - got memory holed as well.

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

#243

Post by hannasanarion » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:07 AM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #241

hannasanarion wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Corrections are often the result of external people pointing out errors. Who said anything about lying?

"External people pointing out errors"? How is that any worse than this hare-brained software idea? You still have to wait for somebody with the corrected information to hear of the story and recommend an edit. This is just adding a middleman that doesn't add value.

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

#244

Post by passwordreset » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:22 AM UTC

sedor0115 wrote: post #235

beat wrote: post #221

Earlier 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…

I believe that you are making a mistake when you say "not an opinion" in your (parent) post.

The words "appear to be" in one of the above quotes precisely indicates that this is a statement of opinion, and not a statement of fact. When we say "the wall is blue", we are talking about the color of the wall factually. When we say "the wall appears blue", we are talking about how someone sees the wall, which is a subjective observance; the wall may appear to be a color other than blue to someone else with a different pair of eyes.

At least one word, "is", refers to things as a matter of fact. Other words like "appears", "seems", or the sub-phrase "I think", are indicators that we're probably talking about a statement of opinion. This may be a useful rule to follow when reading news stories. I think it seems relevant here. (SwIdt?)

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

#245

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:37 AM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #211

stcredzero wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He had been involved in a long harassment campaign against her

There is no evidence of this. This is a Citogenesis fiction pushed by niche media. Making videos criticizing someone's videos isn't harassment. Patreon did an investigation just after the incident. My understanding was there was nothing. If there's evidence of him doing anything, it is actually of him attempting the "harassment" (really just insulting) white supremacists using toxic language.

then shows up in the front row at her panel. That is not an innocent act.

If there is no harassment of Ms. Saarkesian, that is an innocent act.

Note the pattern here. There is simple, straightforward evidence of people just sitting there while a speaker hurls abuse over the PA system. To explain this away, a narrative is needed, which includes some sort of conspiracy theory. Immediately following the incident, Patreon found nothing. Just prior to that, the GamerGate movement was investigated by law enforcement, and they also found nothing.

Just take the facts at face value. Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that mainstream media takes the narrative from biased niche media and does not fact check. Please notice that the evidence on your side is all weak "guilt by association" and easy to fabricate narratives.

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

#246

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:39 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #194

stcredzero wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Regarding the Boston rally and the south Asian candidate: you're talking about Shiva Ayyadurai, the guy who (in my understanding of reports, which could be erroneous) sues people who contradict his claim of having invented electronic mail, has (to my understanding, which could be flawed) appeared on white supremacist podcasts, and used (as I understand it, based on reports) a caricature of himself as Pepe the Frog in…

Regarding the Boston rally and the south Asian candidate: you're talking about Shiva Ayyadurai, the guy who (in my understanding of reports, which could be erroneous) sues people who contradict his claim of having invented electronic mail, has (to my understanding, which could be flawed) appeared on white supremacist podcasts, and used (as I understand it, based on reports) a caricature of himself as Pepe the Frog in his campaign pins? Who appeared (I have read in sources) in a video with a Charlottesville alt-righter

None of that is evidence this guy is a white supremacist. Which podcast did he appear on?

and "blessed" a statue of "kek"? That's the basis of your claim that the media got this story wrong?

That's hardly evidence of anything. The "Kek" character meant a lot of things to different people. Again, this is an example of narrative pushing and Citogenesis.

Yours is the side that has to explain away facts with narratives. If you look at the Hard Bastard video, you'll see a number of brown faces in that "white supremacist" rally. To explain that away, you need more narrative.

In any case, that narrative isn't even sufficient to avoid the charge that the media is being misled by narratives. By the network's own telling, they "didn't have access" to the Gazebo and what was going on. So on what did they base their narrative? The answer, is that they just took the narrative from far left people and didn't check.

Also, note that the VidCon event fits this pattern. Video evidence from facts on the ground tell us: Some people are attending a convention together and just sitting there peacefully, then a speaker starts harassing them. Those are just the simple facts on the ground. To explain this away, more narrative is needed -- that of a harassment campaign and shadowy conspiracies. There is no evidence for this campaign. Investigation by Patreon and earlier law enforcement concluded there was nothing there. Instead, video criticism is spun as "harassment" by a narrative, which gets taken up into the mainstream media unchecked and unverified.

There is a bubble englobing SV CEOs and the surrounding circles, and it's mostly narratives supported by emotions and vice versa. (And not a little dishonest spinning and editing of dialogue and interviews, for which there's ample evidence as well.)

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

#247

Post by ARandomerDude » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:24 AM UTC

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…

Indeed. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

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

#248

Post by stingraycharles » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:15 AM UTC

jtuente wrote: post #86

stingraycharles wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something has flaws doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to do it.

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.

The flow of the conversation was:

- OP made an open platform

- Someone said it could be a good idea because Wikipedia

- Someone else said that Wikipedia has flaws

Hence my comment.

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

#249

Post by Jenz » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:30 AM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #247

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…

Indeed. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

> desperately sick

How so?

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

#250

Post by btym » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:55 AM UTC

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.

This was recently posted on HN. It actually got me thinking how I might write a service like OP's.

I wrote a story that became a legend. Then I discovered it wasn’t true: https://www.cjr.org/first_person/tinazzi-motorcycle-mont-bla...