261–270 of 303 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
> desperately sick How so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately there are a great many of people that do this regularly, and they have practiced this their entire lives. A certain percentage of the population does not have critical thinking skills and never will. However a project like this is useful for those of us who do. If journalists don't disclose their data and reasoning its hard even for those of us inclined to verify or fact check anything, leaving us sus…
False. Trust in journalism is built by proving reporting to be of quality over time. Not by providing a bibliography before the report ever dries.
Mostly-rational people can be swayed by evidence and arguments, yet often disagree with each other because they doubt the truth of the other side's statements (fact checking), they believe the other side has missed important context in their argument, the other side has implicit assumptions that they disagree with (this is something that should be explored as a sub issue, then).
I'm very happy to see this. I'd love to see more of this kind of thing in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
>What they shouldn't run the story at all? Well, I think as you get more and more degrees removed from a primary source, the closer the article gets to being gossip and/or somebody's opinion and not factual news. Which is fine, there's a market for stuff like that. But I don't think that's very sustainable if you want to maintain a reputation as a purveyor of fact-based reporting. There's a reason hearsay isn't gener…
Got it.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
>What they shouldn't run the story at all? Well, I think as you get more and more degrees removed from a primary source, the closer the article gets to being gossip and/or somebody's opinion and not factual news. Which is fine, there's a market for stuff like that. But I don't think that's very sustainable if you want to maintain a reputation as a purveyor of fact-based reporting. There's a reason hearsay isn't gener…
The main reasons are that courts have compulsory process to attain testimony of primary witnesses which makes it generally unnecessary, and that courts are by design intended to work via adversarial process including cross examination, and a indirect witness can't be cross examined.
Needless to say, there are lots of exceptions to hearsay exclusions, too.
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…
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.
Making a mistake is not lying, but it is a moral failing to promulgate fiction as fact because it accords with your preferred narrative, especially when it's done by the media, who are trusted because they are supposed to practice restraint and good judgment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.