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

141–150 of 303 posts

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

#141

Post by weberc2 »

smacktoward wrote: post #114
weberc2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid. Still, it seems valuable to make it easy for readers to view the supporting or contradictory evidence. That might’ve stymied many notable media hit-pieces. Of course, many newsrooms wouldn’t want this (at least I can’t imagine The Guardian and it’s ilk would want to draw attention to their own impoverished fact:BS ratios), so it wou…

> Many prominent newsrooms seem to regard fact checking as an obstacle to avoid. Or they simply can't afford to employ fact checkers anymore, now that people refuse to pay for news.

Maybe that's part of it, but there are plenty of examples of the media deliberately misleading their audience. "Can't afford fact checkers" doesn't really explain that.

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

#142

Post by manigandham »

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.

>> And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.

Is it? Maybe it once was but the collapse of local news and the massive drop of talented writers and support staff like editors and fact checkers seems to have changed the environment. Most news today is little more than Twitter posts cobbled together.

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

#144

Post by jimmy1 »

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

But when you report it as a matter of fact in an editorializing headline, then it is a problem.

> Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact

This was not the narrative portrayed, in the slightest bit. Had this been the headline and narrative, I would have had no issue with it, either. The stories that day were "Boy in MAGA hat harasses Native Americans" period.

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

#145

Post by vokep »

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

It really is not, further video evidence makes this a fact, not an opinion.

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

#146

Post by stcredzero »

beat wrote: post #131
YazIAm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I maybe misunderstanding your question, but this platform only accepts public primary sources as valid evidence. A media news story is never a primary source for proving the assertions within it, it's a secondary source. Edit: I had originally misunderstood the parent comment. Responded again here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185

Right, I get that. And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare. Hence my question.

And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare.

Take a look at niche journalism. The bias and narrative pushing is quite massive there. I think the "garbage tier" label given to such organizations is well deserved. Yet, when mainstream journalism gives its attention, it follows the niche journalists lead.

I find journalism that actually contradicts facts to be quite common. In today's climate, the mainstream can get away with complete contradiction of the facts, so long as the targets are obscure and/or unpopular, and the "right" narrative is being pushed. If you want to find this, then you need to start looking into the dissidents of mainstream culture in 2019. (You don't have to go as far as toxic people like the Alt Right. Rather, investigate the people who are being mislabeled as "Alt Right" as a tactic to marginalize them.)

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

#147

Post by ghaff »

beat wrote: post #132
jdminhbg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not engaging with the actual criticism at all. Nobody is disputing that "embattled" is in the dictionary; instead, he's saying that it's journalism jargon that is not actually used in real life.

No, no, no. pg is claiming that "embattled" is a journalistic euphemism for "guilty as charged". Sure, it's jargon and rarely used in "real life", but it's generally not inaccurate or deliberately misleading. Someone who is accused yet innocent is still "embattled". Readers assuming guilt is not a problem of fact. It may not even be the journalistic intent.

For that matter, embattled is often used in a context where there's no crime at all involved. A CEO may be embattled because he hasn't been able to turn a company around and the shareholders and board are being restless. In that case, in a sense it's code for on the way out, but only because by the time you get to that point, the handwriting is probably on the wall.

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

#148

Post by sigstoat »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity...

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

#149

Post by ghaff »

notahacker wrote: post #133
jdminhbg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not engaging with the actual criticism at all. Nobody is disputing that "embattled" is in the dictionary; instead, he's saying that it's journalism jargon that is not actually used in real life.

The thrust of PG's claim was that journalists use the term as a synonym for "guilty" and in response, a journalist has argued that they actually use it in line with the dictionary definition of "characterised by conflict or controversy". A bit rich to accuse other people of "not engaging with actual criticism" when your reading comprehension falls that far short... In my experience, journalists use it mostly for peop…

I actually would find embattled a bit of an unusual word choice for someone on trial for a crime outside of a broader context. If someone's arrested for murder, we'd call them a suspected murderer or alleged murderer, not someone embattled.

As you say, I associate embattled more with, say, an executive caught up in a scandal or who is likely to be dismissed for poor performance.

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

#150

Post by smenis »

devinplatt wrote: post #121

Hey everybody, I just want to point out that I'm working on a similar project to document evidence for and against claims: https://www.wikiclaim.org The tech is dumb (MediaWiki on Heroku), but it's been sufficient to allow me to spend several hundred hours creating probably about 200 hundred wiki pages so far.

Thanks for posting this, I really enjoyed browsing Wikiclaim and it feels to me like I've never seen anywhere on the Internet that centralises this kind of content (commonly heard claims with info for/against)...

Having said that, the usual strategy when I hear a new claim I'm not sure about is to google it; so is the Google search engine itself the competition for this site? It does try to give an "answer" at the top of search results these days. Then there is Quora.

The main advantage Wikiclaim has is that, like Wikipedia, the info can be moderated and updated, and hopefully can become an improving source of truth. Godspeed, devinplatt!

Post reply on HN