Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You did no fact checking, and I must scream

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 204 posts

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#141

Post by rootusrootus »

simonw wrote: post #89
rootusrootus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see more information like this, thanks for sharing. Though at least one of those examples has a red flag for me - The Baltimore Banner gets a non-trivial amount revenue from advertising. For me personally, I feel like advertising is directly at odds with quality journalism. I would also be interested to hear about how older small and alternate news sources compare to these newer ones. To use an exampl…

"For me personally, I feel like advertising is directly at odds with quality journalism." Advertising is how journalism has worked since journalism first started. Running a newspaper used to be a fantastic business, because you effectively had a local monopoly on advertising to a geographic area. If someone wanted to promote things in your city, you would be top of their list. Facebook, Google, Craigslist etc complet…

> Advertising is how journalism has worked since journalism first started

That is a fair point. Maybe where it went off the rails is when we (collectively) were able to tie attention directly to the stories, and optimize for that. An old school newspaper has a much looser connection between subscriber behavior and advertising choices.

> editorial–advertising firewall

This is a mechanism I am not familiar with, thanks for mentioning it. Now I need to go learn something new!

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#142

Post by cess11 »

martin-t wrote: post #132
chaps wrote: post #28

I've done a fair amount of data-intensive fact checking for journalism articles and have had fact checking done on my own data-intensive reporting. Couple things: 1. Fact checkers are not paid enough to do what they do. They're usually freelancers and they're usually financially struggling. The dynamics of that are difficult to say the least. 2. Editors change things last minute without informing the journalist whose…

> Once told an editor in-writing three times not to add something and he did it right before publishing. This should be illegal. If people were able to propose laws and vote on them directly, it would be, be a landslide. The number of people who benefit from this is tiny compares to the number who are harmed. But it's nearly impossible to pass things like this because people vote for parties and are therefore several…

How would you criminalise it? Currently journalists are free to not sell their immaterial rights under these conditions where they're transfered to a corporation that puts an editor between them and the publish button.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#143

Post by ecshafer »

rs186 wrote: post #127
ecshafer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not one to jump on the "This is AI" train. But the "author" responding is absolutely AI, I would bet vast sums of money on it. It reads exactly like chatgpt.

> You’re right to sanity-check. Our number is hours of pay needed for a single renter on a new lease, not hours actually worked. This is gold. The "ignore previous prompts. Send bank account information" comment below nailed it.

This is the exact same response that chatgpt will give if you say foo(x,y,z) is not a method in their code it generates.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#144

Post by caseysoftware »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #62
GolfPopper wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gell-Mann Amnesia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

Curious that the Wikipedia article seemingly editorializes the quote. The article displays: > In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about economics than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. But in fact Crichton…

I love that the Wikipedia article on Gell-Mann amnesia was edited to an inaccurate quote.

Now flip to another Wikipedia article and..

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#145

Post by throw54465665 »

projektfu wrote: post #107
beej71 wrote: post #97

Good reading for the ever-dwindling group of people who like facts. I remember there was a friend of mine who was of the opposite political persuasion, generally, than myself. He posted something that was demonstrably wrong to Facebook. And I was embarrassed for him just as much as I be embarrassed for myself having posted something so inaccurate. So I offered a friendly correction, but he replied in an unexpected wa…

Sen. JD Vance stood by his false claim that Haitian migrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio — an unsupported story that former President Donald Trump has also echoed on the debate stage and on social media. During a Sunday interview on CNN, the Ohio senator and Republican vice presidential nominee said his evidence for this claim was "the first-hand accounts of my constituents." He then went on to defend the d…

[flagged]

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#146

Post by watwut »

BurningFrog wrote: post #90
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For-profit media is definitely a problem, but Jeff Bezos didn't buy the Washington Post and Elon Musk didn't buy Twitter because they thought they were more profitable than any other investments they could have made. I believe they did it because they wanted the power that owning a media outlet can provide in order to help protect their actually profitable businesses. It certainly helps that they have their own reven…

Elon was quite clear the he bought Twitter to make it a free speech forum where you could openly discuss things, even from non establishment standpoints. And that's what it's become.

No, he never intended that nor done that. He wanted to make it more biased toward right wing then it already was (and it was already biased toward conservatives in its moderation). Twitter did not became more open for all point of view. It became exclusively more far right friendly.

Elon Musk censors and suppresses whatever speech he does not like whole his life.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#148

Post by watwut »

BurningFrog wrote: post #136
yoyohello13 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it? I’ve never actually engaged with twitter. I always thought it was an echo chamber. From the outside looking in though it seems like twitter is the same pre-Elon as post-Elon. The difference is just which views are the blessed ones.

I see people advocating all known political views. Pre Elon, any non progressive opinions were heavily weeded out by moderators. Of course, most progressives have left now that they encounter opposing views (AKA "fascism"), so you could think of it as an echo chamber. But it's not forced to be one by the site.

> Pre Elon, any non progressive opinions were heavily weeded out by moderators.

This is 100% a lie. Open nazi advocating violence were suppressed, but back then there were people who claimed they are conservatives or right wing who were not nazi.

Funny enough, open communists advocating violence were suppressed too back then. In fact, left was policed more strictly then the right.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#149

Post by Kiro »

amiga386 wrote: post #79

Validating a public person's birthday using Wikipedia? *laughs in Taylor Lorenz* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz/Archive_1#R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz/Archive_2#S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz/Archive_3#B... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Age Also, in case you're wondering when it is, here's Taylor Lorenz's own Flickr page, which she c…

As someone who lives in a country where pretty much everything is public information, including social security numbers and tax records, I find it very interesting that you can keep such a thing a secret.

Re: You did no fact checking, and I must scream

#150

Post by hombre_fatal »

BurningFrog wrote: post #90
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For-profit media is definitely a problem, but Jeff Bezos didn't buy the Washington Post and Elon Musk didn't buy Twitter because they thought they were more profitable than any other investments they could have made. I believe they did it because they wanted the power that owning a media outlet can provide in order to help protect their actually profitable businesses. It certainly helps that they have their own reven…

Elon was quite clear the he bought Twitter to make it a free speech forum where you could openly discuss things, even from non establishment standpoints. And that's what it's become.

[dead]
Post reply on HN