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

151–160 of 204 posts

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

#151

Post by socalgal2 »

travisgriggs wrote: post #32

> The media have comprehensively failed us. Good. The author didn’t make the mistake of calling it the “news”. I have for a long time felt that there is nuance about our “press” that doesn’t have good words in the public dialog. I struggle to articulate it myself. Our modern “free press” is only free in that government is mostly not censoring it. But the press of today is a for profit endeavour. So it is not free to…

> But the press of today is a for profit endeavour.

For me, the press today is a for influence endeavour. Most journalists have a POV the majority of topics they write about they express that POV with how they discuss the topic. For example, which people they quote, generally only ones that agree with their POV. If they present an a opposing view they always couch it and phrase things to push the reader to discount that view. If they preset a supporting view they phrase it in a way to make it sound trusting and authoritative.

To put it more simply, most journalists are trying to change the world to see things their way.

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

#152

Post by hansvm »

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…

Isn't it illegal now? That sounds like a cut-and-dry libel case.

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

#153

Post by omnicognate »

edent wrote: post #126
omnicognate wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the impression the "you" in the title refers to journalists, who should have all of the skills you list. Confusing, as he then refers to the reader as "you" at the end, but I'm pretty sure he's berating the professionals and encouraging everyone else to try and do the job they are not. I agree though, that the general population can't reasonably be expected to do a better job of it than the professionals, so I…

Author here. Both "you"s are aimed at anyone who shared the fabrication. Journalists shouldn't have reported it uncritically, but everyone who hit the share button is culpable. There's an old proverb - "Who is more foolish; the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Well, I don't disagree but if you expect the general populace to spontaneously develop an immunity to this you'll be waiting a while.

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

#154

Post by Self-Perfection »

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…

Uhm is it possible to mitigate second point by publishing encrypted article in social network along with is sending it to the agency to assign it timestamp? Or maybe in any blockchain if one does not like social networks.

Then if journalist does not like how mangled was his piece on publishing he can disclose encryption password to show everyone what he actually wrote in the article?

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

#155

Post by bwmerklsasaki »

Fact checking for the media is one thing, and I know there's financial disincentives for it in many cases. But when it comes to family discussions over politics, I'd be all in favor of a few more family members learning how to do basic Google searches to fact check as well.

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

#156

Post by fph »

cess11 wrote: post #142
martin-t wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The name at the top of the article is still the journalist's. They might be selling (through ads or a subscription) an article written by a Pulitzer winner, but in fact it is partly written by an editor, and the journalist hasn't even checked it. Isn't it like selling "beef" lasagnas that contain horse meat?

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

#157

Post by lynx97 »

chaps wrote: post #140
lynx97 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're suggesting I am not capable of putting things I overheard in context? Please don't. I am well aware of the difference between sarcasm and deliberate manipulation. To keep things grounded, almost nobody bites the hand that feeds 'em. Whistleblowing or swimming against the stream, while being celebrated whenever it happens, is a very low minority in any profession. If your boss tells you where thin…

Friend, I'm not suggesting that at all. I could, though: in no way did you describe any of what you considered to be bad from them. You left it conclusory in such a way that leaves the reader (me) to try to fill the gaps in what you mean. Your aggressive tone doesn't leave much room. And personally, I would never feel confident in being sure that I understand the context of a conversation that I'm not invited to. Eve…

Ignoring the fact that I miss the blind trust you seem to have, that all we need is to donate some money and the outcome will magically be good...

I honestly don't know any local investigative nonprofit that is not biased. There are the big conservatively led newspapers, and there are smaller left to extreme left leaning publishers that try to be a counterweight. However, to my knowledge, we dont have any publishers that are really trying to report independent from a political side or agenda.

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

#158

Post by kevinmchugh »

zdw wrote: post #56

There's a chapter in John McPhee's "Draft No. 4" (which is quite a time capsure of how writing was done in the last century) about the fact checking topic, and how much effort went into it for stories posted in The New Yorker. The amount done todays seems to be almost nil, especially when coming to a different conclusion wouldn't agree with an overarching narrative being pushed.

Aiui the New Yorker has always been the most rigorous in its fact checking.

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

#159

Post by vorpalhex »

chaps wrote: post #103
lynx97 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the pay is poor, and your coworkers deliberately fuck you over for their own gains. That pretty much sounds like a job you should stay away from by any cost. Do something else, something productive that doesnt lead to a bunch of lies being sold as truths.

These problems are largely economic. Donate to your local investigative newsroom.

These problems are not economic. They are a function of an extremely broken process. The lack of money for people doing work on the ground through this model is part of why it is dying and high quality writing is going other places.

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

#160

Post by Karrot_Kream »

nabakin wrote: post #113
JohnMakin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, the issue is fewer and fewer people care about objective fact anymore. Reality is whatever you feel it is, or whatever you feel you want it to be, and the internet (the current iteration of it) is perfectly content to feed you that reality, and fake/real is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish. I've also been in similar discussions and have since given up - even if you show incontrovertible evidence to…

I wonder if there's something we can do. A social network that penalizes misinformation and rewards expert analysis. Something like that would never be as big as general social media but maybe it could be developed for a small set of users who care enough about truth to contribute to it and grow it over time

The market is probably the best we have and that's a dismal bar. Predict wrong and lose money.
Post reply on HN