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

21–30 of 204 posts

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

#21

Post by amiga386 »

smallpipe wrote: post #6

The average journalist has to churn enough stories that they don't have time to be looking up anything. There must be a corollary somewhere about how much you should read the average newspaper.

That's why it's called Churnalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churnalism

Also, if any news orgs are listening: when you are regurgitating a press release about, say, a report or scientific paper, please make it your house style to hyperlink to the report or paper. That way I can see your sources and judge the claims for myself.

Also, people who write reports or papers and then make press releases: please upload them to your own damn websites, and make them easily findable by the public. Don't just email the press release to your pals in the media, and not put your words anywhere else.

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

#22

Post by dragontamer »

smallpipe wrote: post #6

The average journalist has to churn enough stories that they don't have time to be looking up anything. There must be a corollary somewhere about how much you should read the average newspaper.

The average newspaper has grossly declined in quality IMO.

But there are some good investigative journalists out there.

Arguably, all the smart and careful journalists have moved to the weekly or monthly format. Economist, The Atlantic, and the like.

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

#23

Post by dragontamer »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #12
smallpipe wrote: post #6

The average journalist has to churn enough stories that they don't have time to be looking up anything. There must be a corollary somewhere about how much you should read the average newspaper.

A decent newspaper can afford this because it also has a fact checker, a copyeditor, a line editor, and an expectation that a journalist will be fired[1] if they systematically fuck up the substance of their writing. It’s difficult to find a decent newspaper. [1] Or otherwise not employed—newspapers perfected not treating their core workforce as employees decades before everyone else.

A decent newspaper today in 2025 writes slop for their website to ensure daily engagement with their readers. To the point that people are talking about AI articles, literally serving slop.

Maybe they have a few AP articles thrown in there.

We have to acknowledge what has changed in our world and why things are the way that they are. Perhaps daily news is simply not profitable enough to provide us with quality information, and our economic incentives (namely advertising dollars from websites, YouTube, TikTok and the like) are having an adverse effect on quality.

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

#24

Post by Apreche »

Ekaros wrote: post #15
Apreche wrote: post #10

> I hope I've demonstrated that it takes almost no effort to perform a basic fact check. It isn't a professional skill. For myself a quick fact check like this is also low effort. Unlike the author, I recognize this is a professional skill. We are fortunate enough to be incredibly proficient in a large set of skills. Language, literacy, reading quickly, tech skills, research, touch-typing, critical thinking, searchin…

On other hand if you are able to compile "facts" to an article. You should as well be able to verify them from second source. And trivially fast in modern world. I mean if you synthesis information from one or more sources. Being able to verify them from one more source should not be huge leap. Then again, maybe it is just AI generated. Which really makes future look lot worse.

Their job is journalism, you would hope they have the skills, but not necessarily. The news business is not making much money, and aren’t paying big salaries. You’re not getting world renowned journalists to do a puff piece on a recently deceased celebrity. And even if they don’t use an LLM, they are still putting in the bare minimum effort for work they likely have no pride in.

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

#25

Post by dfxm12 »

smallpipe wrote: post #6

The average journalist has to churn enough stories that they don't have time to be looking up anything. There must be a corollary somewhere about how much you should read the average newspaper.

Perhaps there's also less stringent editing on the "Showbiz & TV" or "Culture" sections of the paper than the "News" section. I mean, papers in general are working leaner than they should. Hopefully, they put the editing focus on what's most important, but still, being lazy even in a lighter section does reflect poorly on the entire publication.

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

#26

Post by Brian_K_White »

Apreche wrote: post #10

> I hope I've demonstrated that it takes almost no effort to perform a basic fact check. It isn't a professional skill. For myself a quick fact check like this is also low effort. Unlike the author, I recognize this is a professional skill. We are fortunate enough to be incredibly proficient in a large set of skills. Language, literacy, reading quickly, tech skills, research, touch-typing, critical thinking, searchin…

The checking doesn't require anything more than what the original writing required.

There is no reason to try to excuse it

The analogy is invalid and casts doubt on those self proclaimed incredibly rare critical reasoning skills.

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

#27

Post by ikiris »

Ekaros wrote: post #15
Apreche wrote: post #10

> I hope I've demonstrated that it takes almost no effort to perform a basic fact check. It isn't a professional skill. For myself a quick fact check like this is also low effort. Unlike the author, I recognize this is a professional skill. We are fortunate enough to be incredibly proficient in a large set of skills. Language, literacy, reading quickly, tech skills, research, touch-typing, critical thinking, searchin…

On other hand if you are able to compile "facts" to an article. You should as well be able to verify them from second source. And trivially fast in modern world. I mean if you synthesis information from one or more sources. Being able to verify them from one more source should not be huge leap. Then again, maybe it is just AI generated. Which really makes future look lot worse.

If you think this is trivial, I suggest watching the video kurzgesagt just did on the topic. It’s much harder than you appreciate and getting massively worse as the days go by due to ai garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfN9wnPvU0

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

#28

Post by chaps »

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 name the piece is in. It's really not fun to receive threats of lawsuit from a powerful government agency because your editor added something that you never would have added. Once told an editor in-writing three times not to add something and he did it right before publishing.

It sucks being a journalist. Donate to your local investigative newsroom.

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

#29

Post by harrall »

smallpipe wrote: post #6

The average journalist has to churn enough stories that they don't have time to be looking up anything. There must be a corollary somewhere about how much you should read the average newspaper.

Average newspapers have average content.

But there are good newspapers just like they are good .

Although good newspapers still have bias, but as a reader, you can correct for bias. You can’t correct for sloppy fact checking.

Like in archery, if you always land in the same spot, you can “reverse bias” the result back to bullseye. If you land all over the place, there’s nothing you can do.

The only problem is that good newspapers cost some money.

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

#30

Post by the__alchemist »

I hope not to derail, as the core of the author's point is valid and important for people to understand.

Isn't this a bit like saying "The compulsive liar lied! He should stop doing that." Or "The propaganda agency is posting propaganda; they should stop doing that".

Focusing on details like this is assuming good faith, or assuming that the problems pointed out are exceptions, when they are the rule.

Post reply on HN