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

“An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

thehandbasket.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#31

Post by jowea »

t-3 wrote: post #8
xyst wrote: post #5

It shocks me to this day that news articles and journalists barely cite their sources. The best I have seen is shitty hyperlinked sources l, which are subject to link rot over time. Thus losing the context/source if underlying paper goes under or company decides to overhaul content system. What’s the point of learning APA or MLA citation in high school and college but journalists don’t even bother with it? Insane to…

If they cite their sources, next time you might just check the sources instead of them, or be able to tell when they're making shit up, or be able to see what they're careful not to say. Hiding the sources and being the middleman for truth gives journalists continued employment and increases their value.

I think they just don't want those precious eyeballs leaving their site.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#32

Post by carlosjobim »

simonw wrote: post #28
carlosjobim wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jornalists who hide their sources are usually also manipulated by those sources. How do you make sure as a journalist to get access to high ranking sources within the powers that be? You write the stories they want, or they're not talking to you anymore. Every journalist will experience politicians and other powerful people wanting to tell them things "off the record". If they enter into those kind of agreements they…

If you are a journalist working with a source who asks to stay anonymous your number one job is to ensure that they aren't lying to you in order to to advance their own agenda. Obviously they have an agenda, and want to advance it, so you need to figure out what that agenda is. The next challenge is confirming that what they are telling you is true, to an appropriate level of confidence at least. Your professional et…

Unless the source is a whistleblower, their agenda will usually be dirty if they want to be anonymous. And then you're at their whim, because they control the flow of information. If they're showing supporting documents, those documents should be open sourced* to the public or they shouldn't be seen by the journalist.

* As much as needed for the public to be able to verify.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#33

Post by carlosjobim »

orev wrote: post #10
carlosjobim wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jornalists who hide their sources are usually also manipulated by those sources. How do you make sure as a journalist to get access to high ranking sources within the powers that be? You write the stories they want, or they're not talking to you anymore. Every journalist will experience politicians and other powerful people wanting to tell them things "off the record". If they enter into those kind of agreements they…

> are usually also manipulated by those sources Citation needed.

Why are you asking questions whose answers you are not capable of understanding?

An anonymous source has the power to decide what information she lets the journalist have, and thus she controls the exchange. If the journalist does something to displease the source, then the journalist is cut off from the information.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#34

Post by djoldman »

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment.

Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories.

No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor.

This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#35

Post by dylan604 »

djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

Modern news sites refer to other new sites frequently. "as reported by _____" is seen frequently. links to other sites' Twitt..er, X feeds are also common.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#36

Post by padolsey »

djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

> That's just an advertisement for their competitor.

I think the simpler explanation is just laziness and no positive incentive or obligation, as opposed to proactive competitive practices..

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#37

Post by jimbob45 »

mullingitover wrote: post #23

It's funny that universities will throw you out immediately for plagiarism (some will throw you out if you're aware of it but don't report it ), but major publications will do it (this isn't the same as scholastic plagiarism, but it's the journalistic equivalent) out in the open and shamelessly with no repercussions.

There’s really very little objectivity in the study of English writing. It would make sense that teachers would gravitate to the only real objective part of their discipline - citations - in a desperate attempt to be able to reliably test students. No surprise the profession has embraced citations to the point of absurdity.

Granted, teaching soft skills is hard but English teachers seem to have universally given up trying at all.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#38

Post by marcus_holmes »

djoldman wrote: post #34

The news industry makes a lot of sense when viewed as a category of entertainment. Reporters write stories and people read them to be entertained. Newspapers make money when more people read the stories. No wonder that newspapers don't cite others... That's just an advertisement for their competitor. This isn't the only way to view the news industry but it certainly explains a lot.

There's also a professional divide between "journalists" and "bloggers" [0]. If anyone can start their own website and write stuff, without getting any kind of qualification or accreditation, and without following any editorial policy or maintaining any kind of journalistic integrity, and still get credited with a story, then journalism itself has an identity crisis.

Meanwhile, (some) journalists at (some) news organisations are being forced to write stories that have no integrity under an editorial policy that is designed to promote a partisan point of view.

There's no working business model for real investigative journalism, but our democratic systems need real investigative journalism in order to function properly and hold politicians to account. Nothing else does.

Independent journalists can make this happen, but how do we recognise a "real" independent journalist doing real investigative journalism from an activist blogger with an axe to grind?

[0] I'm not saying that the author is not a journalist, or inferring that they're a blogger.

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#39

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

robocat wrote: post #26
mullingitover wrote: post #23

It's funny that universities will throw you out immediately for plagiarism (some will throw you out if you're aware of it but don't report it ), but major publications will do it (this isn't the same as scholastic plagiarism, but it's the journalistic equivalent) out in the open and shamelessly with no repercussions.

> throw you out immediately for plagiarism Only by twisting the meaning of plagiarism to be defined as word-for-word. Universities intensively train students to accept plagiarism so long as the copy is sufficiently reworded (and hopefully referenced). That sick and pointless system is ironically being exposed by student usage of LLMs.

It is indeed worthwhile to point out that universities care less about the actual idea of taking someone else’s work, but rather more about the idea of doing so without credit. In the charitable sense, this is what science is built on. In the less charitable sense, this is what science is built on

Re: “An independent journalist” who won't remain nameless

#40

Post by TheCowboy »

robocat wrote: post #26
mullingitover wrote: post #23

It's funny that universities will throw you out immediately for plagiarism (some will throw you out if you're aware of it but don't report it ), but major publications will do it (this isn't the same as scholastic plagiarism, but it's the journalistic equivalent) out in the open and shamelessly with no repercussions.

> throw you out immediately for plagiarism Only by twisting the meaning of plagiarism to be defined as word-for-word. Universities intensively train students to accept plagiarism so long as the copy is sufficiently reworded (and hopefully referenced). That sick and pointless system is ironically being exposed by student usage of LLMs.

> (and hopefully referenced)

If it's cited, it's usually by definition not plagiarism. Omitting the reference is passing the work off as your own, but providing that information is giving credit to where it is due.

Post reply on HN