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

61–70 of 204 posts

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

#61

Post by GMoromisato »

The root problem is that the media's business model has failed. We need a new business model before the situation improves. What might that business model look like?

My preference would be for consumers of news to pay for that news. This aligns incentives and gives us power to choose the media companies that serve us best. We're seeing part of this transition with all the news orgs putting up paywalls and name-brand journalists starting their own Substack.

But I don't know if this will work--are there enough people willing to pay? I subscribe to 4 streaming services (Netflix, Disney, Apple+, and HBO) but only one news source (NYT). And I've never been tempted to pay for a journalist's Substack, no matter how talented. That's a revealed preference right there.

Maybe the answer is to bundle entertainment with news. If each of those streaming services came with a news channel and cost an extra $2 per month, would I subscribe? Maybe.

Of course, that's how it used to work!

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

#62

Post by AdmiralAsshat »

GolfPopper wrote: post #13
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.

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's quote was:

> 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 with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. [0]

Why they felt the need to edit Palestine out of the quote is unclear.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070714204136/http://www.michae...

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

#63

Post by BeetleB »

jimmydddd wrote: post #36
altcognito wrote: post #18

I'm confused why we are fact checking viral slop. First, you would have to confirm she wrote it. When and where was it published. If you can't confirm that, you shouldn't post it. Stop, go no further. What if the information was plausible, or even accurate. If she didn't write it, what value is it?

Agreed. It seems like a supposed quote? If my elderly mom wrote that she went to a NY Mets baseball game in 1960, and Wikipedia says the Mets weren't formed until 1962, is a newspaper supposed to determine that the quote is not legit bacause my mom mis-wrote or was confused?

> is a newspaper supposed to determine that the quote is not legit bacause my mom mis-wrote or was confused?

If the newspaper is printing it, they own it. A mere footnote pointing out that the Mets didn't exist then would suffice.

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

#65

Post by rootusrootus »

simonw wrote: post #48
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." It is worth paying attention to the significant rise in prominence of non-profit newsrooms, particularly in the USA. Some notable examples: The Baltimore Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner Founded: 2022 ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica Founded: 2007 The Texas Tribune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas_Tribune Founded: 2…

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 example I'm familiar with, Willamette Week in Portland has a reputation of being halfway decent. Though to be fair, it also has advertising, and does not even have subscriptions since 1984.

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

#66

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

GMoromisato wrote: post #61

The root problem is that the media's business model has failed. We need a new business model before the situation improves. What might that business model look like? My preference would be for consumers of news to pay for that news. This aligns incentives and gives us power to choose the media companies that serve us best. We're seeing part of this transition with all the news orgs putting up paywalls and name-brand…

People used to pay $2 a day for a newspaper, what's $2 a month gonna do?

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

#67

Post by csours »

I agree with the author that this is important. I do not agree that it is easy.

In some cases it is relatively easy, but in many cases it requires some subject area expertise.

I do wish it was easier to punish media organizations for slop; however any feedback mechanism would also be (ab)-used for political purposes and reputation laundering.

Modern media is a combat arena.

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

#68

Post by BoredPositron »

10 years ago there was a famous article in the German Bild about the 10 craziest laws in America. Something like that it's illegal for woman to wear pants in some parts of Arizona etc. A lot of other big publications started to feature the same laws in their trivia sections until a journalist actually checked if they still exist. It turned out that none of the laws existed or were still enforced. It would have been so simple to check their facts but nope over 10 publications reprinted it and nobody bothered.

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

#69

Post by sixtyj »

amiga386 wrote: post #21
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 th…

B2B magazines and websites are full of churnalism. They are unreadable.

The issue here is that for every journalist there are 6 to 7 PR people. (There approx. 45,000 journalists but 297,000 PR people in the USA. PR agencies employ 114,000 ppl.)

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

#70

Post by zanecodes »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #40
the__alchemist wrote: post #30

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.

The other interesting thing about the article is just that the entire nature of fact checking, references and cross references, especially over time, requires physical documents. References to electronically stored documents are about as ephemeral as it gets. And certainly the wayback machine which I would guess is running on donations and largesse, isn't going to cut it for document archival purposes. It's ironic th…

You might be interested in IPFS [1], and content-addressed storage systems more generally.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System

Post reply on HN