this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024

625 points (97.9% liked)

Showerthoughts

30029 readers

622 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

All posts must be showerthoughts
The entire showerthought must be in the title
Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
Posts must be original/unique
Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

vatlark@lemmy.world

forkball@lemmy.world

quinten@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

625

If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 week ago by Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

223 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 122 points 1 week ago (42 children)

News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet (even if they publish more "boring" stories that aren't as "up to date"): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. Wikipedia does, but it happens on discussion pages and it relies on human editors who know where those discussions happened to string it together

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Was about to post this list, it's a very good overall quick reference. It correctly identifies most of the tabloids posing as "real" newspapers, too.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That is a good recipe for sneaking lies into the newspaper. Journalists should just be doing their job.

[–] TranquilTurbulence@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Journalists have one job: produce revenue one way or another. Informing the public of factual or fictional events is a byproduct of running this business.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's a balance to hit in article sharing communities too.
Too much leniency, and you just end up with people posting DMG articles, and tiny un-sourced blogs with snazzy titles.
Too tough, and you end up spending your entire life justifying why various borderline sources are not suitable.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

DMG articles?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm guessing Dungeon Master's Guide

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago

Yep. Damn Wizards infiltrated the UK commercial media a decade ago, and they never left.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

[…] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources […]

Thank you for sharing that link! 😊

load more comments (38 replies)

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean, yeah.

Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.

We really should get way more research methodology stuff into school curriculums from much earlier.

[–] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 15 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Or maybe we require large newspapers and other single owner/large audience influencers to cite sources if they make claims and make them liable if it turns out to be false… because we‘re unable to read our medications instructions or the terms of the products we use.

I‘m not against education. But i would like to hold people who make claims accountable additionally to enabling the public to do research.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago (15 children)

Well, that works if the only vector of misinformation is broadcast-based, but it's not. There are far fewer gatekeepers now than there were last century, you don't just have to fact check what comes up the traditional media pipe, also social media claims and claims from marginal sources. Both of which look pretty much identical to traditional media in the forms that most people consume them, which is a big part of the issue.

And, of course, anonymous sourcing and source protection still has a place, it's not as trivial as that.

In any case, there are no silver bullets here. This is the world we live in. We're in mitigation mode now.

load more comments (15 replies)

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (11 children)

With respect, this shows an ignorance of the historical role of journalism in democracy.

to cite sources

Sources may have valuable information to get out, but not be willing to go on the record. Professional journalists are like doctors in that they've committed themselves to a code of ethics. As citizens we are called on to trust them to not make sh*t up.

For publicly available written sources, it's only a bit different. Yes, they could cite every sentence they write, and indeed some do, but it still comes down to institutional trust. If you don't trust where you're getting your news from, this is a problem that's probably not gonna get fixed with citations.

make them liable if it turns out to be false

A terrible no-good idea. Legislating for truth is a slippery slope that ends in authoritarian dystopia. The kind of law you are advocating exists in a ton of countries ("spreading dangerous falsehoods", abuse of defamation laws when the subject involves an individual, etc). You would not want to live in any of these places.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.

Are you saying that I'm unqualified to be a journalist?

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 11 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Well, I don't know you personally. I'm saying anybody who has to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, and thus is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job.

Which explains a lot of how the 21st century is going, honestly.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

[…] I’m saying anybody who has to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, and thus is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job. […]

What, in your opinion, would determine if someone is qualified to fact check a news article? Do you have criteria?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think you might have missed the subtle point @mudman was making about marginal probabilities. Its not about their thresholds; any reasonable threshold would exclude the vast majority of people, mostly because the vast majority of people aren't journalists / don't have that training.

Do you own a dog house?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago (34 children)

Like I said, we should get research methods taught in school from very early on. For one thing, understanding what even counts as a source is not a trivial problem, let alone an independent source, let alone a credible independent source.

There's the mechanics of sourcing things (from home and on a computer, I presume we don't want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media), a basic understanding of archival and how to get access to it and either a light understanding of the subject matter or how to get access to somebody who has it.

There's a reason it's supposed to be a full time job, but you can definitely teach kids enough of the basics to both assess the quality of what they come across and how to mitigate the worst of it. In all seriousness.

load more comments (34 replies)

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

is an acting journalist is statistically very likely to be extremely unqualified for the job

Wait wait.. are you saying I'm unqualified to be a journalist? Because yeah you are probably right.

Also Bayes and stat pilled.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So I just got out of a conference talk from a guy that ran newsrooms for about 20 years and has moved on to other things. The last few years have been basically "get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows". These people working in these rooms have been cut back 90%+ but are still expected to get the same volumes of articles published as were when there were 10X the staff.

He said it's completely impossible to do any verification with what they have to work with, and chances are the stories are written before the people involved are interviewed. That's why he got out.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (7 children)

[…] The last few years have been basically “get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows”. […]

If true, that's terrible, imo. Anecdotally, it would explain a great deal.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 29 points 1 week ago

yeah sorta. journalism was supposed to be more about fact checking back in that day rather than first to post. The rumor mill filled that niche. Does seem like news nowadays is more like the rumor mill.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well I'm something of a ~~scientist~~ Journalist myself

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Imo, yes you are!

[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

News stopped being news when the 24 hour news cycle started. Now it’s just entertainment.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Yes. An unpaid one.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (5 children)

ITT: the justification for civics education.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Legitimate news outlets do pretty thorough fact-checking, if only to avoid litigation

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wish there were a fact checking website that allowed checking any article and calculating scores e.g how many claims are linked, where do the links point to (available or not), are the linked pages trust-worthy themselves, detecting link circles ( A -> B -> C -> A), and so on. Or at least something that provided us the tools to do community fact-checking in the open.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments