Skip Navigation
Showerthoughts @lemmy.world Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist?

215

You're viewing a single thread.

215 comments

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

    • Are you saying that any claims made by "legitimate news outlets" can be trusted without cited sources simply because they are deemed "legitimate"?

      • Sure. Anyone can challenge a legit news source through litigation. How often do you think NYTimes is sent legal threats over factual questions in their reporting? Probably dozens of letters each week. Why do those letters never result in lawsuits with real results? Because the papers keep their records tight.

        • […] Anyone can challenge a legit news source through litigation. […]

          Oh? Would you mind citing some of those laws as examples (presumably you're not referring to defamation, but something else entirely)? I wasn't aware of any laws, in, for example, the USA that enforce legal action if a news outlet puts out false information.

          • Wow, Google is hard, huh? /s

            I can tell you’re trolling now, but in case anybody reads this and wants a serious answer:

            Libel laws are a huge piece. Wire fraud laws, false advertising laws, various consumer protection laws, etc. have been used. There is nothing specific that prevents someone from lying in general, but it’s nearly impossible for a large outlet to get away with lying. Not only do they get shit on and then document their retractions with an apology, but because people are incredibly litigious and will attempt to sue over any perceived slight that is factually inaccurate, even when no harm is done.

            • […] There is nothing specific that prevents someone from lying in general, but it’s nearly impossible for a large outlet to get away with lying. […]

              Is that not a contradictory statement? How could there be litigation over lying, if there are no general laws regarding lying. At any rate, the existence of specific laws preventing lying in general was whole point of this thread [1].

              References
              1. Author: @jeffw@lemmy.world [To: Title: "If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist?". Author: "Kalcifer" @Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works. "Showerthoughts" !showerthoughts@lemmy.world. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-12T00:44:54Z. Accessed: 2024-12-13T04:30Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13923802.

                […] Anyone can challenge a legit news source through litigation. How often do you think NYTimes is sent legal threats over factual questions in their reporting? Probably dozens of letters each week. Why do those letters never result in lawsuits with real results? Because the papers keep their records tight.

              • The entire point of the thread was you not realizing that fact checking happens and somehow ignoring the crowdsourcing effect.

                But nah, you know the real point of this post, my dude. Parrot right wing talking points about “the MeDiA!!!1”

            • Wow, Google is hard, huh? /s

              Imo, the following legal maxim is relevant "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" [1]. It's ironic that you are bothered by the idea of citing sources given the topic of this post.

              References
              1. Title: "Burden of proof (law)". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-11-22T15:21Z. Accessed: 2024-12-13T04:10Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law).
                • ¶2.

                  The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." […]

              • You… you realize you made the original allegation lol?

                • […] you made the original allegation […]

                  Can you clarify? This was the exchange (starting with your claim):

                  […] Anyone can challenge a legit news source through litigation. […]

                  […] Would you mind citing some of those laws as examples […]

                  Wow, Google is hard, huh? […]

                  I read this as you making a claim, me asking if you could cite it, and you seemingly being bothered by the notion. I'm not sure how that's my allegation. Are you referring to something else?

            • […] I can tell you’re trolling now […]

              Based on what? I'm not.

              • Lmk if you want any legit feedback on how you could troll better! Overall you’re doing a solid job but there’s little improvements you could make

            • […] Wire fraud laws, false advertising laws, various consumer protection laws […]

              I'm not sure what any of those have to do with a news outlet making misinformative claims.

              • I’m not sure why you refuse to use goo- oh duh, you don’t want to learn lol. You want to push a narrative

    • Lol

You've viewed 215 comments.