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

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.

DMG articles?

Being pro genocide is an opinion technically. If you have a "flagrant lie", however, please post it. There was another wanker in the thread who claimed equal grand claims of lies but failed to come up with a link showing an actual lie

Just a place where people can call out and crowdsource lies that news outlets publish

This person thinks that Ukraine invaded Russia, FYI.

If you have evidence of them lying, you're more than welcome to submit that on the discussion pages. I don't know which articles you're referring to, but given my historical knowledge of wars in the Middle-East, they likely sourced US mouthpieces or analysts, rather than making the claims themself

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.

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.

to cite sources if they make claims

Problematic.

If we begin divulging our sources to the companies and governments we report on, we can no longer credibly offer vulnerable sources protection and those sources would understandably not trust us and would not be willing to talk to us.

https://www.404media.co/404-media-objects-to-texas-attorney-general-ken-paxtons-subpoena-to-access-our-reporting/

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… […]

Well, defamation laws do exist ^[1]. Other than things like that, I think one should be very careful with such times of laws as, imo, they begin encroaching rather rapidly on freedom of speech.

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.

Yes it would. As would the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism, despite criticizing it liberally.

It is... if you don't have the time or energy to do all that fact-checking because you have to work yourself to the bone just to afford rent.

Enough with the spammy questions. I'm not going to convince you and vice versa, and nobody is reading because the conversation has moved on. Good night.

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.

Hell, it doesn't even need to be lies. You can paint whatever story you want with the truth.

They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I'm not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. Opinion commentators can say whatever they want because it's their opinion. Big difference.

If an article hasn’t cited any sources, then, imo, it isn’t news

News are those sources for a lot of situations. Someone has to create the primary source at the point of something happening or existing. That's a news article. This can later be cited by somebody else "As reported by Reuters at xyz...". There exist other sources of course, which are, kinda, The News™️ in their respective areas of events. Scientific findings usually have published works as their primary source. Computer vulnerabilities use CWEs or something equivalent once made public.

What source could a reporter sitting on a street in a civil unrest cite? Signed, ID-verified, named and double-checked-against-birth-certificate statements from people around him?

....yes...but you do understand a journalist is someone who writes/reads news right? They're not just sat around with sources for no reason, those sources are specifically so they can report news...that's the point. What do you think a source is!?

Ok how are you fact checking, are you finding people with expertise and contacting them or googling and using whatever shite websites come up as a source? If the latter, how are you verifying the veracity of those sources?

And yes sources are required but that doesn't mean that's ALL that's required or you wouldn't have newspapers or organisations, just some people calling themselves journalists that have a bunch of sources, but nobody knows what for because they've never produced a piece of journalism for them to be of use.

The idea used to be that you find a news source that is the most reliable. Now half the world just finds the one that confirms their biases the most, and their biases are fucking stupid after decades of lies and education cuts from various rich cunts.

Yes. Journalist is a job. If you aren't getting paid you aren't one. You aren't a chef for cooking at home for yourself lmao