If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist?
If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.
Well, that works if the only vector of misinformation is broadcast-based, but it’s not. […]
Could you elaborate on what you mean?
I'm saying that holding a news outlet accountable for accuracy could work in a news landscape where people get their information from a handful of outlets that all reach a broad audience. In a world where a lot of people get small pieces of misinformation from thousands or millions of tiny sources spread across social media it is much harder to keep a centralized control on accuracy for all those communications, even discounting all the issues with free speech and opinion.
I’m saying that holding a news outlet accountable for accuracy could work in a news landscape where people get their information from a handful of outlets that all reach a broad audience. In a world where a lot of people get small pieces of misinformation from thousands or millions of tiny sources spread across social media it is much harder to keep a centralized control on accuracy for all those communications
Hm, I do agree that many outlets/sources may make things "messier", but I don't think that it would mean that the laws could no longer apply — for example, I think, defamation laws could still apply to anyone.
As I think someone else already pointed out, defamation is not a major part of the issue and it's already in place quite strictly in many places without making a dent on the issue.
And yes, it's absolutely defeated by scale. You can't start a legal process against every single tweet and facebook post (let alone every message in a Whatsapp group you can't even see in the first place). As with paywalls, the aggregate effect ends up being that large outlets are held to a high standard while misinformation spread through social media is not just cheaper to make but less accountable.
[…] without making a dent on the issue.
"the issue" being misinformation and disinformation that's not defamation?
Sure. Defamation is a very specific case of improper communication.
But even defamation is hard to control in a world of distributed social media communication.
[…] You can’t start a legal process against every single tweet and facebook post (let alone every message in a Whatsapp group you can’t even see in the first place). […]
Imo, theoretically one could, but I think that it would be impractical, or at least prohibitively expensive.
Same thing. You'll run out of court bandwidth even before you run out of money, and you will definitely run out of money.
And you literally can't in many cases when you're dealing with messages being sent internationally.
[…] anonymous sourcing and source protection still has a place […]
I agree. Though, anecdotally, I'm not exactly fond of how some news outlets that I've come across use such types of sources — they use some adulterated quote snipped buried within their article; I think it would be better if they, for example, post explicitly the entire unadulterated (within good reason) transcript of the anonymous source with all relevant metadata cited along with it, and then cite that in whatever article.
Yeah, it's a problematic tool, for sure. In politics in particular it can be used to present interested or partisan information as factual or to manufacture a story. Happens all the time.
That's why loopholes are loopholes and controlling misinformation is so hard. Perfectly legitimate tools can be used maliciously or unethically and there are very valuable babies in that bathwater that shouldn't be sacrificed in pursuit of easy solutions.
Of course not. My point stands though.
The eu is doing a somewhat decent job pushing for platform liability although I would say we need more and harder measures in that case.
Of course all your points apply too so the skill of fact checking needs to be honed. But keeping potential drivers of misinformation accountable is paramount.
Sure, it's a hard line to walk against free speech, though.
I am more concerned about access. Reliable, high quality information is increasingly paywalled, while disinformation is very much not. That is a big problem and, again, one with no easy solutions. If people with the skillset and the disposition need to charge to keep their jobs while meme farmss keep pumping out bad faith narratives funded by hostile actors it's going to be hard to reverse course.
I alsmost wonder if accuntability takes the shape of public funding for information access on outlets meeting certain oversight standards, but that is a very hard sell in a political landscape where some political groups benefit from the current situation.
Yes indeed.
Free speech or freeze peach as I call the populist american approach is no right. It is just a way for people to manipulate the lesser privileged.
The european way of free speech is you are allowed to say whatever you want as long as you harm noone with it. Knowingly spreading lies is the latter. If thats anti free speech to you, then tough luck.
Europe's approach to free speech (in general, there are tons of countries with different takes) is that it's a right along with a bunch of others and it gets limitations like all others. I agree, the US view of rights as places where you do whatever you want and everybody else has to deal with the fallout is fundamentally different to the social democracy approach.
But free speech remains a fundamental right for democracy. If you allow governments to have too much control over resources, private speech or news reporting you end up on the other end of the spectrum, where public resources are spent reinforcing the position of whatever the current government is.
This is and has always been one of the hardest balancing acts of healthy democracies, and it's borderline impossible in a world dominated by for-profit social media and hostile actors deliberately using communication as a weapon.
We have gone far into the fight on principles here.
Yes, free speech
No spreading lies, period.
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.
[…] As citizens we are called on to trust them to not make sh*t up. […]
Imo, that's an appeal to authority.
Yes, it is. It's literally how a complex society works. Do you advocate trusting nobody about anything and somehow doing all the research yourself? Would you dismiss your doctor for their "appeal to authority" when they open a medical textbook? This is silly.
[…] Would you dismiss your doctor for their “appeal to authority” when they open a medical textbook? […]
Trusting the doctor's word simply because they are a doctor would be an appeal to authority; whereas, referencing a medical textbook would be citing a source, and therefore not conjecture.
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.
Do you agree with the existence of defamation laws?
Of course. Hence the word "abuse".
[…] 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.
Why not?
Doctors can actually face real consequences if they break their code of ethics, "journalists" get promoted for it
You're doing exactly what you criticize others for doing.
How so?
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.
References
- "Defamation". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-09T15:41Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T07:02Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Laws_by_jurisdiction.
- §"Laws by jurisdiction".
Defamation is very far away from our current situation. Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable.
There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government but that is what we have assasins for.
[…] that is what we have assasins for.
Imo, this isn't sustainable in a stable, and civil society.
That is correct. It neither needs to be nor is a society that allows abuse of power „civil“.
This new development showed that the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote, although a horrific and regrettable one.
[…] There should be no right to abuse others verbally or spread disinformation. Of course you can always use this in bad faith as a government […]
For clarity, are you referring to the government abusing the judicial system to silence someone with opinions they don't like?
Among other potential abuses, yes.
People and companies have abused the judicial system as long as it has been in place. We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.
Defamation is very far away from our current situation. […]
How so? Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "make them liable if it turns out to be false" — I think it's possible that defamation wouldn't account for all possibilities, but I think it's at least one thing that is covered by what you are talking about.
[…] Europe is on the correct path imo in holding those who profit from disinformation accountable. […]
I'm unfamiliar with those specific laws. Could you cite what your referring to for my reference?
No problem: the digital services act and the digital markets act. The best write up I could find ad hoc is this
- "Defamation". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-12-09T15:41Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T07:02Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Laws_by_jurisdiction.
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.
I agree. Especially 404 media is known to me. But you‘re taking my idea literally. Of course there are situations where this isnt feasible but in the vast majority, the need for backing up a claim outweighs the need for confidentiality.
For example „migrants have again attacked innocent native“ is a popular leading headline which has no real news value but drives opinions and disinformation.
A newspaper could be required to back up such a claim with sources proving that on average, migrants will unprovokedly attack native born people who are on average innocent (which all is bullshit, therefore this headline would become illegal).
Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.
Are you saying that I'm unqualified to be a journalist?
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.
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.
[…] are you saying I’m unqualified to be a journalist? Because yeah you are probably right. […]
What makes you think that you are unqualified?
What makes you think that you are unqualified?
A more than cursory knowledge of statistics.
Statistics of what?
[…] 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?
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.
Classic Norm MacDonald. Never gets old.
[…] any reasonable threshold would exclude the vast majority of people, mostly because the vast majority of people aren’t journalists […]
Perhaps I should clarify that I don't agree with @MudMan@fedia.io's opinion, which was stated in my comment. By their use of the term "unqualified", it made me think that they had qualifications in mind which would be required to be met, in their opinion, before someone could be a journalist — I was simply curious what those qualifications were.
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.
[…] There’s a reason it’s supposed to be a full time job […]
For clarity, by "it" are you referring to journalism?
I'm assuming you're in a microblogging flavor of federation and that's why this is broken down into a bunch of posts?
Yes, I'm referring to journalism.
Yes, I’m referring to journalism.
Okay, well I don't exactly follow the relevance of your claim that journalism can be practiced full-time. I also don't exactly follow the usage of your language "supposed to". Imo, one needn't be a full-time journalist to practice journalism.
You can do journalism without working as a journalist, but there is a lot of work involved in doing good journalism, which I presume would be the goal.
If you think the workload is trivial, consider the posibility you may not have a full view of everything that is involved. I'm saying everybody can and should have enough knowledge to sus out whether a piece of info they see online or in a news outlet is incorrect, misleading or opinionated, but it's not reasonable, efficient or practical to expect everybody to access their news like a professional journalist does.
[…] everybody can and should have enough knowledge to sus out whether a piece of info they see online or in a news outlet is incorrect, misleading or opinionated […]
I agree.
[…] it’s not reasonable, efficient or practical to expect everybody to access their news like a professional journalist does.
I agree, but I don't think that that's a valid argument in defense of a journalist not citing their claims.
No, it's an argument against some of the proposed remedies.
The step you're skipping over is that citing a claim by itself doesn't do much to guarantee its veracity if the reader of the citation isn't willing to get in touch with the source of the citation and verify its content. Citations aren't magical. As you're using them in this conversation they are merely a tool for a peer review to be able to verify a bunch of precedent information without having to include it all in the same place every time.
The difference between journalistic information and peer review in science is that news are supposed to have gone through a journalistic verification process first, which the reader trusts based on the previous operation of the news outlet. A paper is presented to go through peer review and published after it has gone through that process.
You can do journalism without working as a journalist […]
Err, could you clarify this? By definition doesn't the action of doing journalism make one a journalist? For example, Merriam-Webster defines the noun "journalist" as "a person engaged in journalism" [1]. This would follow logically [2]: If one is engaged in journalism, then they are a journalist; one is engaged in journalism; therefore, they are a journalist.
References
- "journalist". Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-12T00:10Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist.
- "List of valid argument forms". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-06-28T20:12Z. Accessed: 2024-12-12T00:11Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms#Modus_ponens.
- §"Valid propositional forms". §"Modus ponens".
If A, then B
A
Therefore B
- §"Valid propositional forms". §"Modus ponens".
Working as in "being paid to do the work".
I'll spare you the dictionary definition. As we've established, you can source that yourself.
- "journalist". Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-12T00:10Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist.
[…] If you think the workload is trivial […]
I think you might be misunderstanding me — I'm not of the opinion that the workload for journalism is trivial. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's necessary to work full-time as a journalist (ie in a career capacity) to do the work of a journalist. I think there may be a miscommunication of definitions for things like "journalism", "full-time".
No, you can do those tasks at any point. I'm not concerned with who is doing the work, I'm concerned with the amount of work involved and how practical it is for every one of us to do it as a matter of course every time we access information online.
This is why this choice you made of quote-replying to individual statements is not a great way to have a conversation online, by the way. Now we're breaking down the details behind individual words with no context on the arguments that contain them. This is all borderline illegible and quite far from the original argument, IMO.
I’m assuming you’re in a microblogging flavor of federation and that’s why this is broken down into a bunch of posts?
No, I'm not on a microblogging platform. I personally prefer to post atomic comments. I believe that threads should be restricted in scope so that they are clearer and easier to follow. I think that it also helps prevent miscommunications.
[…] I presume we don’t want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media […]
Can you clarify exactly what you are referring to here?
Well, a journalist would often be expected to get in touch with a source directly, which is not feasible if we're all doing it.
I'll grant you, it very often doesn't happen, but still.
Well, a journalist would often be expected to get in touch with a source directly, which is not feasible if we’re all doing it.
Are you saying that journalism only deals in novel information?
No. Not sure how you get that from the quote.
Let me try to clarify my thinking:
You stated this:
[…] I presume we don’t want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media […]
You, then, clarified that:
[…] a journalist would often be expected to get in touch with a source directly, which is not feasible if we’re all doing it.
If you are referring to the original root source (assuming that it's, for example, a conversation with someone), to me, that reads like you are saying that a journalist can't cite the report by another journalist who first interviewed that source (ie novel information), and that each journalist needs to independently interview the source themselves in a novel way.
No, but most original reports would be expected to in fact reach out to a primary source, and fact-checking them would often require the same thing.
That doesn't need to be novel. Verifying a source or a piece of information often just requires reaching out to a primary source to have them confirm the second-hand report that is available elsewhere. Not all journalism is built by aggregating other reports, the process needs to start somewhere. And you can't just take the fact that a source is mentioned as a guarantee of accuracy, you have to verify information.
This is, as I said, a full time job for a reason. Many corners are cut in the modern day of endless news cycles, but that doesn't mean it doesn't require work to do properly.
Honestly, I'm not sure what my thinking was either when I wrote that. I will retract it.
[…] understanding what even counts as a source is not a trivial problem, let alone an independent source, let alone a credible independent source. […]
I agree.
[…] we should get research methods taught in school from very early on. […]
I agree.
Which explains a lot of how the 21st century is going, honestly.
I agree with the conclusion, but not the premise, or at least not if used as an explicit argument — I think your premise is itself an example for your conclusion. I believe your premise is more an example of why there is, arguably, such a problem with misinformation and disinformation right now: I think it serves to increase the risk to appeals to authority; though, it's a double edged sword as, imo, unchecked skepticism erodes one's trust in reality.
I don't think I know what you're trying to say there. Can you rephrase that more straightforwardly for me?
I'm of the belief that anyone is capable of being a journalist regardless of their qualifications. I think that restricting that through elitism directly leads to appeals to authority (I've seen examples of that itt [1][2][3][4]) — appeals to authority, I think, is one of the root causes for why, anecdotally, news outlets have become so lazy in citing their sources — why cite sources if people will believe what you say regardless? Whether or not something is good journalism, by definition, imo, is self-evident — it doesn't matter who did the work, so long as it is accurate.
References
- @Hikermick@lemmy.world [To: "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: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-11T05:03:33Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:01Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13908617.
When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source. […]
- @OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml. [To: "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: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-11T08:06:53Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:06Z. https://lemmy.ml/comment/15451608.
News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet […]
- @JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world [To: "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: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-10T14:54:41Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:11Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13896551.
[…] 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. […]
- @jeffw@lemmy.world [To: "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: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-10T08:37:58Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:16Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13892346.
Legitimate news outlets do pretty thorough fact-checking, if only to avoid litigation
Everybody is capable of being a journalist, but not everybody knows how. Qualifications are just some confirmation that someone has gone through some training. The training is to get the required skills. Capacity to get there doesn't mean everybody is born with the right skillset or this would not be an issue in the first place.
Hence the education angle. You train kids earlier while the subjects they study are universal and prevent a scenario where a lot of people can't fact check their own information or aren't aware of their own biases.
Which is to say, no, good journalism isn't self-evident. If it was, we wouldn't need to have this conversation because the free market would lift up good journalism, presumably.
Confirmation bias is universal, however, so it takes a lot of work to learn to bypass it.
[…] good journalism isn’t self-evident. If it was, we wouldn’t need to have this conversation because the free market would lift up good journalism, presumably.
Hm, perhaps my usage of "self-evident" isn't super accurate here — I agree that one needs to be taught/be in possession of the knowledge for how to determine if a sample of journalism is "good". What I mean to say is that I think articles contain within themselves all that is required to determine if they are examples of good or bad journalism — all that's required is for someone to know what to look for in the article to determine that for themself.
That depends on what you mean, I suppose. If what you're saying is a savvy reader can fact-check an article if they know how... probably yes, in most cases. There are also probably warning flags and markers in most pieces to tell a savvy reader whether they should be following up in the first place.
If you're saying that a savvy reader should be able to spot the quality of the information on the spot based entirely on the information within the article, then obviously not. That would mean the reader already has all the information in the piece and then some. The process of determining that is going to take some additional work to seek additional information, which is why it's so hard to rely on crowdsourced fact-checking. Not everybody is going to have the time or availability to do that every time.
I assume you mean the first option, though.
[…] If what you’re saying is a savvy reader can fact-check an article if they know how… probably yes, in most cases. There are also probably warning flags and markers in most pieces to tell a savvy reader whether they should be following up in the first place. […]
An example that I would add would be the mere presence, or lack thereof, of citations. If nothing is cited, then, imo, it's not great journalism.
If you understand citations as you've been using them here (i.e. links to other media formatted as academic citations), we don't agree.
Naming sources yes, sometimes, but many journalistic reports are based on personal interviews where citation is trivial, official sources (police reports, press statements from organizations), direct observation by the journalist or anonymous sourcing (government sources say...), so it's not much of a marker of anything in many cases.
[…] I assume you mean the first option […]
Yes.
The world you are advocating cannot work. We have specialized professions for a reason.
- @Hikermick@lemmy.world [To: "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: 2024-12-10T07:34:34. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-11T05:03:33Z. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:01Z. https://lemmy.world/comment/13908617.