Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

67

Comments

1,020

Joined

2 yr. ago

[…] Where do you think sources end? […]

For anything practical, I don't think it's possible to give an exact answer to that — in practice, I think that, at the very least, making a conscious effort to maximize accuracy and minimize bias would go a long way. Imo, it gets tricky rather quick when debates of the veracity of sources themselves begins.

[…] If I mention that biden is currently president, do I need a source linked? If 1+1 is 2, do I need to provide a source? Do I need to source the definitions of every word? Do I need a source that vaccines don’t cause autism? That 5g doesn’t cause COVID? […]

In an ideal world, imo, yes, those all would be cited.

[…] An unpaid one.

Is that consequential?

I'll look at each of your examples independently (note that all that follows is my own opinion, and should be interpreted as conjecture):

“A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company” *And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.

• "young boy": This is opinion — what one person calls young may differ from another. Proper reporting, imo, would specify the exact age only, and cite where they know that age from. The emotionally charged language like "young", and "boy" should be omitted.
• "justice": This is opinion — what one person calls justice may differ from another. It may even be considered verifiably false depending on one's definition of justice.
• "after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company": If the reporting is only on an event that happened, this information that follows is irrelevant and only serves to emotionally charge one's interpretation — it is not good faith journalism.

A men [sic] struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”.

• "A [man]": Whether someone is a "man" is a matter of opinion. I'm not aware of a hard definition. It's especially not used with an exact definition in colloquial speech. It should be omitted and replaced with the age of the individual with a source citing how that age is known.
• "struggling with mental illness": If the reporting is only on the event that happened (ie the killing of the CEO), this information is unnecessary and only serves to emotionally charge the reporting.
• "severe medical issues": Severity is a matter of opinion. This is emotionally charged. It can be removed for the same reason as "struggling with mental illness".
• "assassinated": This is pure conjecture and relies on a source ­— it may not be known to be an actual assassination (assuming that assassination is interpreted as a hired hit on someone).
• "a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people": Emotionally charged and can be removed if the reporting is specifically only on the event.

Both are, by definition ^[1], not journalism (regardless of the position they are taking), as they are mixing opinions with facts, and are attempting to interpret them, as was shown above.

[…] that is what we have assasins for.

Imo, this isn't sustainable in a stable, and civil society.

[…] 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?

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?

[…] For a journalists, just fact checking someone online doesn’t make you a journalists. If you went out to fact check something at the source, compiled a bunch of evidence and presented it publicly, then you’d call your self a journalist. […]

I agree ­— it fits by definition ^[1], at the very least.

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.

[…] 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.

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.

[…] 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".

[…] This is, as I said, a full time job for a reason. […]

I mean, I would say only if one wants to do it continuously — I suppose it depends on how you are defining "full time job" in this context.

[…] 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.

I agree.

[…] 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. […]

I feel like this could be self-limiting — once enough independent verifications have been completed and released, the collection of them should reach a point where its deemed unnecessary to further prove its veracity. I think it would be akin to meta-analysis.

[…] it takes a lot of work to learn to bypass [confirmation bias].

I agree.

[…] 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.

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.

I agree.