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

[…] Scientific findings usually have published works as their primary source. […]

In that case, imo, the initial reporting would be the research paper, and the literal root source would be the data that they collected.

[…] Someone has to create the primary source at the point of something happening or existing. […]

Presumably the event was recorded, or the thing existing measured. Imo, these recordings and measurements would be what's cited and reported on as novel information in a news article. I could possibly be convinced otherwise, but I think that the mere action of recording, or measuring isn't news on its own — it must be published.

[…] over time you get a feel for who the serial liars are and who are generally reporting faithfully

Sure, but even then I would still like to see cited sources; without them, my trust would begin to erode.

[…] Fact check everything that doesn’t feel right (or anything that feels too reductive or simplified) […]

Ideally, imo, the news outlets could lift some of that burden by citing their own sources so that I don't have to do their investigative work for them.

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

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.

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.

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.

Do you own a dog house?

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.

[…] are you saying I’m unqualified to be a journalist? Because yeah you are probably right. […]

What makes you think that you are unqualified?

Well, that works if the only vector of misinformation is broadcast-based, but it’s not. […]

Could you elaborate on what you mean?

[…] 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.

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?

[…] 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?

[…] As citizens we are called on to trust them to not make sh*t up. […]

Imo, that's an appeal to authority.

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.

[…] Too much leniency, and you just end up with people posting […] tiny un-sourced blogs with snazzy titles. […]

Imo, in a perfect world, if everyone cited their sources, there would be a perfect chain of sources that leads directly to the original. If one collectively cited source was found to be inaccurate, then, logically, all connected references would be nullified.

Agreed. Imo, if the journalists simply cited their claims, then this question of whether its safe to appeal to authority wouldn't need to be asked.