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

I think that It depends on the instance, but I would argue that, generally, yes.

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?

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.

[…] journalists write news, are you writing it down in an article afterwards?

If that is the accepted definition of journalism, then you are right I wouldn't fit (Wikipedia's definition, however, does state that sources are required when writing ^[1]), but that isn't exactly the point that I was getting at by this post.

[…] journalists write news […].

If an article hasn't cited any sources, then, imo, it isn't news ­— it's just conjecture.

[…] There’s a reason it’s supposed to be a full time job […]

For clarity, by "it" are you referring to journalism?

[…] 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?

[…] 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’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?

Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.

Are you saying that I'm unqualified to be a journalist?

I don't understand how exactly this differs from something like Tor.

Ahh, yeah, I think I did misunderstand you — my bad! I didn't realize that you were describing something like indentured servitude.

When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…

Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.

[…] for […] brevity. […]

I don't agree that citing sources affects that. For example, anecdotally, a citation can just take the form of a footnote in the document.

[…] for practicality […]

Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.

Well, presumably, that's their job ^[1]. Being responsible takes effort /s.

Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts […]

Imo, this in an example of an appeal to authority — an argument isn't sound because it should be, but because it is. I believe that it's a disservice to the truth and constructive public discourse to not cite one's claims.

Good catch. Given that that it's currently still available ^[1], I would guess that it's likely not the case that Google is purging reviews. Imo, one review is hardly review bombing, but at least that's proof of one claim made by a news outlet ^[2] (It's terrible, imo, that we have to be the ones fact checking claims being made by news organizations. Doesn't that make us the journalists?).

Instead of broken windows needing replacement, we have broken CEOs needing protection.

Hm, but a possible effect, imo, is that this incentivizes those companies to start being more consumer-friendly — perhaps they make a connection that predatory policies are a risk to their safety so, to mitigate that risk, they take more consumer-friendly position. However, I think where that idea may break down and become more like the broken window fallacy is if people get the idea that policies will keep improving if CEO's keep getting killed — I think that would just make it so that insurance companies are too scared to operate, which would shift the supply curve to the left ^[1].