this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
628 points (97.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

30768 readers
677 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
    • If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
628
If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
237 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 122 points 2 months ago (42 children)

News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet (even if they publish more "boring" stories that aren't as "up to date"): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. Wikipedia does, but it happens on discussion pages and it relies on human editors who know where those discussions happened to string it together

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Was about to post this list, it's a very good overall quick reference. It correctly identifies most of the tabloids posing as "real" newspapers, too.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

That is a good recipe for sneaking lies into the newspaper. Journalists should just be doing their job.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's a balance to hit in article sharing communities too.
Too much leniency, and you just end up with people posting DMG articles, and tiny un-sourced blogs with snazzy titles.
Too tough, and you end up spending your entire life justifying why various borderline sources are not suitable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

DMG articles?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm guessing Dungeon Master's Guide

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Yep. Damn Wizards infiltrated the UK commercial media a decade ago, and they never left.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (18 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (15 children)

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.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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

Imo, that's an appeal to authority.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (16 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

[…] 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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

Do you own a dog house?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (38 children)

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.

load more comments (38 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So I just got out of a conference talk from a guy that ran newsrooms for about 20 years and has moved on to other things. The last few years have been basically "get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows". These people working in these rooms have been cut back 90%+ but are still expected to get the same volumes of articles published as were when there were 10X the staff.

He said it's completely impossible to do any verification with what they have to work with, and chances are the stories are written before the people involved are interviewed. That's why he got out.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (7 children)

[…] The last few years have been basically “get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows”. […]

If true, that's terrible, imo. Anecdotally, it would explain a great deal.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago

yeah sorta. journalism was supposed to be more about fact checking back in that day rather than first to post. The rumor mill filled that niche. Does seem like news nowadays is more like the rumor mill.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well I'm something of a ~~scientist~~ Journalist myself

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Imo, yes you are!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago

News stopped being news when the 24 hour news cycle started. Now it’s just entertainment.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Yes. An unpaid one.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (5 children)

ITT: the justification for civics education.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (14 children)

Legitimate news outlets do pretty thorough fact-checking, if only to avoid litigation

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

It makes you a rational human.

There have been journalists publishing accidentally and maliciously false articles since the dawn of the press.

It's healthy to engage in appropriate scepticism of all that you read, particularly that of the press. Fact check everything that doesn't feel right (or anything that feels too reductive or simplified), over time you get a feel for who the serial liars are and who are generally reporting faithfully

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›