If *I* have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make *me* the journalist?

Kalcifer

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.

::: spoiler 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".
  :::

Kalcifer

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.

Kalcifer

I'm not sure I understand your point. Essentially the only point that I was making was that for what's written to not be considered conjecture, any claims that it makes must be cited ^[1]^.

::: spoiler References

"conjecture". Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-11T08:47Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture.

inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence
:::

MudMan

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.

haui

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.

[email protected]

Your original post asks if you're a journalist for fact checking articles, we got to these comments from that.

Where do you think sources end? 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?

It's hard to discuss this without knowing what text you're referring to, and if I go back to check if you mentioned it I'll lose my comment because I'm using an app. Some things don't need sourcing because they're accepted facts, like who the president is, basic science, simple maths, etc, but most important, the things that an article should always cite are the claims the article itself is making. I wouldn't cite sources for 5G not causing covid, for example, unless the article was specifically about that.

Kalcifer

[…] 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.

Kalcifer

[…] 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?

Kalcifer

[…] 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?

Kalcifer

[…] that is what we have assasins for.

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

Kalcifer

[…] I wouldn’t cite sources for 5G not causing covid, for example, unless the article was specifically about that.

How come? If one's knowledge of a topic derives from a location, I think one should cite that location when discussing that topic, otherwise it's just conjecture.

MudMan

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.

[email protected]

most towns used to have more than one newspaper and they used to display their political bias happily on the front page.

all the sides were represented by five or six different people discussing an issue with maybe each person bringing a different side from a different paper to the discussion.

tv and cable and internet tore apart that public dialectic.

and it forced fewer papers to try to portray more sides "equally".

now a city is lucky if it has one newspaper. and they can't possibly cover every angle any longer because if you have been in a newsroom in the past 15 years for most small to medium town they are like four people now when 30 was required for reporting, photography, editing, and classified section. And the big towns now might have two that both bend towards the middle from the left and right with a stripped down, skinny and pissed workers.

So sorry conversation amongst a varied and well read public is required for that to work.

and no one reads anymore we all just write and move on.

haui

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.

haui

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.

haui

No problem: the digital services act and the digital markets act. The best write up I could find ad hoc is this

[email protected]

Same reason I don't provide a source magic and wizards and fairy tales not existing. Anyone stupid enough to believe obvious rubbish doesn't care what your source is.

Kalcifer

For the sake of clarity, do you think that journalist should directly cite their sources in their work?

Kalcifer

I don't follow how your point(s) relate to this post's topic.

Kalcifer

[…] the ever going „we win, you lose, and you‘ll be happy about it“ does in fact have an antidote […]

I would argue that the antidote is compassion.