• Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    […] 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?

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      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?

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        […] 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.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 days ago

      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.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        […] 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.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        […] 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?

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          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.

          I’ll grant you, it very often doesn’t happen, but still.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            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?

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                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.

                • MudMan@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  12 days ago

                  No, but most original reports would be expected to in fact reach out to a primary source, and fact-checking them would often require the same thing.

                  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.

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

                  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    12 days ago

                    […] 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.

                  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    12 days ago

                    […] 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.

                  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    12 days ago

                    […] 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.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

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

        For clarity, by “it” are you referring to journalism?

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          I’m assuming you’re in a microblogging flavor of federation and that’s why this is broken down into a bunch of posts?

          Yes, I’m referring to journalism.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            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.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            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.

            • MudMan@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              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.

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                12 days ago

                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.

                References
                1. “journalist”. Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-12T00:10Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalist.

                2. “List of valid argument forms”. Wikipedia. Published: 2024-06-28T20:12Z. Accessed: 2024-12-12T00:11Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_valid_argument_forms#Modus_ponens.
                  • §“Valid propositional forms”. §“Modus ponens”.

                    If A, then B

                    A

                    Therefore B

                • MudMan@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  Working as in “being paid to do the work”.

                  I’ll spare you the dictionary definition. As we’ve established, you can source that yourself.

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                […] 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”.

                • MudMan@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  No, you can do those tasks at any point. I’m not concerned with who is doing the work, I’m concerned with the amount of work involved and how practical it is for every one of us to do it as a matter of course every time we access information online.

                  This is why this choice you made of quote-replying to individual statements is not a great way to have a conversation online, by the way. Now we’re breaking down the details behind individual words with no context on the arguments that contain them. This is all borderline illegible and quite far from the original argument, IMO.

                  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 days ago

                    […] This is why this choice you made of quote-replying to individual statements is not a great way to have a conversation online, by the way. Now we’re breaking down the details behind individual words with no context on the arguments that contain them. This is all borderline illegible and quite far from the original argument, IMO.

                    It’s a wip 😜 I think it’s still a good idea, but it depends on how it’s done. I agree that I may be fragmenting a bit too much. I need to work on maintaining context. I think it’s also important to never fork the conversation if one branch depends on the other branch. That’s the issue that’s happened here, I think.

                  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 days ago

                    […] I’m not concerned with who is doing the work, I’m concerned with the amount of work involved and how practical it is for every one of us to do it as a matter of course every time we access information online.

                    The only impracticality that I can currently see is the example that you gave earlier [1]

                    […] I presume we don’t want every private citizen to be making phone calls to verify every claim they come across in social media […]

                    But just because it may not be practical for an average person to verify a source in all cases doesn’t feel like a valid argument for why sources (that the news outlet has already verified) shouldn’t be provided. Say a news article is reporting on a claim that an interviewee made in an interview that they conducted. Say that the interview interview footage is posted on its own. If the news article is commenting on a claim being made by the interviewee, is there any reason why the interview shouldn’t simply be directly cited? It would remove a lot of burden from the reader if all they have to do is click on the link to the video and scrub to the timestamp to hear the claim for themselves. Yes it would be impractical for each reader to contact the interviewee for themselves to verify that the interviewee did actually say that; however, I think that it sometimes is less about a skepticism of reality, but more a skepticism of reporting bias.

                    References
                    1. Author: @MudMan@fedia.io. To: [Title: “If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn’t that make me the journalist?”. Author: “Kalcifer” @Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works. “Showerthoughts” !showerthoughts@lemmy.world. sh.itjust.works. Lemmy. Published: 2024-12-10T07:34:34Z. https://sh.itjust.works/post/29275760.]. Published: 2024-12-10T08:27:52Z. Accessed: 2024-12-13T05:20Z. https://fedia.io/m/showerthoughts@lemmy.world/t/1528862/-/comment/8502697.
              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                […] 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.

                • MudMan@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  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.

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                […] 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.