Re:Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?
by dang on Saturday December 24, 2016 @12:34AM
(#13248729)
Please edit personal swipes, such as the first sentence here, out of the comments you post to HN. This comment would be fine without that.
Re:Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?
by cloakandswagger on Saturday December 24, 2016 @09:41AM
(#13249924)
That disclaimer was only there so the rest of the post wouldn't seem patronizing.
Re:Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?
by anigbrowl on Saturday December 24, 2016 @02:24PM
(#13251233)
Perhaps you should have focused more on avoiding a false equivalence of fact-checking with journalism, as if a) Snopes were an originator of news and rumors rather than being responsive to them, and b) their popularity relied on a perception of the founders' personal integrity as opposed to a history of providing verifiable links to contrary information and narrowly reasoned argument.
Re:Why is Mail Online going after the fact checkers?
by dang on Saturday December 24, 2016 @12:58PM
(#13250832)
Interpretations always differ, but that statement does seem patronizing to me.
Communicating in a large internet forum is quite different than in small groups or in person. Among other things, it's much harder to communicate intent, so it's best to either (a) state intent explicitly or (b) edit the post so that it isn't so vulnerable to crossed signals.
On the surface, your argument is correct; the facts are the facts, and no amount of moral corruption will change that. Things get hairy when you remember that our world is anything other than black and white: facts can be distorted, misrepresented or ignored to deliver an entirely different message, even if they are still (technically) "factual".
This is why you don't want a known sleazebag for a reporter. Not only do they have a provably skewed moral compass that would let them deviate from pure "fact-based" reporting, there is also a safe assumption that they have other, worse skeletons in their closet which would mean they're susceptible to being blackmailed into deviating from pure "fact-based" reporting.