https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiege...
1. Individual journalists do not sign up for this, publications would, as an integration for every article.
2. A casual reader from Fergus falls would notice a few weird things, and start raising questions.
3. That would start the snowball into all the other things the 'fake journalist' would be doing, at least for the article. Once you get popular enough, the internet haters will follow through, since anyone with something of a following starts attracting internet haters into their life eventually.
This will have all the general problems all internet comment sections do currently although, like twitter.
Actually, it's interesting how little attention internet haters paid to Relotius, considering he was writing on polarising subjects, winning awards and he was arrogant enough to throw in details that were trivially proven wrong like election results as well as random deniable lies about the individuals he interviewed or said he interviewed. Perhaps writing in German and on things happening overseas helped shield him. But yeah, agree that internet haters are the way forward for crowdsourced factchecking (at least on subjects a bit less partisan than politics or sport where the haters can generally be relied on to reach some sort of consensus)
That said, this is a singular and decidedly rare event. The insinuation of widespread whole-cloth fabrication is almost certainly wrong, and probably more damaging to democracy than any actual fraud will ever be.
For whatever reason, the official police report implied that a passenger struggled with the driver causing the disaster. The next day, video footage of the entire event was released (from the security cam inside the bus), showing a different story. The driver pretty clearly decides to go over the edge, turns the wheel, and does not flinch or turn it back as they go over.
After the video came out, dozens of major outlets covered the story. Almost all ran with "passenger hits driver causing crash", one or two did not specify a cause. No major outlet suggested [what seems to me to be] the most likely account, which is "driver deliberately drives bus off of bridge during argument with passenger".
In contrast, on youtube / other social media, most commentators pointed out that the driver seemed to crash deliberately, changing course many seconds after the passenger hits him on the arm with her phone.
* It shows how automated the echo chamber is. The real crash cause is a more interesting + rare story. (though needs A/B testing) * It shows how short-lived major coverage is. While most passengers unfortunately perished in the crash, _both the driver and the arguing passenger survived_, and will end up in court once they recover. This was mentioned by very few outlets, but will eventually help inform understanding of the event.
If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes. That's how fact-checking works, and your response is failing it badly.
The entire event is on video. The boys are waiting for their bus. They are repeatedly insulted by a group of adult men who use racial and homophobic insults against the boys, who do not respond in kind but do talk with the adults harassing them. Into the fracas enters Phillips, who approaches the boys, and bangs a drum in the face of one boy. Most mainstream news outlets then smear the children as racists who surrounded and harassed Phillips without regard for the events on film.
If you want to describe this as a matter of different opinions, then I think you're basically in the camp of just disregarding reality and making up whatever is most pleasant to your perspective.
This is essentially what you're looking for: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwi...
The short story is that when news about the incident first emerged, it was lacking the context about the Black Hebrew Nationalists antagonizing the boys. Early coverage made it sound like the boys sought out Mr Phillips to antagonize him. When it turned out that he had inserted himself into the situation, rightly or wrongly, it changes a lot. This doesn't necessarily exonerate the teenagers--you might still find stuff to criticize about their behavior--but it does provide a more sympathetic context, one that was missing with the initial press coverage.
So yes, whatever your final takeaway, the initial coverage was incomplete and people did form and share very strong opinions based on that incomplete coverage. Once more information came out, many people changed their minds while others stuck by their initial takes. Had the coverage been more complete before people starting making opinions, we might have avoided a lot of unnecessary kerfuffle over this.
But when you report it as a matter of fact in an editorializing headline, then it is a problem.
> Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact
This was not the narrative portrayed, in the slightest bit. Had this been the headline and narrative, I would have had no issue with it, either. The stories that day were "Boy in MAGA hat harasses Native Americans" period.
“It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’” Phillips told the Washington Post in a separate interview. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.”
The article is explicit. It notes that Phillips initiated contact because they were harassing another group. But it also makes it clear, with quotes, that he believes they began harassing him instead.
Now, if you want to say Phillips is lying, you can do that, but unless you do that, at least one of your articles does not support your contention.
See: https://web.archive.org/web/20190120030012/https://www.vox.c...
No one here is even trying to advance narrative high school boys are angels, with a bit a of digging it's pretty easy to find things that Covington Catholic does may well deserve the level of public shaming that this story got.
However in this case, the entire narrative has been pretty widely disputed, Caitlin Flanagan does it much more elegantly than I could.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must...
As for the source, why not go to the original, like any responsible journalist should have, copy of the full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwNyOD8FIQk
Feel free to tell me when you hear them chanting "Build a wall", I haven't heard it.
The first widely reported, and easily proven incorrect fact is that Nathan Phillips is a Vietnam Veteran, see fairly through coverage of that here:
https://www.businessinsider.com/native-elder-nathan-phillips...
So really you're asking me to believe the narrative of someone who is proven to be lying about his military service, with no corroborating video of his claims, which just seems a bit ludicrous.
edited: spelling
-- a young man wearing a self-assured smirk and a red “Make America Great Again”
++ a young man wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat
-- More video shows Phillips wiping away tears in reaction to the harassment.
++ More video shows Phillips wiping away tears after the incident.
This would be less silly if what you were pretending is so obscure and nuanced was not actually as plain as day.
I took your invitation to reread, and only needed to go as far as the second paragraph: "In some shots, the teens appear to be shouting “build that wall, build that wall.”"
This is false. Not an opinion, not a narrative, a plainly false statement.
My "contradictory sources with at least the same level of journalistic respectability" is any of the videos of the event themselves, is that a credible enough source for you? The full-length video was available at the time of the writing of this article and Vox did not make any effort to verify what they wrote against it.
They lied, period. This is not that difficult to understand. Do try to keep up.
The words "appear to be" in one of the above quotes precisely indicates that this is a statement of opinion, and not a statement of fact. When we say "the wall is blue", we are talking about the color of the wall factually. When we say "the wall appears blue", we are talking about how someone sees the wall, which is a subjective observance; the wall may appear to be a color other than blue to someone else with a different pair of eyes.
At least one word, "is", refers to things as a matter of fact. Other words like "appears", "seems", or the sub-phrase "I think", are indicators that we're probably talking about a statement of opinion. This may be a useful rule to follow when reading news stories. I think it seems relevant here. (SwIdt?)
Geez, y'all don't understand fact checking at all.
Not sure what you're talking about "hearing that story", the video evidence is clear as day.
I recommend against deleting unpopular comments. Editing in something like "Update: I disavow!" if you've changed your mind is harmless, but in general there's a benefit to treating public statements as a sort of permanent record.
This practice exposes people to potentially underappreciated viewpoints and allows others to track the development and popularity of ideas.
I have many poorly rated comments preserved here, but on balance I think people respect my personal commitment to the truth, however I see it. In the realm of public expression, it's honesty and integrity which matter most. Everybody is wrong sometimes; it's part of the process of discovering truth.
But he was exactly where he wanted, in this kid's face trying to provoke him. And the kid just smirked, earning great hatred and hostility from people who don't think there's any place for a smile in this cold, brutal world.
The kid did have an option to yield: getting on his knees and begging for forgiveness for the crime of appearing at an anti-abortion demonstration as a white Catholic male. Then the drummer (who is a 'professional protestor', by the way) would have had a more dramatic story to sell.
Instead, he smirked.
It really is not, further video evidence makes this a fact, not an opinion.
The Covington story was “privileged, white teenage, racist Trump supporters got in a confrontation.” However the facts had to be massaged in order to sell that fiction was what happened. We all know that was the intent of the media and to suggest the reporting was either factual or objective is nonsensical. It’s delusional to suggest that the media treats Trump supporters objectively. Look, for example how the New York Times classifies Joe Biden’s repeated sexual harassment as “tactile politics,” while anyone affiliated with Trump gets no such delicacy in headlines.
It’s absurd to suggest that the Covington story was anything except the media attempting to make those kids look like evil puppy-killers. The vile, racist comments of the Black Israelites on the scene were ignored for the most part and instead media talking heads spent hours analyzing the alleged “smirk” of the white kid with the MAGA hat.
There is a narrative and any reasonably intelligent person can clearly see it.
[1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
Perhaps. But the question of who approached who is a matter of fact. Initial reporting claimed the teenagers approached a group of Native Americans. The videos clarified that the Native Americans approached the teenagers.
Right now, outlets are basically asking you to trust their assertions based on their brand. Fewer and fewer readers are inclined to give their trust based on brand (I'm guessing this is because there are just so many outlets/brands now). The way forward is for journalists to earn their readers' trust by showing their work on as many fact checks as possible. It won't be possible for every fact check (such as those involving anonymous sources) but where possible, it'll add a great deal of value.
An example from the new york times from yesterday. Obviously not an earth shattering error, but there it is. Something trivially easy to be detected by anyone who cared to check.
For more check out https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
Making a mistake is not the same as lying.
This doesn't involve outright untruths or even significant manipulation of facts.
It does involve things like cherry-picking facts, quotes, and statistics that paint the desired picture without drawing conclusions while the reader's intended conclusion is obvious.
Who said anything about lying?
The Supermicro """backdoor""" story of late last year, where Bloomberg alleged that the company had surreptitiously placed small microchips on nearly all their products on behalf of China without anyone noticing
That could well fall under he said she said.
That doesn't seem like a sensible standard, most reporting falls under 'our sources said vs what someone else said'. Many details of this particular story were later disputed by others, including Apple. Would a crowd-sourced fact-checking service have helped here? No, because it wasn't at all necessary. It's still a story with serious problems - it's 'the anonymous sources of the reporters' vs 'just about everybody else involved'.
Is it? Maybe it once was but the collapse of local news and the massive drop of talented writers and support staff like editors and fact checkers seems to have changed the environment. Most news today is little more than Twitter posts cobbled together.
Edit: I had originally misunderstood the parent comment. Responded again here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185
Take a look at niche journalism. The bias and narrative pushing is quite massive there. I think the "garbage tier" label given to such organizations is well deserved. Yet, when mainstream journalism gives its attention, it follows the niche journalists lead.
I find journalism that actually contradicts facts to be quite common. In today's climate, the mainstream can get away with complete contradiction of the facts, so long as the targets are obscure and/or unpopular, and the "right" narrative is being pushed. If you want to find this, then you need to start looking into the dissidents of mainstream culture in 2019. (You don't have to go as far as toxic people like the Alt Right. Rather, investigate the people who are being mislabeled as "Alt Right" as a tactic to marginalize them.)
I asked for examples. I'm getting opinions.
I wrote a story that became a legend. Then I discovered it wasn’t true: https://www.cjr.org/first_person/tinazzi-motorcycle-mont-bla...
You mean something like a lie by omission? That is pretty easily solved with some form of source control and public pull requests. An equivalent to git blame would be pretty helpful (cue Sinclair Broadcast Group NPC script reading). Just watch http://newsdiffs.org/ for a while, these people regularly modify stories without editor's notes. It is kind of funny that further below you discuss the embarrassing conduct of the media in their coverage of Covington Catholic... do you remember what was in the news cycle right before they breathlessly pounced on a non-story? The media was getting embarrassed by a very rare direct denial from the DoJ in relation to their latest reporting on the Trump collusion conspiracy theory.
I agree with your broader point though: this won't improve the media. They're not even pretending to be unbiased and have no shame in telling laughably obvious lies about the most ridiculous thing - like koi ponds. Their motivation is clear: short sighted servicing of those needing confirmation bias conforming stories. This isn't a scheme hatched in a smoke filled back room, it is just a very foolish business plan.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-w...
Every news source reported on the inconsistencies in Jussie Smollett's story, and continued to update their reporting as the facts turned against him.
They're newspapers, not oracles.
There's a reason that the Times puts out a new edition every day, instead of releasing just a singe one 2000 years ago that we all worship as indisputable truth.
"Fake news" is reporting that Barack Obama, Black Lives Matter, and Anonymous are planning riots in 37 city centers at 7 pm on July 15 2016, as Breitbart, the Daily Caller, and other far-right news sources reported two days before. The story was entirely made up, and most of the text was copied from a chain email from the 00s.
Should all of the world's newspapers have held off on reporting the MAGA bombs until Cesar Sayoc's conviction?
Should we all have pretended that nothing was wrong about the world trade center until the 9/11 commission filed their final report?
Here are some examples, quote the statements that were verifiably false at the time.
Police report offers chilling details on Jussie Smollett Attack - https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/newly-revealed-report-o...
Jussie Smollett attacked in possible hate crime - https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/entertainment/jussie-smollett...
Jussie Smollett releases first statement about attack - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/arts/jussie-smollett-atta...
Police say Jussie Smollett attacked in possible hate crime - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689758253/police-say-empire-a...
Jussie Smollett hospitalized after attack, police are investigating as a hate crime - https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/empire-actor-jussie-sm...
There have been many of these recently. One striking one was the Boston Rally for which the mainstream news pushed a "white supremacist" narrative. This was odd, as the few people who managed to come out included a large proportion of brown people, including one South Asian senate candidate. The fact checking seems to go out the window, so long as the story pushes one of the "sacrosanct" narratives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wWeksF6XZs
Another example was the coverage of the public harassment incident at VidCon between Anita Saarkesian and Sargon of Akkad. The way it was reported, it sounds like Sargon did something, whereas videos online show that all the harassment was done by Anita Saarkesian. You may not like Sargon, but the fact that the news narrative goes 180 degrees against the truth on the ground should disturb everyone.
I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves.
Manufacturing Consent covers how western media entirely fits a "Propganda Model" of operation through presentation alone. However in recent years, even facts are thrown out in favor of narratives which run entirely counter to the facts.
And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.
Not so much. I recall reading a NYT article about a storm-in-a-teacup thing involving who gets to walk first as valedictorian. The article was amazingly nearly fact free. It seems that articles and reports get a free pass, so long as they are pushing the "right" narrative. It has been this way for a very long time (re: Manufacturing Consent) but the quality of fact checking and the quality of the writing used to subtly spin the facts has gone down.
People complained mightily about how all of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" evidence was one big circle-jerk of "Citogenesis."
Now, the same media organizations are involved in the same circle-jerks of "Citogenesis," but it's given a pass for tribal reasons, because the narrative supports "our side."
Help me understand why you were even paying attention to this drama? Do you really find Shiva Ayyadurai to be a sympathetic figure? I assume no, right?
None of that is evidence this guy is a white supremacist. Which podcast did he appear on?
and "blessed" a statue of "kek"? That's the basis of your claim that the media got this story wrong?
That's hardly evidence of anything. The "Kek" character meant a lot of things to different people. Again, this is an example of narrative pushing and Citogenesis.
Yours is the side that has to explain away facts with narratives. If you look at the Hard Bastard video, you'll see a number of brown faces in that "white supremacist" rally. To explain that away, you need more narrative.
In any case, that narrative isn't even sufficient to avoid the charge that the media is being misled by narratives. By the network's own telling, they "didn't have access" to the Gazebo and what was going on. So on what did they base their narrative? The answer, is that they just took the narrative from far left people and didn't check.
Also, note that the VidCon event fits this pattern. Video evidence from facts on the ground tell us: Some people are attending a convention together and just sitting there peacefully, then a speaker starts harassing them. Those are just the simple facts on the ground. To explain this away, more narrative is needed -- that of a harassment campaign and shadowy conspiracies. There is no evidence for this campaign. Investigation by Patreon and earlier law enforcement concluded there was nothing there. Instead, video criticism is spun as "harassment" by a narrative, which gets taken up into the mainstream media unchecked and unverified.
There is a bubble englobing SV CEOs and the surrounding circles, and it's mostly narratives supported by emotions and vice versa. (And not a little dishonest spinning and editing of dialogue and interviews, for which there's ample evidence as well.)
If you look at the signs, there was a black man concerned with the identitarian nature of Black Lives Matter. Are you trying to tell me that he's bigoted? Rather, I think he's concerned with bigotry masquerading as activism.
aside from the fact that the person who asked him to "bless" the statue
Again, this is weak "guilt by association." I have no idea if that other party is a bigot or not. It doesn't matter. Again, it's narrative generation, with the purpose of effective silencing by tarring.
Silicon Valley is largely encased in a bubble produced by and consisting of accusation, name calling, and narrative pushing. The purpose of this is to gain the power to demonize and silence people. The devious thing about it, is that more outrage is generated when the accusations are false, and that fuels more noise and breaks down discourse even further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
sure, if you say so, dude.
In history, there have been many examples of arrogant groups who achieved economic success and power, became arrogant, and got trapped in bubbles of perception.
http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-t...
They all had disparaging names for outsiders/underlings and thought of themselves as "betters." Most of the time, they thought of themselves as benevolent and benefactors. History is pretty clear about the lessons when those groups start imposing their misguided will on the people.
"Paint part of a picture," Is just another way of saying "Narrative."
To me, it's more telling that your best, leading example of a place where the media got its facts wrong is Shiva Ayyadurai is also telling
So it doesn't matter that they got the facts wrong, because the people they are getting the facts wrong about are "bad" people. Sorry, but that's morally bankrupt. That's the classic moral stance to justify propaganda. Who in the past took actions against people they thought were generally bad, facts be damned? You appear to be in an epistemological calamity. You seem to be trapped in a bubble, where proof invalidating the bubble is sequestered through unsupported narratives.
also paints part of a picture (not one I've described on the thread so far, just to be clear)
So then you threaten to tar me by association as well? Again, it's this pushing of a narrative with no proof.
(Just to be clear, all identitarians are in the wrong. All politics by violence is bad. All politics by intimidation is equally bad, as is disdain for facts and the truth.)
As you've no doubt surmised: not many people are interested in following you down "Hard News Network" video rabbit holes, for the same reason that even though the big-bad-scary-media reports it to be so, we're also not all that interested in what Alex Jones has to say about the Sandy Hook victims or the effectiveness of vaccines.
As I said, the picture you're painting of yourself is not the same picture Shiva Ayyadurai has painted of himself.
But I can sum both up as: "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
I wouldn't disagree with that. None of that is really relevant, however.
You say "best." It's just one example. You are implicitly admitting that it is an example of where the mainstream media got the facts wrong:
a BuzzFeed listicle-grade story that is itself at pains to point out that the (very few) attendees of an anti-left demonstration in Boston were not all white supremacists.
Furthermore you are also admitting that the mainstream media narrative ran 180 degrees counter to the truth.
"Dr. SHIVA Ayyadurai,PhD(M.I.T.) Inventor of Email"
Then you cover it up by spinning a narrative. None of that is relevant. Also, thanks for demonstrating the mechanism of pushing narrative once again.
As I said, the picture you're painting of yourself is not the same picture Shiva Ayyadurai has painted of himself.
The point is not to convince you. The purpose for me is for 3rd party readers to see. So long as someone speaks out against the narratives, other dissidents will see that someone, somewhere understands.
But in the interest of hope, please pay attention to exactly what it is that you are saying. You have admitted that 1) the mainstream media got the facts wrong, 2) the media narrative was pushing in a deceptive direction in the opposite direction from the facts, and 3) nothing of the factual accuracy of the media, or the fidelity of its pushed narrative matters to you because the targeted people are reprehensibles.
Isn't this the attitude of every arrogant, out of touch elite, unknowingly doing injustice in history, ever? In what moral universe, is it alright that the news sources are so wildly wrong, and the narrative is so contrary to the truth, but it's alright because the subjects are so disliked? I know of extra-legal organizations from just a few decades back who didn't care too much about who exactly was guilty of what, or the facts, just that the people they were acting against were thought of as "reprehensibles" in their world view and also had the "correct" external attributes to be their appropriate targets -- in short, to fit their narratives. I've had such actions taken against me, personally, by such people. Such actions are particularly unjust, at root precisely because of the epistemological disconnect. When I engage in such discussions here, it's this very disconnect which most strongly motivates me.
Please pay attention that you are taking, in principle, such a stance. If your attitude is at all representative of SV CEOs in general, then that doesn't bode well for society at all.
He had been involved in a long harassment campaign against her, and then shows up in the front row at her panel. That is not an innocent act.
There is no evidence of this. This is a Citogenesis fiction pushed by niche media. Making videos criticizing someone's videos isn't harassment. Patreon did an investigation just after the incident. My understanding was there was nothing. If there's evidence of him doing anything, it is actually of him attempting the "harassment" (really just insulting) white supremacists using toxic language.
then shows up in the front row at her panel. That is not an innocent act.
If there is no harassment of Ms. Saarkesian, that is an innocent act.
Note the pattern here. There is simple, straightforward evidence of people just sitting there while a speaker hurls abuse over the PA system. To explain this away, a narrative is needed, which includes some sort of conspiracy theory. Immediately following the incident, Patreon found nothing. Just prior to that, the GamerGate movement was investigated by law enforcement, and they also found nothing.
Just take the facts at face value. Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that mainstream media takes the narrative from biased niche media and does not fact check. Please notice that the evidence on your side is all weak "guilt by association" and easy to fabricate narratives.
I don't think any of these are what the question was about.
Journalists use the word "embattled" the way Merriam-Webster defines it: "characterized by conflict or controversy."
Typically it applies to a person who has been heavily criticized, or accused of wrongdoing at length or by many people.
Accurately describing a person as such is not at all the same as the journalist declaring a person guilty, and it's certainly not a "press code word."
He is seeing bias that isn't there.
And he illustrates this larger point with specific claims that are, themselves, unsupported by facts and constructed around the narrative he is trying to push.
Someone who is accused yet innocent is still "embattled". Readers assuming guilt is not a problem of fact. It may not even be the journalistic intent.
In my experience, journalists use it mostly for people who are likely to be fired shortly, many of whom are not "guilty" of anything other than being in a position of responsibility in an organization, department or team that is perceived as underperforming or being taken over by critics.
As you say, I associate embattled more with, say, an executive caught up in a scandal or who is likely to be dismissed for poor performance.
Interesting you mention libel. Libel law, of course, is a tremendous motivation to not posting actual lies in journalism. And courts are more flexible than "fact checking".
Just because a bunch of people believe it's a problem doesn't mean it's a problem. I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.