Citations, (IMHO) aren't a solution to this because human judgement is inherent in explaining human behavior and events.
I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work.
I agree that it's a lot of work, but I don't see an alternative to critically engaging with reporting on human events.
Jumping to this article however I lose 80% of that. This article is light on that data and metadata. I can't tell much about the author (I can see his last 5 articles though) and I certainly can't tell what is primary research or not. Did this journalist see the 'cell-phone surveillance devices'? Is he working off a press release? Are there challenges to this narrative viewpoint? Is this written more out of a sense of entertainment or is there an effort being made not to embellish facts?
I'm going to guess that GP meant 'Citation needed' in a slightly broader sense than just name-the-source. There is a whole culture of open metadata and transparency that has grown up in the last two decades that is simply better than journalism. Wikipedia is trustworthy because the slightest suspicion can be investigated. It is frustrating to think that we are going to rely on journalism for political information when the articles are simply devoid of political context in the sense that is freely available on Wikipedia.
Is it reasonable to compare this article to a wikipedia article? The publishing time frame and the number of people involved are way different. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source for current events. It isn't journalism.
Maybe more importantly, is Wikpedia really an objective or fair look at an issue? For sandals sure, but look up a controversial event page and I bet things start to seem more questionable. That's a point where the reputation of a newspaper is an advantage over Wikpedia because at wikipedia, each page, each sentence can have a different author with a different viewpoint or agenda.
Is the author as important as the publication itself? The editors are the ones making final decisions on things. For example, The Economist doesn't even use bylines. Journalists see themselves as researchers more than authors. The role of the "Author" if there is one is the editor.
An exhuastively cited and sourced article is difficult to read. The narrative is easily lost, and the source content is skipped over by most readers. And you still need to spend a lot of time combing through the source matter for it to be a meaningful improvement over an unsourced article
Last, journalists rely on an idea of common knowledge. They aren't going to provide sourcing on a commmonly reported facts like "stingray-like devices have been found near the whitehouse". That isn't as true in academia where citations probably would be used for that type of fact.
Overall, I'm not unsimpathetic to what you and OP are saying, I think with the internet news media could link articles and sources together better for easier validation.
However, the idea that this type of stuff can eliminate the need for a high level of engagement with the news, critical thinking skills, I don't agree with.
which led me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests
Its sources are the very articles that are being criticized in this thread.
Wikipedia isn't a news gathering organization. It aggregates information collected by others.
But if you want to see an example of "opinionated" people ruining wikipedia, just look at the pages about specific philosophy topics and compare them to the SEP. - On wikipedia a self-learned person is worth as much as an expert, and might be able to push his opinion into the article through sheer stubbornness.
It would be very easy for media companies to 100% fabricate many of the stories we see. I'm not saying that they are, but I have no real reason to believe otherwise. The only supporting evidence provided anymore is 'anonymous sources'.
We have to just trust that what the media says is the truth, because there is no way for us to verify the stories we hear. Whether you do trust these corporations or not, having to rely on that blind faith is a bad system.
Agreed.
> I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work.
Part of this process is reading the news critically, which I enjoy doing. From this article (emphasis mine):
> “The reaction ... WAS very different than it WOULD HAVE BEEN in the last administration,” this person said. “With the current administration, there ARE a different set of calculations in regard to addressing THIS.”
> The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which LIKELY would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government (INCLUDING ISRAEL) condemning its actions.
Citations aren't the answer in this case, but rather epistemology. Stating speculation as fact is an incredibly effective means of distorting the public's perception of reality, especially when the same distortion is presented repeatedly in different forms by various agencies. It seems to have become so common that even smart people don't pick up on it any more. If you start looking for it though, you'll see it everywhere.
Whether this deceit was intentional or accidental is unknown, but the end result remains the same: the public's perception of the details of this story consists of certainty about specific details, based purely on speculation.
https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2017/06/07/fake...
https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-kn...
The reason we could criticize it in the first place is that it's clearly the opinion of an official who Politico judged as a credible expert on the matter of how these issues are commonly handled.
I don't think you really see what I'm saying. As literally written, they were presenting that particular section as fact. You may remark that I'm being excessively pedantic and that they were just writing a little sloppily, and you may be right, but at the end of the day the result is the same: each individual's mental model of the world is formed based upon the information they consume, and neither you nor I (nor scientists in the field) really know the effect this style of "news" reporting has on people at both the conscious and subconscious level.
Let me ask you this: hypothetically, let's say there was a way to enforce a law outlawing presenting speculation or opinions as if they were facts - do you think this would have an effect on society? I think HN would be a good testing ground for this experiment, but I don't sense much support for the idea.
> The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which LIKELY would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government (INCLUDING ISRAEL) condemning its actions.
I capitalized the key words, as well as changed something from implicit to explicit.
The article states that the last administration WOULD HAVE handled this situation different. This statement is epistemically flawed in a variety of ways, one major one being being it requires not just top secret but omniscient knowledge.
People have a hard enough time deducing what's actually going on even based on first hand and far simpler interpersonal interactions in their own daily lives, it's no wonder so many people are confused when hundreds of leading articles like this are printed and consumed every day. People already "hallucinate reality", we shouldn't be making it worse.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2128725-a-guide-to-why-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding
EDIT: Perhaps this is where we're not seeing eye to eye: you may be judging/evaluating (see what I did there) this article based on your presumption of the _intent_ of the author, whereas I am talking about the impact of this kind of narrative-over-facts writing style on people's perception of reality, regardless of underlying intent?
Where I disagree is that I think it's the job of each of us as consumers of news to do the work of critically assessing what we read.
I don't think its about fixing the news, because I don't think thats possible. I think we need to focus on improving people's relationship with the news.
You may have an issue with that source's opinion, but that's different from having an issue with Politico.
Very good point. My claim: "Stating speculation as fact...." itself could be described as sloppy. To clarify: factually, Politico is printing the words of a third party - it is a fact (presumably) that this person made that statement. The statement itself is speculation stated as fact, but the speaker bears the direct guilt for that, not Politico.
But I'm not pointing my finger so much at Politico for some sort of outrageous bias, in general or in this particular case, but rather the general way that events in reality are communicated to the public, and the way in which this subsequently manifests in society. Even if nothing nefarious has gone on, people perceive reality and the news the way they do (the specifics of which no one fully understands), and I'm suggesting (based largely on observation of apparent beliefs held by people in forums) that narrative and rumor based reporting like this is having a possibly very serious effect on people's perception of reality, the result being some degree of textbook mass delusion or worse in the public, where prior to cable news and the internet the beliefs would generally have been either null or wrong in other ways.
I wouldn't describe an expert's opinion as "speculation". Maybe it's becuase you don't agree with their opinion that you see it that way?
> I wouldn't describe an expert's opinion as "speculation".
The person isn't describing an event that occurred, but rather what someone else would have done under a given set of circumstances....he is discussing something that literally did not happen (well, at least to his knowledge - if it had, then his speculation could be proven true, false, or other. But he doesn't know everything that has occurred).
It is necessarily speculation, my or your opinion has no bearing on the matter.
Have you changed your mind on the speculation issue?
People are misinterpreting the news. It seems like your position is to blame the news, and you seem to think this is a new issue.
My position is that this is an inherent factor in production and consumption of the news. Books like Manufacturing Consent, and The Condition of Postmodernity are important to understanding this view and the social processes that support it. A classic example is the reporting on the sinking of the Maine more than 100 years ago.
I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power.
Lastly, I don't agree with your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above.
This will be my last comment in the thread. Thanks for engaging.
Do you deny that it is possible in the English language to write things in a way that are technically and pedantically true, but misleading? I suspect not since you mention Manufacturing Consent, so what is it that you mean?
> I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power.
You have two groups: producers of news, and consumers. The former is small, organized, generally well educated, and already subject to regulations. None of this can be said about the latter group. Do you actually think the optimum approach is targeting the latter group? This seems logical to you? (Not to say that we shouldn't also be doing that.....that we aren't is suspicious in itself if you ask me.)
> your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above
You aren't even able to acknowledge that talking about something that didn't actually occur is necessarily speculation, it's not surprising we disagree.
When truth is communicated it is the product of the system that produces it. In our system, that truth serves a specific set of individuals, insitutions, and social relations. This isn't an explicit process it is inherent in human relations.
There is no way to "fix" the production of news and truth. What we can improve is how people consume the news
On this specific issue, the original question wasn't "is this speculation" it was "are they presenting this statement as fact". They are not presenting it as fact, it is clearly identified as a quote from a government official.
However, someone with poor reading skills might interpret it as such, which gets back to the original point that the focus should be on improving how people consume the news, not in trying to fix a problem that (imo) cannot be solved.
edit: can't reply to your latest comment. It sounds like your position is now that no one should be allowed to voice opinions about hypothetical situations because that is not a fact. Is expert opinion not a legitimate part of a news story? Or are you saying that the way they presented their opinion made it seem like a fact? I don't agree with either intrepretation.
Yes, of course. There is also untruth, and then there is another category: unknown, which often results in speculation, which is then presented as truth. Leaving aside what's the case here, are you able to acknowledge this is possible?
> There is no way to "fix" the production of news and truth.
How are you able to know what isn't possible? How many times in the past have things been declared impossible, until suddenly someone found a way?
> They are not presenting it as fact, it is clearly identified as a quote from a government official.
I have already addressed that specifically: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20955117
>> The article isn't saying that. It's in quotes becuase they are reporting the words of someone they've deemed to be a reputable source for the topic of standard administration behavior.
> Very good point. My claim: "Stating speculation as fact...." itself could be described as sloppy. To clarify: factually, Politico is printing the words of a third party - it is a fact (presumably) that this person made that statement. The statement itself is speculation stated as fact, but the speaker bears the direct guilt for that, not Politico.
> However, someone with poor reading skills might interpret it as such
You seem confident. I challenge you to address my question about how someone can speak factually about the details of something that did not (to their knowledge) actually occur. This is the third time I've pointed this out, if you're confident you are correct, there should be no need to be evasive in conversation should there?
That could actually be something really big for news. Actual quantifiable credibility.
Do you need me to explain why sources might not want to be named?
Whether the journalist is ignorant or lying, it doesn't matter.
Their first job is to get the facts correct. If those are wrong, nothing else matters.
> The U.S. government concluded within the last two years that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cell-phone surveillance devices that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington, D.C., according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.
> But unlike most other occasions when flagrant incidents of foreign spying have been discovered on American soil, the Trump administration did not rebuke the Israeli government, and there were no consequences for Israel’s behavior, one of the former officials said.
It’s not clear from the second quote alone that “unlike other occasions” is part of their sources comments or the author’s contextualizing. Luckily, they clarify later in the article:
> The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which likely would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government condemning its actions.
Whether or not you trust Politico is another thing. But don’t claim they’re not citing their sources when they very clearly are.
It would matter if there were any substance to the claims, it might make sense. But instead, the article goes a step further as you quote here:
>> The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which likely would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government condemning its actions.
This take, of course, hinges on the premise being correct, which there is no substance to prove it is. This is classic oppo laundering.
Israel left listening devices around the White House? Big if true, but we have the Department of State, Intelligence Community and Department of Defense to deal with this crap in approximately that order. If it turns into anything big or is part of something bigger, someday there will be a book about it.
News in all its forms is a product. Either the product has value to you, or it doesn’t. If a piece of news has value to you, you will find a way to verify the claims, either personally or getting someone else to do the grunt work for you.
The big news here is that nothing happened and nothing is gonna happen. People should start getting some clues from what should happen, and yet doesn't.
Edit: at the time of this edit, the news is already on the front page of the Guardian and the BBC. Completely absent from the NYTimes and Washington Post. Pay attention to what doesn't happen.
Your Edit reinforces my point: news is a product. If a publisher calls attention to or does not call attention to an issue, that means it wasn’t in the interests of the publisher. They’re market participants, not public servants.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-usa-spying-idUSKC...
Because belonging to the "five eyes" means they get to hear the official and private conversations of Trump for free?
And since the answer is "no, of course not" your argument is completely irrelevant.
Germany has much less to lose.
(Apart from the fact that you're obviously trying to change what you said here, as you wrote "the UK has no need to spy".)
Honestly? Probably not. Obviously they get a lot from the US, but given past outcomes what are the chances they lose that support no matter what they get caught doing? A huge proportion of Americans have an unflinching fondness for Israel. For some evangelicals, support for Israel is even seen as a religious imperative.
The innovation with democracy is it gives members of the citizenry the chance to have a say and shape our civil institutions. News is what you use to figure out what you should be investing in or divesting from, and to keep tabs on how well your own interests are being served. Anything more than that is noise without value, an intellectual poison.
Where it fails is when individual interests win out disproportionately at the expense of the collective interest and civil institutions are left to rot and atrophy.
You can waste everything else, but you shouldn’t waste time. That’s the one asset you are innately born with that you can not recover once it is gone.
If there’s anything I learned from the governments attribution of the DNC “hacking”, it’s that government attribution is crap. Go ahead and search for the actual evidence used in that attribution (good luck finding anything other than click bait MSM). It’s almost as laughable as the evidence in “trump tower server back channel to Russia”. For any security-minded folks it will be good for a laugh.
Did they do due diligence - yes they will say as they asked somebody else. Do we have definitive proof - nope. But this is a pattern that plays out many a time.
It also ignores how such devices could of been used to spy upon others, found and then planted to cause embarrassment at a higher level - That's spycraft for you, happens.
But the take away question I have is - why do reporters always fallback upon EX-staff members for quotes, how many did they ask until they got the answer they wanted? That is one area that totally erodes most credibility to the discerning eye and yet is often used by the media to support some direction or another.
Politico is a highly trustworthy paper that had real reporters who talk to real people all over the US government and it references real events and people and papers all throughout this article.
Your comment seems out of place.
You got it reversed. What about it seems trustworthy? Russel's teapot and all that, the one making claims has to prove it, not others have to disprove it.
> Politico is a highly trustworthy paper
Trust-proof should be per-concrete-article, not per publication.
> Your comment seems out of place.
[Citation needed] :-) -- Seriously, I don't see anything wrong. Okay, you dislike the opinion, I get it.
Your attitude seems very close to a position that we can never truly know anything.
That Israeli spies have been caught multiple times in the US, spying.
If you've have a history of murdering people, I'm at least going to give some attention to the people saying you've murdered again.
Also, deepfakes work well for replacing faces, but not yet for synthesizing actual videos of complex scenes (like crowds) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMZkLVBhcig
But then you're right, it won't take long before that's possible. Whether we can continue sniffing out deepfakes with ML is unclear.
Edit:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/the-happy-go... (The original hero image has been changed to something less ominous)
https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/229930/politicos-dubious-ch...
Unfortunately a lot of journalism coming from the American left lately gives me those American right wing radio vibes where everyone's the enemy, connected, planning to get you. I'm not American but it seems the two party system is absolutely ripping your country and society apart, but then again people say that this has worked well in the history and things balance out. Hard to take a rational view when things are emotional all around the world, people connected more than ever.
The article might be both technically right and fake.
Potential Spy Devices Which Track Cellphones, Intercept Calls Found All Over D.C., Md., Va.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/Potential-Spy-D...
> But unlike most other occasions
I don't know if im spoiled by Wikipedia, or jaded from age, or wisened by age, or rightfully lost trust in the media, or wrongfully lost trust in the media, but i find myself entirely unwilling to accept to accept claims like this.
Citation. Needed.
In order to believe this article, i need to learn about this publication, and then learn about the author, and then learn about this article specifically.
This shit is so much work. We need a new reporting format. Citationless articles are too infotainment-y for me now.