YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

Re:YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly co... by toomanyrichies on Friday April 24, 2020 @02:36AM (#22965263)

I think what's needed is a measurement of how many times a source was later proven to be wrong, and then issued a correction to state as much. Or even better, a percentage comparing the # of times they got wrong with the percentage of times they admitted as much. A sort of "batting average" for admitting their mistakes.

All sources will get it wrong from time to time. A reporter's primary loyalty should be to the truth, regardless of whether it aligns with their pre-conceived notions. Coming up with a way to quantify that loyalty would be a service to society.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly co... by donw on Friday April 24, 2020 @03:33AM (#22965559)

We also need to track exactly how loud those corrections are published.

Calling out "hey, we totally got this one wrong, and here's why" even "louder" than original prediction is great. This is how you earn trust.

Quietly publishing a correction on the metaphorical back page? Nope. Not even close.

Silently changing the article after the fact? Oh hell no. Go directly to credibility jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly co... by cm2187 on Friday April 24, 2020 @09:15AM (#22967596)

The thing is most lies and manipulation do not happen by stating false facts. They happen by ignoring (and never mentioning) the facts that do not fit the narrative and by pushing the ones that do. Or by presenting facts in a misleading way (like confusing CFR with IFR, or eliminating context).

And I am afraid I do not know a mainstream media that doesn’t do that on a massive scale. The WSJ perhaps. Certainly not the NYT.

[ Parent | on HN ]