Re:What It’s Like to Report on Facebook
by smsm42 on Sunday July 05, 2020 @04:55AM
(#23737439)
> the only source is the company itself
Then don't report it as fact. With all blatant editorializing going on right now, simple "we've been told by company representatives that X but we have no independent verification of this" would already do. And also maybe give company the incentive to actually make their claims verifiable.
> How do you propose Casey should have challenged or verified whether the Aquila flew as well as claimed
Maybe he couldn't verify it. Then he should have told "we don't know what happened, only thing we know what biased sources told us, so that's all we have for now". Maybe less sensational but more true.
> Reporters do this work too - it's not all cloak and dagger stuff, whistleblowers and top-secret dossiers.
True. But just refusing to parrot the press release would already be a step forward - if the company knows their unverified press releases would always have asterisk next to it, they'd have an incentive to make them more verifiable. Or at least the honest ones would. And thus we'd get a way to distinguish between honest companies and cheaters.
> That's an interesting story that should be told
Sure, what should not be told is what actually didn't happen except in company's press release - and the reporter reported it as something that did happen, because they wanted to juice up the story and pretend they have more access than they actually did. As a human, I can understand that weakness, as a consumer of the press I can not forgive it.
Then don't report it as fact. With all blatant editorializing going on right now, simple "we've been told by company representatives that X but we have no independent verification of this" would already do. And also maybe give company the incentive to actually make their claims verifiable.
> How do you propose Casey should have challenged or verified whether the Aquila flew as well as claimed
Maybe he couldn't verify it. Then he should have told "we don't know what happened, only thing we know what biased sources told us, so that's all we have for now". Maybe less sensational but more true.
> Reporters do this work too - it's not all cloak and dagger stuff, whistleblowers and top-secret dossiers.
True. But just refusing to parrot the press release would already be a step forward - if the company knows their unverified press releases would always have asterisk next to it, they'd have an incentive to make them more verifiable. Or at least the honest ones would. And thus we'd get a way to distinguish between honest companies and cheaters.
> That's an interesting story that should be told
Sure, what should not be told is what actually didn't happen except in company's press release - and the reporter reported it as something that did happen, because they wanted to juice up the story and pretend they have more access than they actually did. As a human, I can understand that weakness, as a consumer of the press I can not forgive it.