MudMan

Well, no, a sketchy source should not be published in the first place. That’s the job he journalist is supposed to be doing during the verification stage.

The process we’re discussing isn’t about verifying the final article, it’s about verifying the source itself.

See, your point is exactly why the way you are thinking about this doesn’t work. You’re almost there, just coming at it from the wrong direction.

Yes, basic language choices indeed create an emotional framing to a story.

Basic language choices create a framing to a story EVERY TIME. You can’t avoid it. Any mediocre professional can alter the framing of a story under any style guide, with any requirements for information sourcing.

Editorial guidance for neutrality can be enforced. By an editor. A human person that reviews a piece of writing and assesses its skew and its style to correct it if it doesn’t fit the requirements.

But as a rule? Using citations? If the average journalist wanted to present a specific framing the guidelines you are suggesting would barely slow them down.

“A young man stole a car” “Man, 28 (link), steals car” “Man, 28 (link), of latino descent (link) commits crime in our town (link)”

Which of these is complying with your guidelines closest and which one is creating a more biased narrative?

The tool for that purpose is normally the use of quotation marks. Large news outlets rarely make up quotes out of whole cloth. That is not just bad praxis, but entirely unnecessary to skew coverage, if they are enforcing a particular perspective for whatever reason.

Look, I do think that large journalistic outlets are a bit stuck on old newpaper composition practices and hyperlinking and multimedia tools are underused. Specifically, news sites tend to be very reluctant to use external links for a number of reasons, including the fact that they want to keep you inside their publication to serve you ads, so external links are not a beneficial business practice.

That said, you are very fixated on a problem that either doesn’t exist or doesn’t make up the bulk of the issue you’re trying to fix. There are plenty of instances where a quote that sounds bad is used out of context, and in most cases the in-context quote is widely available. The outrage machine is fed in opinion pieces, live TV debate and online chatter. There is no need to misquote in an article for that, and there is no evidence of the mitigating value of having a link to a different article. Which, incidentally, may not even be available for free distribution in the first place.

Look, there’s half a billion of us and I’m not gonna reject the possibility that wherever you’re from people say “café negro” for some reason, but yeah, no, it’s “café solo” as far as I’m concerned. You might as well call café con leche “café beige”.

Not next to the word coffee, is how.

Wait, what would the problem be with asking for a café solo?

I’m on Fedia. It’s pretty solid, UI-wise. I actually find it more usable than Reddit and its terrible way of trimming down threads by default.

What I’ve seen of Lemmy does seem a bit messier to read, though.

If you understand citations as you’ve been using them here (i.e. links to other media formatted as academic citations), we don’t agree.

Naming sources yes, sometimes, but many journalistic reports are based on personal interviews where citation is trivial, official sources (police reports, press statements from organizations), direct observation by the journalist or anonymous sourcing (government sources say…), so it’s not much of a marker of anything in many cases.

Same thing. You’ll run out of court bandwidth even before you run out of money, and you will definitely run out of money.

And you literally can’t in many cases when you’re dealing with messages being sent internationally.

Sure. Defamation is a very specific case of improper communication.

But even defamation is hard to control in a world of distributed social media communication.

Hah. I guess. I mean, I can tell you that on my last run of “is Linux viable now” I stepped through Mint, was frustrated about how it interacted with my hardware and did end up on a Manjaro KDE install that did pick up most of my newer hardware better.

It still was very far from perfect and definitely way more finicky, so I still would say not a mainstream daily driver (and I’m back to defaulting to Windows anyway). I genuinely don’t care how Linux gets there, but it needs to get there to be viable.

Hard disagree on that being “most people”.

I fully agree that Mint has the right UX for mass adoption, but I also agree with the OP that this comes at the cost of being specced for hardware made ten years ago.

I think it’s a useful reference point. If you are on a semi-modern display that does VRR and HDR with a newer Nvidia card, want to do some gaming on it, maybe have a secondary display with a different resolution that requires different scaling… you know, that type of thing, then what you need is at least the level of compatibility and functionality you get on Mint, but with official support out of the box. And you need it like four or five years ago.

Mint existing shows why Linux isn’t a mainstream daily driver.

No, it’s an argument against some of the proposed remedies.

The step you’re skipping over is that citing a claim by itself doesn’t do much to guarantee its veracity if the reader of the citation isn’t willing to get in touch with the source of the citation and verify its content. Citations aren’t magical. As you’re using them in this conversation they are merely a tool for a peer review to be able to verify a bunch of precedent information without having to include it all in the same place every time.

The difference between journalistic information and peer review in science is that news are supposed to have gone through a journalistic verification process first, which the reader trusts based on the previous operation of the news outlet. A paper is presented to go through peer review and published after it has gone through that process.

Working as in “being paid to do the work”.

I’ll spare you the dictionary definition. As we’ve established, you can source that yourself.

No, you can do those tasks at any point. I’m not concerned with who is doing the work, I’m concerned with the amount of work involved and how practical it is for every one of us to do it as a matter of course every time we access information online.

This is why this choice you made of quote-replying to individual statements is not a great way to have a conversation online, by the way. Now we’re breaking down the details behind individual words with no context on the arguments that contain them. This is all borderline illegible and quite far from the original argument, IMO.

Think about it this way, the effort to process the information is some multiplier of the effort it takes to consume the finished piece of information.

Some info comes in, a journalist of some description processes it into finished, verified news ready for consumption. That effort is some magnitude bigger than just reading the unverified news, and that work is enough to keep a lot of people working full time for the volume of information we all consume each day.

It’s kind of absurd to break down that statement to this level of detail, but that doesn’t mean it’s not accurate.

You need far less info to reach a bar for journalistic veracity than you do for a meta analysis paper. The question is where in the process the effort is being aggregated.

If a journalist phones a couple of sources, hears from them the same thing they are seeing somewhere and publishes that information, then the fact-checking has been done once and reaches thousands or millions of people.

If the way the information is disseminated requires those thousands or millions to do the fact-check themselves using the same process, then that is entirely impractical, which was my original point. Crowdsourced fact-checking is always going to be less reliable and exponentially more work than properly verified broadcast news sources. Even if many of them share their fact check, we have plenty of data to suggest the reach of that correction will be much smaller and it will still require a lot of private effort to correct the original info.

That’s the point of the entire “it’s a real job” argument. Journalists are doing a lot of legwork once and we’re all relying on that job to acquire a lot of our information instead of all of us doing the same legwork again. The two problems we’re facing are 1) that this trust opens us up to propaganda from activist or opinionated journalism, and 2) that we’re no longer just getting neatly processed info that has gone through a journalistic process, we’re also getting a firehose of misinformation from many individual content generators over the Internet.

Those are both hard problems to manage.

As I think someone else already pointed out, defamation is not a major part of the issue and it’s already in place quite strictly in many places without making a dent on the issue.

And yes, it’s absolutely defeated by scale. You can’t start a legal process against every single tweet and facebook post (let alone every message in a Whatsapp group you can’t even see in the first place). As with paywalls, the aggregate effect ends up being that large outlets are held to a high standard while misinformation spread through social media is not just cheaper to make but less accountable.

That depends on what you mean, I suppose. If what you’re saying is a savvy reader can fact-check an article if they know how… probably yes, in most cases. There are also probably warning flags and markers in most pieces to tell a savvy reader whether they should be following up in the first place.

If you’re saying that a savvy reader should be able to spot the quality of the information on the spot based entirely on the information within the article, then obviously not. That would mean the reader already has all the information in the piece and then some. The process of determining that is going to take some additional work to seek additional information, which is why it’s so hard to rely on crowdsourced fact-checking. Not everybody is going to have the time or availability to do that every time.

I assume you mean the first option, though.

I think the posts along these lines are already two steps too far away from the vibes.

Nobody is even considering the number being prime, it just looks like there can’t be a round number of one against the other because one is big and ends in seven and the other is relatively small and ends in 1.

If you’re even thinking about divisibility rules you’re doing it wrong. As in, your brain is too impacted by maths to see what the numbers look like from instinct alone. There’s no thinking in this, they just look weird together.