5 ms·

I would like a news site, that would actually check both sides of the story. If Lexmark did it just because 35 cents, then that is bad, but if there was more to

by funkyy 11y ago

I would like a news site, that would actually check both sides of the story. If Lexmark did it just because 35 cents, then that is bad, but if there was more to it, then I would like to hear it.

ncallaway 11y ago
From the article: >In a statement Jerry Grasso, company spokesman, told the Guardian: “We take our values of mutual respect and employee satisfaction very seriously. We are committed to engaging in open and honest conversations with our employees to ensure Lexmark continues to be a rewarding place to work.” I doubt Lexmark will comment further on the specific case in any way as it sounds like there will be legal action following the article: >An unfair dismissal complaint will be lodged before the Board this week, said Prieto Terrazas.
JonFish85 11y ago
They exist, but they're usually at least a few days (if not weeks) behind, mostly because they're doing the exact thing you ask for. But in today's Twitter/Facebook world, a headline plus a paragraph is about all that most people care about. By the time someone does real research into it, the story is old news and people have already made up their minds about it. Places like the New York Times & Washington Post still seem to do research and actually employ real journalists. Unfortunately they get drowned out by the "entertainment news" companies who report things faster, and who really don't care about "facts" so much as condensed snippets of text.
- funkyy 11y ago
  Often but not always. OK guys, I have idea about cool startup, but since I am working on something else, here it goes - create a "Like" button that instead of liking, will say "Follow" - this will let you follow story. If any news outlet will post follow up, you will be informed. But then if after XX time the outlet will not post follow up - you will be notified to look for the end of the story elsewhere or you will be suggested some other outlets. With proper coding you can get huge thing in your hands. Do it. Do it now, I will use it. Even you Pocket - do it. Whatever do this, just give me 1% stock so I can support some charity with it in exchange of idea.
  - prawn 11y ago
    How do you judge what content from another outlet is just repeating what you already know and what's new? It gets pretty tedious seeing further articles that are largely duplicates of what you just read.
    - atrus 11y ago
      Actually, my dad had this same idea a few years back. I tried to build it, but it's hard to do. Your options are: 1. Stick to the same source, crawl the pages for updates 2. Figure out the topics of the story, and do a sort of "Google Alerts" for those topic, and filter to things that are relevant. 3. Go user generated. You submit a story you're interested in, other users can look through lists of "un-updated" stories, and if they find an update they can get "points", since everybody loves internet points. Good luck, if anyone manages to do it, let me know, my dad would love to use it.
      - funkyy 11y ago
        4. make websites to use your API to get exposure to their follow up, encourage them to update by getting them traffic from outlets that didn't follow up. 5. Create a news selection bot that works like upgraded Google in news finding (not that hard, it just needs imagination).
ank_the_elder 11y ago
Not every story has two sides, nor necessarily are those two sides (when they exist) equally valid. The idea that journalists should always check "both sides of the story" basically manufactures false dichotomies.
- Cyberdog 11y ago
  There is always more than one side to a story, particularly when it involves conflict between two or more groups - say, employees and an employer. Covering only one side of a story is dangerous, particularly when that coverage is used as a source or inspiration for further coverage, which then itself gets used, and then eventually edited into Wikipedia articles because all these reputable news sources are reporting it and that's all that's required for "truth" over there, and so on, and so on.
  - ank_the_elder 11y ago
    You can trivially see that's not the case. Look at anti-vaxers vs. science. Is this two sides of the same coin? Or just two unrelated topics? Namely, science-based medicine and a fringe group of lunatics commenting on a topic they don't understand. So, there you have one trivial counter-example. Hence, your assertion is false. To reiterate what I've stated: not every topic has more than one side. This circus-like setup is especially deceiving if you let popular opinion pick them - this apocryphal rule not only manufactures false dichotomies, but also allows for nonsense to challenge well-established science. Especially when it comes to the so-called hard sciences - some topics are not under discussion - we can choose to discuss and argue all day whether the fundamental theorem of calculus is true or not, but since it's a theorem it's already been proven well beyond any opinion's reach.
    - Cyberdog 11y ago
      Congratulations, you pedantically found an exception to my rule. There's no way a labor dispute as as cut-and-dry as calculus, however, or even vaccination science. And in the latter case, I think there should be reporting on what anti-vaxxers think and why, if for no other reason than to document that these people exist and hopefully help construct a framework to change their minds.

by funkyy 11y ago

I would like a news site, that would actually check both sides of the story. If Lexmark did it just because 35 cents, then that is bad, but if there was more to it, then I would like to hear it.

ncallaway 11y ago

From the article: >In a statement Jerry Grasso, company spokesman, told the Guardian: “We take our values of mutual respect and employee satisfaction very seriously. We are committed to engaging in open and honest conversations with our employees to ensure Lexmark continues to be a rewarding place to work.” I doubt Lexmark will comment further on the specific case in any way as it sounds like there will be legal action following the article: >An unfair dismissal complaint will be lodged before the Board this week, said Prieto Terrazas.

JonFish85 11y ago

They exist, but they're usually at least a few days (if not weeks) behind, mostly because they're doing the exact thing you ask for. But in today's Twitter/Facebook world, a headline plus a paragraph is about all that most people care about. By the time someone does real research into it, the story is old news and people have already made up their minds about it. Places like the New York Times & Washington Post still seem to do research and actually employ real journalists. Unfortunately they get drowned out by the "entertainment news" companies who report things faster, and who really don't care about "facts" so much as condensed snippets of text.

funkyy 11y ago
Often but not always. OK guys, I have idea about cool startup, but since I am working on something else, here it goes - create a "Like" button that instead of liking, will say "Follow" - this will let you follow story. If any news outlet will post follow up, you will be informed. But then if after XX time the outlet will not post follow up - you will be notified to look for the end of the story elsewhere or you will be suggested some other outlets. With proper coding you can get huge thing in your hands. Do it. Do it now, I will use it. Even you Pocket - do it. Whatever do this, just give me 1% stock so I can support some charity with it in exchange of idea.
- prawn 11y ago
  How do you judge what content from another outlet is just repeating what you already know and what's new? It gets pretty tedious seeing further articles that are largely duplicates of what you just read.
  - atrus 11y ago
    Actually, my dad had this same idea a few years back. I tried to build it, but it's hard to do. Your options are: 1. Stick to the same source, crawl the pages for updates 2. Figure out the topics of the story, and do a sort of "Google Alerts" for those topic, and filter to things that are relevant. 3. Go user generated. You submit a story you're interested in, other users can look through lists of "un-updated" stories, and if they find an update they can get "points", since everybody loves internet points. Good luck, if anyone manages to do it, let me know, my dad would love to use it.
    - funkyy 11y ago
      4. make websites to use your API to get exposure to their follow up, encourage them to update by getting them traffic from outlets that didn't follow up. 5. Create a news selection bot that works like upgraded Google in news finding (not that hard, it just needs imagination).

ank_the_elder 11y ago

Not every story has two sides, nor necessarily are those two sides (when they exist) equally valid. The idea that journalists should always check "both sides of the story" basically manufactures false dichotomies.

Cyberdog 11y ago
There is always more than one side to a story, particularly when it involves conflict between two or more groups - say, employees and an employer. Covering only one side of a story is dangerous, particularly when that coverage is used as a source or inspiration for further coverage, which then itself gets used, and then eventually edited into Wikipedia articles because all these reputable news sources are reporting it and that's all that's required for "truth" over there, and so on, and so on.
- ank_the_elder 11y ago
  You can trivially see that's not the case. Look at anti-vaxers vs. science. Is this two sides of the same coin? Or just two unrelated topics? Namely, science-based medicine and a fringe group of lunatics commenting on a topic they don't understand. So, there you have one trivial counter-example. Hence, your assertion is false. To reiterate what I've stated: not every topic has more than one side. This circus-like setup is especially deceiving if you let popular opinion pick them - this apocryphal rule not only manufactures false dichotomies, but also allows for nonsense to challenge well-established science. Especially when it comes to the so-called hard sciences - some topics are not under discussion - we can choose to discuss and argue all day whether the fundamental theorem of calculus is true or not, but since it's a theorem it's already been proven well beyond any opinion's reach.
  - Cyberdog 11y ago
    Congratulations, you pedantically found an exception to my rule. There's no way a labor dispute as as cut-and-dry as calculus, however, or even vaccination science. And in the latter case, I think there should be reporting on what anti-vaxxers think and why, if for no other reason than to document that these people exist and hopefully help construct a framework to change their minds.