3 ms·
>This raises the really interesting point that news doesn't have a post mortem process. Great idea, and what higher education should be doing for research. Gen
by ptaipale 10y ago
>This raises the really interesting point that news doesn't have a post mortem process.
Great idea, and what higher education should be doing for research. Generally there's no process.
But personal experience is that whenever I have been involved in a situation about which news has been made, the outcome has always been that the reporting is somewhat sloppy, inaccurate, and agenda-driven.
This is with so-called reputable journalism; "fake news" is then even worse.
So, even if I do a non-professional post-mortem on my own, I see that the news was not completely healthy. And pointing this out to journalists generally makes them just angry. Even if you are completely polite, they block you on Twitter, etc. If you comment a news article in reputable newspapers' web sites to correct errors with good sources, it's not unusual that the comment is moderated away.
- dredmorbius 10y agoI need to think myself on just what metrics ought be used. I find, for example, looking at fact-checking efforts, that the focus is often at too fine a level of detail. That by focusing minutely on facts, the big-picture accuracy (narrative) is often lost. The question of how to deal with missing narrative or omitted detail is also huge. There are efforts underway in that regard, usually in the legal field. The Innocence Project would be an example. I can think of a great deal of follow-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion which have turned up since, and in particular numerous instances of people caught blatently lying. The public though seems mostly to move on. I feel that's a mistake.