7 ms·

It's poor form for the guardian to not link the original article, at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-a

by ikeboy 10y ago

It's poor form for the guardian to not link the original article, at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fac... The guardian article is a hit piece, and a poorly written one at that. It gives very little information and a lot of vague or indirect criticism. (Makes you think how much more effective hit pieces can be when the writer actually has something to work with: even this will probably convince a lot of people that critiques of snopes are invalid.) On priors I'd expect there to be issues with the mail article, but the guardian doesn't tell me what they are.

camtarn 10y ago
[edit] I completely misread the comment above as asking Hacker News to link to the original source article, not for the Guardian to have linked it. My bad, and I agree with the parent. For any other reputable news source I'd totally agree - but in this case, it's poor form to give the Daily Mail your ad revenue. This is not any regular newspaper: it is a mouthpiece for an organised hate campaign aimed at stirring up political tensions against immigrants, the disabled and out of work, and other 'undesirables' - which just also happens to be really good at writing social-media-friendly celebrity stories.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. They barely summarised it. The reasons you gave don't rise to that level. If the other critique I made—that they don't actually mention anything wrong with the mail article— wouldn't be the case, it wouldn't be as bad. But the fact that they didn't make any substantive critiques of the article and didn't link it makes it a hit piece.
  - camtarn 10y ago
    I apologise - I totally misread your comment, and thought it was a request for Hacker News to have linked to the Daily Mail article. Yes, I agree that the Guardian should have linked to it.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Guess I wasn't clear, I edited my comment above. Thanks for that.
  - mst 10y ago
    > If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. I think "I want to talk about their attitude to fake news, not further spread the salacious details of their only-sort-of-related coverage" is ... a reason. I think saying basically that, and providing a link afterwards that one would hope readers would choose not to click, would've been a better approach from a broadsheet.
caf 10y ago
It's not a "hit piece" any more than your comment is. It's an opinion piece.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  A pretty bizarre opinion at that. They seem to be suggesting that all of those knighted with "fact checker" status should be above criticism/investigation, and anyone who does shine a light at them is just "afraid of the truth." I happen to think that the founder of Snopes embezzling $98K and spending it on prostitutes is relevant, as it throws their entire journalistic credibility into question.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Why does it throw all their journalistic credibility into question? When I consult Snopes, I care about the predictive power of the the information they share, ie whether it will inform me accurately enough to guess where the story will go. I use it for additional data points rather than to form a conclusion, although I appreciate the thoroughness when they go to the trouble of exploring historical context etc. So the founder of Snopes may be financially dishonest and driven by sex thrills...but this doesn't invalidate their research on external questions. It's not like I looked to them for moral guidance about, well, anything.
    - cloakandswagger 10y ago
      I'm going to answer this question under the assumption that you truly don't understand some of the core tenets regarding journalistic integrity. On the surface, your argument is correct; the facts are the facts, and no amount of moral corruption will change that. Things get hairy when you remember that our world is anything other than black and white: facts can be distorted, misrepresented or ignored to deliver an entirely different message, even if they are still (technically) "factual". This is why you don't want a known sleazebag for a reporter. Not only do they have a provably skewed moral compass that would let them deviate from pure "fact-based" reporting, there is also a safe assumption that they have other, worse skeletons in their closet which would mean they're susceptible to being blackmailed into deviating from pure "fact-based" reporting.
anigbrowl 10y ago
It's a hit piece, but then so is the Daily Mail article, and the DM has been a scandal sheet for most of its history.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Yeah but I have higher expectations from the guardian.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by ikeboy 10y ago

camtarn 10y ago

[edit] I completely misread the comment above as asking Hacker News to link to the original source article, not for the Guardian to have linked it. My bad, and I agree with the parent. For any other reputable news source I'd totally agree - but in this case, it's poor form to give the Daily Mail your ad revenue. This is not any regular newspaper: it is a mouthpiece for an organised hate campaign aimed at stirring up political tensions against immigrants, the disabled and out of work, and other 'undesirables' - which just also happens to be really good at writing social-media-friendly celebrity stories.

ikeboy 10y ago
If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. They barely summarised it. The reasons you gave don't rise to that level. If the other critique I made—that they don't actually mention anything wrong with the mail article— wouldn't be the case, it wouldn't be as bad. But the fact that they didn't make any substantive critiques of the article and didn't link it makes it a hit piece.
- camtarn 10y ago
  I apologise - I totally misread your comment, and thought it was a request for Hacker News to have linked to the Daily Mail article. Yes, I agree that the Guardian should have linked to it.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Guess I wasn't clear, I edited my comment above. Thanks for that.
- mst 10y ago
  > If you're writing a journalistic article and you're criticising something, you better have a very good reason for not linking it. I think "I want to talk about their attitude to fake news, not further spread the salacious details of their only-sort-of-related coverage" is ... a reason. I think saying basically that, and providing a link afterwards that one would hope readers would choose not to click, would've been a better approach from a broadsheet.

caf 10y ago

It's not a "hit piece" any more than your comment is. It's an opinion piece.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
A pretty bizarre opinion at that. They seem to be suggesting that all of those knighted with "fact checker" status should be above criticism/investigation, and anyone who does shine a light at them is just "afraid of the truth." I happen to think that the founder of Snopes embezzling $98K and spending it on prostitutes is relevant, as it throws their entire journalistic credibility into question.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Why does it throw all their journalistic credibility into question? When I consult Snopes, I care about the predictive power of the the information they share, ie whether it will inform me accurately enough to guess where the story will go. I use it for additional data points rather than to form a conclusion, although I appreciate the thoroughness when they go to the trouble of exploring historical context etc. So the founder of Snopes may be financially dishonest and driven by sex thrills...but this doesn't invalidate their research on external questions. It's not like I looked to them for moral guidance about, well, anything.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    I'm going to answer this question under the assumption that you truly don't understand some of the core tenets regarding journalistic integrity. On the surface, your argument is correct; the facts are the facts, and no amount of moral corruption will change that. Things get hairy when you remember that our world is anything other than black and white: facts can be distorted, misrepresented or ignored to deliver an entirely different message, even if they are still (technically) "factual". This is why you don't want a known sleazebag for a reporter. Not only do they have a provably skewed moral compass that would let them deviate from pure "fact-based" reporting, there is also a safe assumption that they have other, worse skeletons in their closet which would mean they're susceptible to being blackmailed into deviating from pure "fact-based" reporting.

anigbrowl 10y ago

It's a hit piece, but then so is the Daily Mail article, and the DM has been a scandal sheet for most of its history.

ikeboy 10y ago
Yeah but I have higher expectations from the guardian.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]