3 ms·

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

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.

dang 10y ago
Please edit personal swipes, such as the first sentence here, out of the comments you post to HN. This comment would be fine without that.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  That disclaimer was only there so the rest of the post wouldn't seem patronizing.
  - dang 10y ago
    Interpretations always differ, but that statement does seem patronizing to me. Communicating in a large internet forum is quite different than in small groups or in person. Among other things, it's much harder to communicate intent, so it's best to either (a) state intent explicitly or (b) edit the post so that it isn't so vulnerable to crossed signals.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Perhaps you should have focused more on avoiding a false equivalence of fact-checking with journalism, as if a) Snopes were an originator of news and rumors rather than being responsive to them, and b) their popularity relied on a perception of the founders' personal integrity as opposed to a history of providing verifiable links to contrary information and narrowly reasoned argument.

dang 10y ago

Please edit personal swipes, such as the first sentence here, out of the comments you post to HN. This comment would be fine without that.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
That disclaimer was only there so the rest of the post wouldn't seem patronizing.
- dang 10y ago
  Interpretations always differ, but that statement does seem patronizing to me. Communicating in a large internet forum is quite different than in small groups or in person. Among other things, it's much harder to communicate intent, so it's best to either (a) state intent explicitly or (b) edit the post so that it isn't so vulnerable to crossed signals.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Perhaps you should have focused more on avoiding a false equivalence of fact-checking with journalism, as if a) Snopes were an originator of news and rumors rather than being responsive to them, and b) their popularity relied on a perception of the founders' personal integrity as opposed to a history of providing verifiable links to contrary information and narrowly reasoned argument.