3 ms·

The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. Now it's a string of 'anonymous o

The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. Now it's a string of 'anonymous official' and the new form that tries harder to be legit 'anonymous official heard X person say', with X a famous and readily recognizable character out of government. At that point is hearsay vs hearsay. Reputable outlets are trashing their reputation and dragging it in the ground in the name of 'faster news' - but then it's even harder to normal people to tell what's grounded, what's likely, what's a half truth and what's propaganda. It's far to easy to get position from a crackpot conspiracy theorist and wash them up into a better thought post on a unbranded website, so google searches now dig up as much trash as good posts for many important topics, and because the writing style and source weight is the same (hearsay) it'll be increasingly difficult for people to process. This is especially true for controversial topics that sit at the edge of personal knowledge. I.e. some day ago I was curios about methane plant total lifecycle impact compared to solar panel disposal or solar concentrator plants, and happened across this article that brings up some interesting points, backs them up with some easily verifiable math and shows a greater complexity to a topic I thought was more straightforward: http://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltdown-porter-ranch-means-energy-transition/ http://energypost.eu/wind-solars-achilles-heel-methane-meltd... and the problem is... I have no idea if anything written in there is actually true. it looks true, it sounds a reasonable and balanced analysis, but for that article there are three stating the contrary, and I have not the instruments for differentiating which is good and which is pushing an agenda, since it's not a clear case of partisanship (like you'd expect from articles pushed from 'the union of conservative scientists')

pavlov 10y ago
The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. That's not really the case. The Washington Post didn't have any of that when they published their original Watergate scoop. The story came from an anonymous source (the famous "Deep Throat"). The difference is that traditional investigative journalism has a process for establishing the likely credibility of anonymous sources. For a controversial piece, it ultimately comes down to the author's reputation and the editor-in-chief's judgment: will we bet the credibility of our paper on this story? So-called alternative media generally don't seem to care. Their writers will absorb from anonymous and second-hand sources without much editorial oversight. If a story is revealed false, they can just ignore or delete it. The problem is that people now assume that Washington Post and Breitbart operate on similar editorial standards. Superficially they're both news websites with a miserable comment section, so the confusion is understandable in a way...
- NoGravitas 10y ago
  > The problem is that people now assume that Washington Post and Breitbart operate on similar editorial standards. I'm afraid the WaPo have themselves to blame for this. In the early 2000s they (and the NYT, and CNN) bet the credibility of their paper on yellowcake, Curveball, and Bush's 16 Words. And they believed lies because they were being told by people in respectable positions, and they dutifully forwarded them on. When they were proven wrong, they responded with a mix of doubling down; claiming that while they were wrong, no one could have known better; and publishing retractions buried in the back pages. That doesn't make places like Breitbart credible, but it does make the WaPo (etc) incredible. So alternative/mainstream can absolutely not be the dividing line for judging credibility. You have to judge outlets (and articles) individually.
- ethbro 10y ago
  Essentially, the average reader can't tell the difference between well-cited reporting and questionably-cited reporting. Which seems reasonable, given that both now heavily feature "anonymous sources in senior government positions." I think the accelerant to the problem is the increased throughput of news. If I throw out complete BS on my news site, no one is likely to fact check me unless it's a major story. And why would a reputable news org waste their time replying to "Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton had a secret genetically engineered Aryan baby"? If it isn't debunked, then only the crackpot article is read, and it plays to the "mainstream media isn't covering this" conspiracy. If it is debunked, then (a) someone has to read the source that debunks it & (b) it gets spun as "well, of course they're trying to cover this up."
acqq 10y ago
> I have not the instruments for differentiating which is good and which is pushing an agenda, since it's not a clear case of partisanship (like you'd expect from articles pushed from 'the union of conservative scientists') It it a joke? "Mike Conley and Tim Maloney, long-time members of the Thorium Energy Alliance, have calculated what they call a “Worth-It Treshold” that gives the answer." Thorium Energy. Which never worked safely or economically, even if it's "promising" since around end of the WW II. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html It's a good approach to calculate the total costs, including the need for the gas plants, also for wind and solar, but the same has to be done for nuclear, not about the gas plants, but all aspects of direct or indirect subventions that nuclear also had or is assumed to get, including again the totals of the whole infrastructure and all aspects of handling the waste etc. E.g. the cost of nuclear has to include the costs of Fukushima and equvalent events. Or if you worry about the nuclear bombs, the cost of somebody who shouldn't getting the bomb (even the dirt bomb) material.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  > It it a joke? no, that's the whole point of it. to someone coming outside of energy field research, nothing has raised a clear warning. the only thing that looked fishy is that they were more about trying to convince people than stating facts, and that's why I didn't stop my inquiry there, but after looking around a little more I just couldn't establish trust (and establishing trust isn't my job either way, I'm not gonna research a curiosity topic for days on end, my time is limited)
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
That energypost article is clearly pushing an agenda. Like many anti-renewable articles it basically devolves into numerology when it starts talking about capacity factor. Their methodology is like me saying that if you only drive your car 3% of the time, then you must be spending 97% of your life in taxis. And therefore any problem with taxis is a catastrophe, and we should probably not build any more cars, until my firm delivers it's flying car that it's been promising since the 70s, which will be perfect and have no issues at all, ever. Methane leaks are an issue that reduce the good news about the switch from coal to gas but the article they've built around that is so bad it has deeply damaged my faith in thorium based approaches, if supporters of that tech have to stoop to such lows. That's how shoddy the argumentation is.

pavlov 10y ago

The difference was that investigative journalism used to cough up documents, videos and proofs before running to the presses. That's not really the case. The Washington Post didn't have any of that when they published their original Watergate scoop. The story came from an anonymous source (the famous "Deep Throat"). The difference is that traditional investigative journalism has a process for establishing the likely credibility of anonymous sources. For a controversial piece, it ultimately comes down to the author's reputation and the editor-in-chief's judgment: will we bet the credibility of our paper on this story? So-called alternative media generally don't seem to care. Their writers will absorb from anonymous and second-hand sources without much editorial oversight. If a story is revealed false, they can just ignore or delete it. The problem is that people now assume that Washington Post and Breitbart operate on similar editorial standards. Superficially they're both news websites with a miserable comment section, so the confusion is understandable in a way...

NoGravitas 10y ago
> The problem is that people now assume that Washington Post and Breitbart operate on similar editorial standards. I'm afraid the WaPo have themselves to blame for this. In the early 2000s they (and the NYT, and CNN) bet the credibility of their paper on yellowcake, Curveball, and Bush's 16 Words. And they believed lies because they were being told by people in respectable positions, and they dutifully forwarded them on. When they were proven wrong, they responded with a mix of doubling down; claiming that while they were wrong, no one could have known better; and publishing retractions buried in the back pages. That doesn't make places like Breitbart credible, but it does make the WaPo (etc) incredible. So alternative/mainstream can absolutely not be the dividing line for judging credibility. You have to judge outlets (and articles) individually.
ethbro 10y ago
Essentially, the average reader can't tell the difference between well-cited reporting and questionably-cited reporting. Which seems reasonable, given that both now heavily feature "anonymous sources in senior government positions." I think the accelerant to the problem is the increased throughput of news. If I throw out complete BS on my news site, no one is likely to fact check me unless it's a major story. And why would a reputable news org waste their time replying to "Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton had a secret genetically engineered Aryan baby"? If it isn't debunked, then only the crackpot article is read, and it plays to the "mainstream media isn't covering this" conspiracy. If it is debunked, then (a) someone has to read the source that debunks it & (b) it gets spun as "well, of course they're trying to cover this up."

acqq 10y ago

> I have not the instruments for differentiating which is good and which is pushing an agenda, since it's not a clear case of partisanship (like you'd expect from articles pushed from 'the union of conservative scientists') It it a joke? "Mike Conley and Tim Maloney, long-time members of the Thorium Energy Alliance, have calculated what they call a “Worth-It Treshold” that gives the answer." Thorium Energy. Which never worked safely or economically, even if it's "promising" since around end of the WW II. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html It's a good approach to calculate the total costs, including the need for the gas plants, also for wind and solar, but the same has to be done for nuclear, not about the gas plants, but all aspects of direct or indirect subventions that nuclear also had or is assumed to get, including again the totals of the whole infrastructure and all aspects of handling the waste etc. E.g. the cost of nuclear has to include the costs of Fukushima and equvalent events. Or if you worry about the nuclear bombs, the cost of somebody who shouldn't getting the bomb (even the dirt bomb) material.

LoSboccacc 10y ago
> It it a joke? no, that's the whole point of it. to someone coming outside of energy field research, nothing has raised a clear warning. the only thing that looked fishy is that they were more about trying to convince people than stating facts, and that's why I didn't stop my inquiry there, but after looking around a little more I just couldn't establish trust (and establishing trust isn't my job either way, I'm not gonna research a curiosity topic for days on end, my time is limited)

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

That energypost article is clearly pushing an agenda. Like many anti-renewable articles it basically devolves into numerology when it starts talking about capacity factor. Their methodology is like me saying that if you only drive your car 3% of the time, then you must be spending 97% of your life in taxis. And therefore any problem with taxis is a catastrophe, and we should probably not build any more cars, until my firm delivers it's flying car that it's been promising since the 70s, which will be perfect and have no issues at all, ever. Methane leaks are an issue that reduce the good news about the switch from coal to gas but the article they've built around that is so bad it has deeply damaged my faith in thorium based approaches, if supporters of that tech have to stoop to such lows. That's how shoddy the argumentation is.