13 ms·

Awkward question here... can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" coul

by beat 8y ago

Awkward question here... can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? Just because a bunch of people believe it's a problem doesn't mean it's a problem. I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right.

jimmy1 8y ago
The most recent and obvious case in my mind: Covington Catholic Incident: almost every major mainstream media outlet ran with the narrative that the boys were harassing the Native Americans which was based solely on one video clip. No traditional investigative work was done. No one was interviewed (until the damage had been done). Nothing was fact checked. It was just one video, and boom: instant headlines.
- beat 8y ago
  I disagree. Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion. Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact, confirmed by the video and photos. If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes. That's how fact-checking works, and your response is failing it badly.
  - ajvs 8y ago
    This has been debunked thoroughly. That guy went up to the kids and started beating his drum right in their faces to intimidate them and somehow the media painted the kids as the harasser.
    - beat 8y ago
      Was his intent to intimidate? Why do you say that? How is that a "fact"? Where did you even hear that story? Geez, y'all don't understand fact checking at all.
      - ajvs 8y ago
        Does it matter what he says his intent was? He can paint whatever story he likes in interviews, but nobody would appreciate a random person going right in their face and beating a drum, especially a young kid. You can even see him flinching because of the proximity. Not sure what you're talking about "hearing that story", the video evidence is clear as day.
        rootusrootus 8y ago
        [deleted unpopular opinion]
        1000units 8y ago
        You assume the drummer was trying to go somewhere such that someone could block his path. But he was exactly where he wanted, in this kid's face trying to provoke him. And the kid just smirked, earning great hatred and hostility from people who don't think there's any place for a smile in this cold, brutal world.
        rootusrootus 8y ago
        I assume the kid wanted the confrontation just as much, hence the smirk and refusal to make a hole for the guy to walk through. Even if it is exactly what the old man wanted, the kid is not blameless.
        1000units 8y ago
        Again, you're assuming the kid had the option of yielding so that the drummer could "walk through." Watch the original video that includes the surrounding events. The kid did have an option to yield: getting on his knees and begging for forgiveness for the crime of appearing at an anti-abortion demonstration as a white Catholic male. Then the drummer (who is a 'professional protestor', by the way) would have had a more dramatic story to sell. Instead, he smirked.
    - behindmyscreen 8y ago
      The confrontation was between the kids and the black Israelites. The Native gentleman was trying to use chanting to interfere with the conflict.
  - jimmy1 8y ago
    > Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion But when you report it as a matter of fact in an editorializing headline, then it is a problem. > Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact This was not the narrative portrayed, in the slightest bit. Had this been the headline and narrative, I would have had no issue with it, either. The stories that day were "Boy in MAGA hat harasses Native Americans" period.
    - beat 8y ago
      See previous post. If you can't produce links and quotes, then that's just, like, your opinion, man.
      - fundingshovel 8y ago
        https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-gear-harass-native-elders https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-g... https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/maga-hat-wearing-teens-taunting-native-american-elder-spark-condemnation-from-hollywood-1203112838/ https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/maga-hat-wearing-teens-tau...
        beat 8y ago
        Firsthand quote from the VOX article... “It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’” Phillips told the Washington Post in a separate interview. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.” The article is explicit. It notes that Phillips initiated contact because they were harassing another group. But it also makes it clear, with quotes, that he believes they began harassing him instead. Now, if you want to say Phillips is lying, you can do that, but unless you do that, at least one of your articles does not support your contention.
        fundingshovel 8y ago
        The article was modified, and the sections in your quote added. I should have used the internet archive originally. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20190120030012/https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-gear-harass-native-elders https://web.archive.org/web/20190120030012/https://www.vox.c...
  - vokep 8y ago
    >Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion It really is not, further video evidence makes this a fact, not an opinion.
  - briandear 8y ago
    “Vietnam Vet” — that was published by the mainstream media. But the Native American wasn’t a Vietnam vet. He never left the US and, in fact, was AWOL twice. The media used “Vietnam vet” to elicit sympathy, but it wasn’t even factually accurate. The actual facts were ignored in order to promote a particular bias. “AWOL soldier” doesn’t have the same emotional value to the narrative as does “Vietnam combat vet.” The history of the Native American, including past protests and confrontations was highly relevant to the story but instead, the media focused on the the teenagers rather than the professional agitator as well as the hate-group the Black Israelites.[1] The Covington story was “privileged, white teenage, racist Trump supporters got in a confrontation.” However the facts had to be massaged in order to sell that fiction was what happened. We all know that was the intent of the media and to suggest the reporting was either factual or objective is nonsensical. It’s delusional to suggest that the media treats Trump supporters objectively. Look, for example how the New York Times classifies Joe Biden’s repeated sexual harassment as “tactile politics,” while anyone affiliated with Trump gets no such delicacy in headlines. It’s absurd to suggest that the Covington story was anything except the media attempting to make those kids look like evil puppy-killers. The vile, racist comments of the Black Israelites on the scene were ignored for the most part and instead media talking heads spent hours analyzing the alleged “smirk” of the white kid with the MAGA hat. There is a narrative and any reasonably intelligent person can clearly see it. [1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2008/racist-black-hebrew-israelites-becoming-more-militant https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
  - astine 8y ago
    "If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes" This is essentially what you're looking for: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwin-zimmerman-i-failed-covington-catholic-test/580897/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwi... The short story is that when news about the incident first emerged, it was lacking the context about the Black Hebrew Nationalists antagonizing the boys. Early coverage made it sound like the boys sought out Mr Phillips to antagonize him. When it turned out that he had inserted himself into the situation, rightly or wrongly, it changes a lot. This doesn't necessarily exonerate the teenagers--you might still find stuff to criticize about their behavior--but it does provide a more sympathetic context, one that was missing with the initial press coverage. So yes, whatever your final takeaway, the initial coverage was incomplete and people did form and share very strong opinions based on that incomplete coverage. Once more information came out, many people changed their minds while others stuck by their initial takes. Had the coverage been more complete before people starting making opinions, we might have avoided a lot of unnecessary kerfuffle over this.
  - cheez 8y ago
    If you watch the video, that kid with the long face was just standing there looking goofy because he was uncomfortable as the drummer walked right up to his face. There is really no way to misread that interaction. He's a teenager for god's sake and he was being harassed by ideologues.
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    >Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion The entire event is on video. The boys are waiting for their bus. They are repeatedly insulted by a group of adult men who use racial and homophobic insults against the boys, who do not respond in kind but do talk with the adults harassing them. Into the fracas enters Phillips, who approaches the boys, and bangs a drum in the face of one boy. Most mainstream news outlets then smear the children as racists who surrounded and harassed Phillips without regard for the events on film. If you want to describe this as a matter of different opinions, then I think you're basically in the camp of just disregarding reality and making up whatever is most pleasant to your perspective.
  - will4274 8y ago
    > Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion. Perhaps. But the question of who approached who is a matter of fact. Initial reporting claimed the teenagers approached a group of Native Americans. The videos clarified that the Native Americans approached the teenagers.
- ddgflorida 8y ago
  Excellent example- it will be interesting to see if they win their defamation lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  And why couldn't media conglomerates get the facts right?
paulsutter 8y ago
Paul Graham: "If a journalist describes you as "embattled," they're saying you're guilty as charged. The word basically doesn't exist in spoken English. Its only use, except among castle nerds, is as a (seemingly neutral and presumably also libel-proof) press code word." https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1111602566536810497 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1111602566536810497
- carrier_lost 8y ago
  Paul Graham is entitled to his opinion. I am a professional journalist and I disagree. Journalists use the word "embattled" the way Merriam-Webster defines it: "characterized by conflict or controversy." Typically it applies to a person who has been heavily criticized, or accused of wrongdoing at length or by many people. Accurately describing a person as such is not at all the same as the journalist declaring a person guilty, and it's certainly not a "press code word." He is seeing bias that isn't there.
  - jdminhbg 8y ago
    You're not engaging with the actual criticism at all. Nobody is disputing that "embattled" is in the dictionary; instead, he's saying that it's journalism jargon that is not actually used in real life.
    - beat 8y ago
      No, no, no. pg is claiming that "embattled" is a journalistic euphemism for "guilty as charged". Sure, it's jargon and rarely used in "real life", but it's generally not inaccurate or deliberately misleading. Someone who is accused yet innocent is still "embattled". Readers assuming guilt is not a problem of fact. It may not even be the journalistic intent.
      - jdminhbg 8y ago
        That, at least, is a response to the actual argument. I disagree: I have never seen a story where "embattled" was used to describe someone the rest of the story led you to believe might be unfairly embattled, and the nice thing about "embattled" is that you do not have to actually prove anything to use it. It's just "I hear lots of people are saying..." dressed up.
50656E6973 8y ago
Claas Relotius, the Der Spiegel journalist who won CNN's journalist of the year award who was revelead to be completely inventing stories about people to make enticing click bait. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiegel-journalist-resigns-over-fake-interviews https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiege...
- 99052882514569 8y ago
  He either invented sources or made up quotes from real people he never met. How do you expect this platform to remedy that?
  - ben_jones 8y ago
    Digital signatures from sources would be a nice feature, maybe some kind of trust system such that sources could be kept anonymous.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    There were a few tells one could find, at least after the fact. For example, he described a women locking her door „with three turns of the key“. That’s something that works on German locks, where the bolt keeps advancing. But the incident was supposed to have happened in some southern US state. And in the US, most locks only allow a quarter turn. I asked specifically about the prevalence of different lock types in the state in a HN threat at the time. That said, this is a singular and decidedly rare event. The insinuation of widespread whole-cloth fabrication is almost certainly wrong, and probably more damaging to democracy than any actual fraud will ever be.
    - 99052882514569 8y ago
      The three turns is only a salient mess-up in light of other, much more damning evidence. On its own, it's credibly explainable as an honest mistake (I was there but who counts these things? I just assumed).
  - 50656E6973 8y ago
YazIAm 8y ago
I maybe misunderstanding your question, but this platform only accepts public primary sources as valid evidence. A media news story is never a primary source for proving the assertions within it, it's a secondary source. Edit: I had originally misunderstood the parent comment. Responded again here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185
- beat 8y ago
  Right, I get that. And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare. Hence my question.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare. Take a look at niche journalism. The bias and narrative pushing is quite massive there. I think the "garbage tier" label given to such organizations is well deserved. Yet, when mainstream journalism gives its attention, it follows the niche journalists lead. I find journalism that actually contradicts facts to be quite common. In today's climate, the mainstream can get away with complete contradiction of the facts, so long as the targets are obscure and/or unpopular, and the "right" narrative is being pushed. If you want to find this, then you need to start looking into the dissidents of mainstream culture in 2019. (You don't have to go as far as toxic people like the Alt Right. Rather, investigate the people who are being mislabeled as "Alt Right" as a tactic to marginalize them.)
    - beat 8y ago
      That's an opinion, not an example. I asked for examples. I'm getting opinions.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I cited a couple of examples in another comment. In any case, I didn't proffer that as just an opinion. It's also a prescription for how you could find tons and tons of evidence. Explicitly look into people who are not "Alt-Right" but who have been labeled that way as a means of quashing their message. This will often follow the pattern of the Boston Rally: Non white people for whom the media is pushing an anti-non-white racism narrative.
stcredzero 8y ago
can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? There have been many of these recently. One striking one was the Boston Rally for which the mainstream news pushed a "white supremacist" narrative. This was odd, as the few people who managed to come out included a large proportion of brown people, including one South Asian senate candidate. The fact checking seems to go out the window, so long as the story pushes one of the "sacrosanct" narratives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wWeksF6XZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wWeksF6XZs Another example was the coverage of the public harassment incident at VidCon between Anita Saarkesian and Sargon of Akkad. The way it was reported, it sounds like Sargon did something, whereas videos online show that all the harassment was done by Anita Saarkesian. You may not like Sargon, but the fact that the news narrative goes 180 degrees against the truth on the ground should disturb everyone. I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. Manufacturing Consent covers how western media entirely fits a "Propganda Model" of operation through presentation alone. However in recent years, even facts are thrown out in favor of narratives which run entirely counter to the facts. And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right. Not so much. I recall reading a NYT article about a storm-in-a-teacup thing involving who gets to walk first as valedictorian. The article was amazingly nearly fact free. It seems that articles and reports get a free pass, so long as they are pushing the "right" narrative. It has been this way for a very long time (re: Manufacturing Consent) but the quality of fact checking and the quality of the writing used to subtly spin the facts has gone down. People complained mightily about how all of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" evidence was one big circle-jerk of "Citogenesis." https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/ Now, the same media organizations are involved in the same circle-jerks of "Citogenesis," but it's given a pass for tribal reasons, because the narrative supports "our side."
- pvg 8y ago
  Your cited examples are: a 40 minute youtube video that starts with a narrator saying 'Why I think today is a win for the free speech side and a massive loss for the left', some anecdote about a youtuber spat at a tubin' conference, Manufacturing Consent, an NYT article you 'recall' but don't link and an xkcd comic. I don't think any of these are what the question was about.
manigandham 8y ago
>> And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right. Is it? Maybe it once was but the collapse of local news and the massive drop of talented writers and support staff like editors and fact checkers seems to have changed the environment. Most news today is little more than Twitter posts cobbled together.
sigstoat 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity...
dclowd9901 8y ago
You should read through some of the fact checks, especially the first one for Net Neutrality. They address literally this "presentation" aspect.
YazIAm 8y ago
The assumption behind this idea isn't that there are no accurate journalism outlets out there, it's that by "open sourcing" their fact checking, these outlets will better stand out, adopting a standard that inaccurate outlets just can't meet. Right now, outlets are basically asking you to trust their assertions based on their brand. Fewer and fewer readers are inclined to give their trust based on brand (I'm guessing this is because there are just so many outlets/brands now). The way forward is for journalists to earn their readers' trust by showing their work on as many fact checks as possible. It won't be possible for every fact check (such as those involving anonymous sources) but where possible, it'll add a great deal of value.
Macross8299 8y ago
>Can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? The Supermicro """backdoor""" story of late last year, where Bloomberg alleged that the company had surreptitiously placed small microchips on nearly all their products on behalf of China without anyone noticing
- beat 8y ago
  Was that ever conclusively disproved? By whom? And with what evidence? That could well fall under he said she said.
  - pvg 8y ago
    That could well fall under he said she said. That doesn't seem like a sensible standard, most reporting falls under 'our sources said vs what someone else said'. Many details of this particular story were later disputed by others, including Apple. Would a crowd-sourced fact-checking service have helped here? No, because it wasn't at all necessary. It's still a story with serious problems - it's 'the anonymous sources of the reporters' vs 'just about everybody else involved'.
metasj 8y ago
My favorite example, much clearer even than Covington (and never corrected in the major media): the bus driver who drove drove his bus off of a bridge: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46068412 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46068412 For whatever reason, the official police report implied that a passenger struggled with the driver causing the disaster. The next day, video footage of the entire event was released (from the security cam inside the bus), showing a different story. The driver pretty clearly decides to go over the edge, turns the wheel, and does not flinch or turn it back as they go over. After the video came out, dozens of major outlets covered the story. Almost all ran with "passenger hits driver causing crash", one or two did not specify a cause. No major outlet suggested [what seems to me to be] the most likely account, which is "driver deliberately drives bus off of bridge during argument with passenger". In contrast, on youtube / other social media, most commentators pointed out that the driver seemed to crash deliberately, changing course many seconds after the passenger hits him on the arm with her phone.
- metasj 8y ago
  This one fascinates for a few additional reasons, which a third-party site that supports revising and completing stories could address: * It shows how automated the echo chamber is. The real crash cause is a more interesting + rare story. (though needs A/B testing) * It shows how short-lived major coverage is. While most passengers unfortunately perished in the crash, _both the driver and the arguing passenger survived_, and will end up in court once they recover. This was mentioned by very few outlets, but will eventually help inform understanding of the event.
- throwaway284721 8y ago
  What's interesting about this is that there isn't even a narrative or a partisan bias here. The media just lies because there's no reason not to.
anigbrowl 8y ago
Because arguments about facts take place all the time when people dismiss citations, so having a source that exists specifically to document claims in open fashion becomes a useful reference.
terryd 8y ago
> I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. You mean something like a lie by omission? That is pretty easily solved with some form of source control and public pull requests. An equivalent to git blame would be pretty helpful (cue Sinclair Broadcast Group NPC script reading). Just watch http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/ for a while, these people regularly modify stories without editor's notes. It is kind of funny that further below you discuss the embarrassing conduct of the media in their coverage of Covington Catholic... do you remember what was in the news cycle right before they breathlessly pounced on a non-story? The media was getting embarrassed by a very rare direct denial from the DoJ in relation to their latest reporting on the Trump collusion conspiracy theory. I agree with your broader point though: this won't improve the media. They're not even pretending to be unbiased and have no shame in telling laughably obvious lies about the most ridiculous thing - like koi ponds. Their motivation is clear: short sighted servicing of those needing confirmation bias conforming stories. This isn't a scheme hatched in a smoke filled back room, it is just a very foolish business plan. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-why-its-so-mistrusted-after-falsified-trump-fish-feeding https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-w...
colechristensen 8y ago
"An article on Sunday about once-dominant N.H.L. teams adjusting to an evolving league misstated the number of conference finals appearance by the Kings, the Ducks and the Blackhawks since 2009. It is 10, not nine. Because of an editing error, an earlier version also misstated the number of playoff appearances by those teams in that span. It is 24, not 27." An example from the new york times from yesterday. Obviously not an earth shattering error, but there it is. Something trivially easy to be detected by anyone who cared to check. For more check out https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Yeah, and they corrected the error themselves and published the correction. This is why they are trustworthy. Making a mistake is not the same as lying.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    Corrections are often the result of external people pointing out errors. Who said anything about lying?
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      "External people pointing out errors"? How is that any worse than this hare-brained software idea? You still have to wait for somebody with the corrected information to hear of the story and recommend an edit. This is just adding a middleman that doesn't add value.
  - Veen 8y ago
    Making a mistake is not lying, but it is a moral failing to promulgate fiction as fact because it accords with your preferred narrative, especially when it's done by the media, who are trusted because they are supposed to practice restraint and good judgment.
    - 8y ago
ousta 8y ago
justin smollet? 99% of the media?
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  You realize that "being wrong" is not the same as "lying" right? Every news source reported on the inconsistencies in Jussie Smollett's story, and continued to update their reporting as the facts turned against him. They're newspapers, not oracles.
  - ousta 8y ago
    it is. they reported that it was a racist attack - because of trump - before checking the fact. it is fake news.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      They reported on the claims that were made. Once again, newspapers are not oracles. Facts change from day to day and stories develop over time. There's a reason that the Times puts out a new edition every day, instead of releasing just a singe one 2000 years ago that we all worship as indisputable truth. "Fake news" is reporting that Barack Obama, Black Lives Matter, and Anonymous are planning riots in 37 city centers at 7 pm on July 15 2016, as Breitbart, the Daily Caller, and other far-right news sources reported two days before. The story was entirely made up, and most of the text was copied from a chain email from the 00s.
      - ousta 8y ago
        hence why you do not report on something as being a fact before it is proven and before you investigate the claim. Its like me reporting the earth is flat because someone said it.
        hannasanarion 8y ago
        No other facts were available. The claim was itself the news, with updates pending a police investigation. This isn't complicated. Investigating crimes is the police's job, not every single newspaper in the world's. Should all of the world's newspapers have held off on reporting the MAGA bombs until Cesar Sayoc's conviction? Should we all have pretended that nothing was wrong about the world trade center until the 9/11 commission filed their final report?
btym 8y ago
This was recently posted on HN. It actually got me thinking how I might write a service like OP's. I wrote a story that became a legend. Then I discovered it wasn’t true: https://www.cjr.org/first_person/tinazzi-motorcycle-mont-blanc-tunnel-fire-rescue.php https://www.cjr.org/first_person/tinazzi-motorcycle-mont-bla...
0x445442 8y ago
Covington students.

by beat 8y ago

jimmy1 8y ago

The most recent and obvious case in my mind: Covington Catholic Incident: almost every major mainstream media outlet ran with the narrative that the boys were harassing the Native Americans which was based solely on one video clip. No traditional investigative work was done. No one was interviewed (until the damage had been done). Nothing was fact checked. It was just one video, and boom: instant headlines.

beat 8y ago
I disagree. Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion. Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact, confirmed by the video and photos. If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes. That's how fact-checking works, and your response is failing it badly.
- ajvs 8y ago
  This has been debunked thoroughly. That guy went up to the kids and started beating his drum right in their faces to intimidate them and somehow the media painted the kids as the harasser.
  - beat 8y ago
    Was his intent to intimidate? Why do you say that? How is that a "fact"? Where did you even hear that story? Geez, y'all don't understand fact checking at all.
    - ajvs 8y ago
      Does it matter what he says his intent was? He can paint whatever story he likes in interviews, but nobody would appreciate a random person going right in their face and beating a drum, especially a young kid. You can even see him flinching because of the proximity. Not sure what you're talking about "hearing that story", the video evidence is clear as day.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        [deleted unpopular opinion]
        1000units 8y ago
        You assume the drummer was trying to go somewhere such that someone could block his path. But he was exactly where he wanted, in this kid's face trying to provoke him. And the kid just smirked, earning great hatred and hostility from people who don't think there's any place for a smile in this cold, brutal world.
        rootusrootus 8y ago
        I assume the kid wanted the confrontation just as much, hence the smirk and refusal to make a hole for the guy to walk through. Even if it is exactly what the old man wanted, the kid is not blameless.
        1000units 8y ago
        Again, you're assuming the kid had the option of yielding so that the drummer could "walk through." Watch the original video that includes the surrounding events. The kid did have an option to yield: getting on his knees and begging for forgiveness for the crime of appearing at an anti-abortion demonstration as a white Catholic male. Then the drummer (who is a 'professional protestor', by the way) would have had a more dramatic story to sell. Instead, he smirked.
  - behindmyscreen 8y ago
    The confrontation was between the kids and the black Israelites. The Native gentleman was trying to use chanting to interfere with the conflict.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  > Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion But when you report it as a matter of fact in an editorializing headline, then it is a problem. > Whether there was a confrontation is a matter of fact This was not the narrative portrayed, in the slightest bit. Had this been the headline and narrative, I would have had no issue with it, either. The stories that day were "Boy in MAGA hat harasses Native Americans" period.
  - beat 8y ago
    See previous post. If you can't produce links and quotes, then that's just, like, your opinion, man.
    - fundingshovel 8y ago
      https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-gear-harass-native-elders https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-g... https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/maga-hat-wearing-teens-taunting-native-american-elder-spark-condemnation-from-hollywood-1203112838/ https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/maga-hat-wearing-teens-tau...
      - beat 8y ago
        Firsthand quote from the VOX article... “It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial,’” Phillips told the Washington Post in a separate interview. “I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way, and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.” The article is explicit. It notes that Phillips initiated contact because they were harassing another group. But it also makes it clear, with quotes, that he believes they began harassing him instead. Now, if you want to say Phillips is lying, you can do that, but unless you do that, at least one of your articles does not support your contention.
        fundingshovel 8y ago
        The article was modified, and the sections in your quote added. I should have used the internet archive originally. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20190120030012/https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-gear-harass-native-elders https://web.archive.org/web/20190120030012/https://www.vox.c...
- vokep 8y ago
  >Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion It really is not, further video evidence makes this a fact, not an opinion.
- briandear 8y ago
  “Vietnam Vet” — that was published by the mainstream media. But the Native American wasn’t a Vietnam vet. He never left the US and, in fact, was AWOL twice. The media used “Vietnam vet” to elicit sympathy, but it wasn’t even factually accurate. The actual facts were ignored in order to promote a particular bias. “AWOL soldier” doesn’t have the same emotional value to the narrative as does “Vietnam combat vet.” The history of the Native American, including past protests and confrontations was highly relevant to the story but instead, the media focused on the the teenagers rather than the professional agitator as well as the hate-group the Black Israelites.[1] The Covington story was “privileged, white teenage, racist Trump supporters got in a confrontation.” However the facts had to be massaged in order to sell that fiction was what happened. We all know that was the intent of the media and to suggest the reporting was either factual or objective is nonsensical. It’s delusional to suggest that the media treats Trump supporters objectively. Look, for example how the New York Times classifies Joe Biden’s repeated sexual harassment as “tactile politics,” while anyone affiliated with Trump gets no such delicacy in headlines. It’s absurd to suggest that the Covington story was anything except the media attempting to make those kids look like evil puppy-killers. The vile, racist comments of the Black Israelites on the scene were ignored for the most part and instead media talking heads spent hours analyzing the alleged “smirk” of the white kid with the MAGA hat. There is a narrative and any reasonably intelligent person can clearly see it. [1] https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2008/racist-black-hebrew-israelites-becoming-more-militant https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
- astine 8y ago
  "If you want to claim the "narrative", you need a link to an actual article with actual quotes" This is essentially what you're looking for: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwin-zimmerman-i-failed-covington-catholic-test/580897/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwi... The short story is that when news about the incident first emerged, it was lacking the context about the Black Hebrew Nationalists antagonizing the boys. Early coverage made it sound like the boys sought out Mr Phillips to antagonize him. When it turned out that he had inserted himself into the situation, rightly or wrongly, it changes a lot. This doesn't necessarily exonerate the teenagers--you might still find stuff to criticize about their behavior--but it does provide a more sympathetic context, one that was missing with the initial press coverage. So yes, whatever your final takeaway, the initial coverage was incomplete and people did form and share very strong opinions based on that incomplete coverage. Once more information came out, many people changed their minds while others stuck by their initial takes. Had the coverage been more complete before people starting making opinions, we might have avoided a lot of unnecessary kerfuffle over this.
- cheez 8y ago
  If you watch the video, that kid with the long face was just standing there looking goofy because he was uncomfortable as the drummer walked right up to his face. There is really no way to misread that interaction. He's a teenager for god's sake and he was being harassed by ideologues.
- ALittleLight 8y ago
  >Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion The entire event is on video. The boys are waiting for their bus. They are repeatedly insulted by a group of adult men who use racial and homophobic insults against the boys, who do not respond in kind but do talk with the adults harassing them. Into the fracas enters Phillips, who approaches the boys, and bangs a drum in the face of one boy. Most mainstream news outlets then smear the children as racists who surrounded and harassed Phillips without regard for the events on film. If you want to describe this as a matter of different opinions, then I think you're basically in the camp of just disregarding reality and making up whatever is most pleasant to your perspective.
- will4274 8y ago
  > Whether they were harassing is a matter of opinion. Perhaps. But the question of who approached who is a matter of fact. Initial reporting claimed the teenagers approached a group of Native Americans. The videos clarified that the Native Americans approached the teenagers.
ddgflorida 8y ago
Excellent example- it will be interesting to see if they win their defamation lawsuits against CNN and the Washington Post.
macspoofing 8y ago
And why couldn't media conglomerates get the facts right?

paulsutter 8y ago

Paul Graham: "If a journalist describes you as "embattled," they're saying you're guilty as charged. The word basically doesn't exist in spoken English. Its only use, except among castle nerds, is as a (seemingly neutral and presumably also libel-proof) press code word." https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1111602566536810497 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1111602566536810497

carrier_lost 8y ago
Paul Graham is entitled to his opinion. I am a professional journalist and I disagree. Journalists use the word "embattled" the way Merriam-Webster defines it: "characterized by conflict or controversy." Typically it applies to a person who has been heavily criticized, or accused of wrongdoing at length or by many people. Accurately describing a person as such is not at all the same as the journalist declaring a person guilty, and it's certainly not a "press code word." He is seeing bias that isn't there.
- jdminhbg 8y ago
  You're not engaging with the actual criticism at all. Nobody is disputing that "embattled" is in the dictionary; instead, he's saying that it's journalism jargon that is not actually used in real life.
  - beat 8y ago
    No, no, no. pg is claiming that "embattled" is a journalistic euphemism for "guilty as charged". Sure, it's jargon and rarely used in "real life", but it's generally not inaccurate or deliberately misleading. Someone who is accused yet innocent is still "embattled". Readers assuming guilt is not a problem of fact. It may not even be the journalistic intent.
    - jdminhbg 8y ago
      That, at least, is a response to the actual argument. I disagree: I have never seen a story where "embattled" was used to describe someone the rest of the story led you to believe might be unfairly embattled, and the nice thing about "embattled" is that you do not have to actually prove anything to use it. It's just "I hear lots of people are saying..." dressed up.

50656E6973 8y ago

Claas Relotius, the Der Spiegel journalist who won CNN's journalist of the year award who was revelead to be completely inventing stories about people to make enticing click bait. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiegel-journalist-resigns-over-fake-interviews https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/top-der-spiege...

99052882514569 8y ago
He either invented sources or made up quotes from real people he never met. How do you expect this platform to remedy that?
- ben_jones 8y ago
  Digital signatures from sources would be a nice feature, maybe some kind of trust system such that sources could be kept anonymous.
- matt4077 8y ago
  There were a few tells one could find, at least after the fact. For example, he described a women locking her door „with three turns of the key“. That’s something that works on German locks, where the bolt keeps advancing. But the incident was supposed to have happened in some southern US state. And in the US, most locks only allow a quarter turn. I asked specifically about the prevalence of different lock types in the state in a HN threat at the time. That said, this is a singular and decidedly rare event. The insinuation of widespread whole-cloth fabrication is almost certainly wrong, and probably more damaging to democracy than any actual fraud will ever be.
  - 99052882514569 8y ago
    The three turns is only a salient mess-up in light of other, much more damning evidence. On its own, it's credibly explainable as an honest mistake (I was there but who counts these things? I just assumed).
- 50656E6973 8y ago

YazIAm 8y ago

I maybe misunderstanding your question, but this platform only accepts public primary sources as valid evidence. A media news story is never a primary source for proving the assertions within it, it's a secondary source. Edit: I had originally misunderstood the parent comment. Responded again here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576185

beat 8y ago
Right, I get that. And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare. Hence my question.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  And my concern is that mainstream journalism that actually contradicts public primary sources isn't the actual problem. I believe that it is, in fact, vanishingly rare. Take a look at niche journalism. The bias and narrative pushing is quite massive there. I think the "garbage tier" label given to such organizations is well deserved. Yet, when mainstream journalism gives its attention, it follows the niche journalists lead. I find journalism that actually contradicts facts to be quite common. In today's climate, the mainstream can get away with complete contradiction of the facts, so long as the targets are obscure and/or unpopular, and the "right" narrative is being pushed. If you want to find this, then you need to start looking into the dissidents of mainstream culture in 2019. (You don't have to go as far as toxic people like the Alt Right. Rather, investigate the people who are being mislabeled as "Alt Right" as a tactic to marginalize them.)
  - beat 8y ago
    That's an opinion, not an example. I asked for examples. I'm getting opinions.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I cited a couple of examples in another comment. In any case, I didn't proffer that as just an opinion. It's also a prescription for how you could find tons and tons of evidence. Explicitly look into people who are not "Alt-Right" but who have been labeled that way as a means of quashing their message. This will often follow the pattern of the Boston Rally: Non white people for whom the media is pushing an anti-non-white racism narrative.

stcredzero 8y ago

can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? There have been many of these recently. One striking one was the Boston Rally for which the mainstream news pushed a "white supremacist" narrative. This was odd, as the few people who managed to come out included a large proportion of brown people, including one South Asian senate candidate. The fact checking seems to go out the window, so long as the story pushes one of the "sacrosanct" narratives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wWeksF6XZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wWeksF6XZs Another example was the coverage of the public harassment incident at VidCon between Anita Saarkesian and Sargon of Akkad. The way it was reported, it sounds like Sargon did something, whereas videos online show that all the harassment was done by Anita Saarkesian. You may not like Sargon, but the fact that the news narrative goes 180 degrees against the truth on the ground should disturb everyone. I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. Manufacturing Consent covers how western media entirely fits a "Propganda Model" of operation through presentation alone. However in recent years, even facts are thrown out in favor of narratives which run entirely counter to the facts. And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right. Not so much. I recall reading a NYT article about a storm-in-a-teacup thing involving who gets to walk first as valedictorian. The article was amazingly nearly fact free. It seems that articles and reports get a free pass, so long as they are pushing the "right" narrative. It has been this way for a very long time (re: Manufacturing Consent) but the quality of fact checking and the quality of the writing used to subtly spin the facts has gone down. People complained mightily about how all of the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" evidence was one big circle-jerk of "Citogenesis." https://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/ Now, the same media organizations are involved in the same circle-jerks of "Citogenesis," but it's given a pass for tribal reasons, because the narrative supports "our side."

pvg 8y ago
Your cited examples are: a 40 minute youtube video that starts with a narrator saying 'Why I think today is a win for the free speech side and a massive loss for the left', some anecdote about a youtuber spat at a tubin' conference, Manufacturing Consent, an NYT article you 'recall' but don't link and an xkcd comic. I don't think any of these are what the question was about.

manigandham 8y ago

>> And mainstream journalism is really committed to getting the facts right. Is it? Maybe it once was but the collapse of local news and the massive drop of talented writers and support staff like editors and fact checkers seems to have changed the environment. Most news today is little more than Twitter posts cobbled together.

sigstoat 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity...

dclowd9901 8y ago

You should read through some of the fact checks, especially the first one for Net Neutrality. They address literally this "presentation" aspect.

YazIAm 8y ago

The assumption behind this idea isn't that there are no accurate journalism outlets out there, it's that by "open sourcing" their fact checking, these outlets will better stand out, adopting a standard that inaccurate outlets just can't meet. Right now, outlets are basically asking you to trust their assertions based on their brand. Fewer and fewer readers are inclined to give their trust based on brand (I'm guessing this is because there are just so many outlets/brands now). The way forward is for journalists to earn their readers' trust by showing their work on as many fact checks as possible. It won't be possible for every fact check (such as those involving anonymous sources) but where possible, it'll add a great deal of value.

Macross8299 8y ago

>Can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it? The Supermicro """backdoor""" story of late last year, where Bloomberg alleged that the company had surreptitiously placed small microchips on nearly all their products on behalf of China without anyone noticing

beat 8y ago
Was that ever conclusively disproved? By whom? And with what evidence? That could well fall under he said she said.
- pvg 8y ago
  That could well fall under he said she said. That doesn't seem like a sensible standard, most reporting falls under 'our sources said vs what someone else said'. Many details of this particular story were later disputed by others, including Apple. Would a crowd-sourced fact-checking service have helped here? No, because it wasn't at all necessary. It's still a story with serious problems - it's 'the anonymous sources of the reporters' vs 'just about everybody else involved'.

metasj 8y ago

My favorite example, much clearer even than Covington (and never corrected in the major media): the bus driver who drove drove his bus off of a bridge: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46068412 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46068412 For whatever reason, the official police report implied that a passenger struggled with the driver causing the disaster. The next day, video footage of the entire event was released (from the security cam inside the bus), showing a different story. The driver pretty clearly decides to go over the edge, turns the wheel, and does not flinch or turn it back as they go over. After the video came out, dozens of major outlets covered the story. Almost all ran with "passenger hits driver causing crash", one or two did not specify a cause. No major outlet suggested [what seems to me to be] the most likely account, which is "driver deliberately drives bus off of bridge during argument with passenger". In contrast, on youtube / other social media, most commentators pointed out that the driver seemed to crash deliberately, changing course many seconds after the passenger hits him on the arm with her phone.

metasj 8y ago
This one fascinates for a few additional reasons, which a third-party site that supports revising and completing stories could address: * It shows how automated the echo chamber is. The real crash cause is a more interesting + rare story. (though needs A/B testing) * It shows how short-lived major coverage is. While most passengers unfortunately perished in the crash, _both the driver and the arguing passenger survived_, and will end up in court once they recover. This was mentioned by very few outlets, but will eventually help inform understanding of the event.
throwaway284721 8y ago
What's interesting about this is that there isn't even a narrative or a partisan bias here. The media just lies because there's no reason not to.

anigbrowl 8y ago

Because arguments about facts take place all the time when people dismiss citations, so having a source that exists specifically to document claims in open fashion becomes a useful reference.

terryd 8y ago

> I find the bias, when it exists, is in the presentation, not the facts themselves. You mean something like a lie by omission? That is pretty easily solved with some form of source control and public pull requests. An equivalent to git blame would be pretty helpful (cue Sinclair Broadcast Group NPC script reading). Just watch http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/ for a while, these people regularly modify stories without editor's notes. It is kind of funny that further below you discuss the embarrassing conduct of the media in their coverage of Covington Catholic... do you remember what was in the news cycle right before they breathlessly pounced on a non-story? The media was getting embarrassed by a very rare direct denial from the DoJ in relation to their latest reporting on the Trump collusion conspiracy theory. I agree with your broader point though: this won't improve the media. They're not even pretending to be unbiased and have no shame in telling laughably obvious lies about the most ridiculous thing - like koi ponds. Their motivation is clear: short sighted servicing of those needing confirmation bias conforming stories. This isn't a scheme hatched in a smoke filled back room, it is just a very foolish business plan. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-why-its-so-mistrusted-after-falsified-trump-fish-feeding https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-w...

colechristensen 8y ago

"An article on Sunday about once-dominant N.H.L. teams adjusting to an evolving league misstated the number of conference finals appearance by the Kings, the Ducks and the Blackhawks since 2009. It is 10, not nine. Because of an editing error, an earlier version also misstated the number of playoff appearances by those teams in that span. It is 24, not 27." An example from the new york times from yesterday. Obviously not an earth shattering error, but there it is. Something trivially easy to be detected by anyone who cared to check. For more check out https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections

hannasanarion 8y ago
Yeah, and they corrected the error themselves and published the correction. This is why they are trustworthy. Making a mistake is not the same as lying.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  Corrections are often the result of external people pointing out errors. Who said anything about lying?
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    "External people pointing out errors"? How is that any worse than this hare-brained software idea? You still have to wait for somebody with the corrected information to hear of the story and recommend an edit. This is just adding a middleman that doesn't add value.
- Veen 8y ago
  Making a mistake is not lying, but it is a moral failing to promulgate fiction as fact because it accords with your preferred narrative, especially when it's done by the media, who are trusted because they are supposed to practice restraint and good judgment.
  - 8y ago

ousta 8y ago

justin smollet? 99% of the media?

hannasanarion 8y ago
You realize that "being wrong" is not the same as "lying" right? Every news source reported on the inconsistencies in Jussie Smollett's story, and continued to update their reporting as the facts turned against him. They're newspapers, not oracles.
- ousta 8y ago
  it is. they reported that it was a racist attack - because of trump - before checking the fact. it is fake news.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    They reported on the claims that were made. Once again, newspapers are not oracles. Facts change from day to day and stories develop over time. There's a reason that the Times puts out a new edition every day, instead of releasing just a singe one 2000 years ago that we all worship as indisputable truth. "Fake news" is reporting that Barack Obama, Black Lives Matter, and Anonymous are planning riots in 37 city centers at 7 pm on July 15 2016, as Breitbart, the Daily Caller, and other far-right news sources reported two days before. The story was entirely made up, and most of the text was copied from a chain email from the 00s.
    - ousta 8y ago
      hence why you do not report on something as being a fact before it is proven and before you investigate the claim. Its like me reporting the earth is flat because someone said it.
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        No other facts were available. The claim was itself the news, with updates pending a police investigation. This isn't complicated. Investigating crimes is the police's job, not every single newspaper in the world's. Should all of the world's newspapers have held off on reporting the MAGA bombs until Cesar Sayoc's conviction? Should we all have pretended that nothing was wrong about the world trade center until the 9/11 commission filed their final report?

btym 8y ago

This was recently posted on HN. It actually got me thinking how I might write a service like OP's. I wrote a story that became a legend. Then I discovered it wasn’t true: https://www.cjr.org/first_person/tinazzi-motorcycle-mont-blanc-tunnel-fire-rescue.php https://www.cjr.org/first_person/tinazzi-motorcycle-mont-bla...

0x445442 8y ago

Covington students.