6 ms·

Citations in journalism is a really interesting thing. Unlike science, where at least in theory, everything is built from the ground up using first principles o

by habnds 7y ago

Citations in journalism is a really interesting thing. Unlike science, where at least in theory, everything is built from the ground up using first principles or built upon raw data collected, the "raw data" of journalism is just various types of conversations with people the journalist then has to verify, and gauge the reliability of. In other cases it's the journalists first person experience of an event. Citations, (IMHO) aren't a solution to this because human judgement is inherent in explaining human behavior and events. I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work. I agree that it's a lot of work, but I don't see an alternative to critically engaging with reporting on human events.

roenxi 7y ago
Wikipedia does context amazingly well. If I go to the Wikipedia article on sandals I not only get information on sandals, I get information about why people might want to look at an article on sandals (eg, infectious disease control) and if I care to drill a little deeper a list of all the people who cared enough about sandals to edit the article. And a talk page to cover any controversies although sandals appear to be an uncontroversial subject. Jumping to this article however I lose 80% of that. This article is light on that data and metadata. I can't tell much about the author (I can see his last 5 articles though) and I certainly can't tell what is primary research or not. Did this journalist see the 'cell-phone surveillance devices'? Is he working off a press release? Are there challenges to this narrative viewpoint? Is this written more out of a sense of entertainment or is there an effort being made not to embellish facts? I'm going to guess that GP meant 'Citation needed' in a slightly broader sense than just name-the-source. There is a whole culture of open metadata and transparency that has grown up in the last two decades that is simply better than journalism. Wikipedia is trustworthy because the slightest suspicion can be investigated. It is frustrating to think that we are going to rely on journalism for political information when the articles are simply devoid of political context in the sense that is freely available on Wikipedia.
- bakuninsbart 7y ago
  Wikipedia can be quite problematic if you just look at the page - the way you describe using it, and adding in checking the sources and references, it is a great tool.
- habnds 7y ago
  Just putting myself in the shoes of someone at Politico, I think they would point out a few things. Is it reasonable to compare this article to a wikipedia article? The publishing time frame and the number of people involved are way different. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source for current events. It isn't journalism. Maybe more importantly, is Wikpedia really an objective or fair look at an issue? For sandals sure, but look up a controversial event page and I bet things start to seem more questionable. That's a point where the reputation of a newspaper is an advantage over Wikpedia because at wikipedia, each page, each sentence can have a different author with a different viewpoint or agenda. Is the author as important as the publication itself? The editors are the ones making final decisions on things. For example, The Economist doesn't even use bylines. Journalists see themselves as researchers more than authors. The role of the "Author" if there is one is the editor. An exhuastively cited and sourced article is difficult to read. The narrative is easily lost, and the source content is skipped over by most readers. And you still need to spend a lot of time combing through the source matter for it to be a meaningful improvement over an unsourced article Last, journalists rely on an idea of common knowledge. They aren't going to provide sourcing on a commmonly reported facts like "stingray-like devices have been found near the whitehouse". That isn't as true in academia where citations probably would be used for that type of fact. Overall, I'm not unsimpathetic to what you and OP are saying, I think with the internet news media could link articles and sources together better for easier validation. However, the idea that this type of stuff can eliminate the need for a high level of engagement with the news, critical thinking skills, I don't agree with.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 7y ago
    There are many Wikipedia pages on current, ongoing events. The editors even label them as such. So apparently it is intended for that purpose.
mistermann 7y ago
> Unlike science, where at least in theory, everything is built from the ground up using first principles or built upon raw data collected, the "raw data" of journalism is just various types of conversations with people the journalist then has to verify, and gauge the reliability of. Agreed. > I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work. Part of this process is reading the news critically, which I enjoy doing. From this article (emphasis mine): > “The reaction ... WAS very different than it WOULD HAVE BEEN in the last administration,” this person said. “With the current administration, there ARE a different set of calculations in regard to addressing THIS.” > The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which LIKELY would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government (INCLUDING ISRAEL) condemning its actions. Citations aren't the answer in this case, but rather epistemology. Stating speculation as fact is an incredibly effective means of distorting the public's perception of reality, especially when the same distortion is presented repeatedly in different forms by various agencies. It seems to have become so common that even smart people don't pick up on it any more. If you start looking for it though, you'll see it everywhere. Whether this deceit was intentional or accidental is unknown, but the end result remains the same: the public's perception of the details of this story consists of certainty about specific details, based purely on speculation. https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2017/06/07/fake-news-the-epistemology-of-media https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2017/06/07/fake... https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884 https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-kn...
- habnds 7y ago
  I see what you're saying but I don't agree that they were presenting the officials opinion as fact. The reason we could criticize it in the first place is that it's clearly the opinion of an official who Politico judged as a credible expert on the matter of how these issues are commonly handled.
  - 7y ago
t34543 7y ago
Onus should be on journalists. Bring back the fairness doctrine and have people smarter than me take down the sinclair group.
lallysingh 7y ago
I think the reporter is the key here. Something analogous to an H-Index for reporters' quality over time could work. How many times has their reporting been refuted? How many times cited? Etc. That could actually be something really big for news. Actual quantifiable credibility.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Keep in mind that reporting is very often inherently political or otherwise sensitive. Often complaints are signs of a reporter doing their job well, lack of complaints a sign of a hack.
dahfizz 7y ago
I think the issue is less about literal citations and more about having any sort of hard fact to back up big claims. It would be very easy for media companies to 100% fabricate many of the stories we see. I'm not saying that they are, but I have no real reason to believe otherwise. The only supporting evidence provided anymore is 'anonymous sources'. We have to just trust that what the media says is the truth, because there is no way for us to verify the stories we hear. Whether you do trust these corporations or not, having to rely on that blind faith is a bad system.

by habnds 7y ago

roenxi 7y ago

Wikipedia does context amazingly well. If I go to the Wikipedia article on sandals I not only get information on sandals, I get information about why people might want to look at an article on sandals (eg, infectious disease control) and if I care to drill a little deeper a list of all the people who cared enough about sandals to edit the article. And a talk page to cover any controversies although sandals appear to be an uncontroversial subject. Jumping to this article however I lose 80% of that. This article is light on that data and metadata. I can't tell much about the author (I can see his last 5 articles though) and I certainly can't tell what is primary research or not. Did this journalist see the 'cell-phone surveillance devices'? Is he working off a press release? Are there challenges to this narrative viewpoint? Is this written more out of a sense of entertainment or is there an effort being made not to embellish facts? I'm going to guess that GP meant 'Citation needed' in a slightly broader sense than just name-the-source. There is a whole culture of open metadata and transparency that has grown up in the last two decades that is simply better than journalism. Wikipedia is trustworthy because the slightest suspicion can be investigated. It is frustrating to think that we are going to rely on journalism for political information when the articles are simply devoid of political context in the sense that is freely available on Wikipedia.

bakuninsbart 7y ago
Wikipedia can be quite problematic if you just look at the page - the way you describe using it, and adding in checking the sources and references, it is a great tool.
habnds 7y ago
Just putting myself in the shoes of someone at Politico, I think they would point out a few things. Is it reasonable to compare this article to a wikipedia article? The publishing time frame and the number of people involved are way different. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source for current events. It isn't journalism. Maybe more importantly, is Wikpedia really an objective or fair look at an issue? For sandals sure, but look up a controversial event page and I bet things start to seem more questionable. That's a point where the reputation of a newspaper is an advantage over Wikpedia because at wikipedia, each page, each sentence can have a different author with a different viewpoint or agenda. Is the author as important as the publication itself? The editors are the ones making final decisions on things. For example, The Economist doesn't even use bylines. Journalists see themselves as researchers more than authors. The role of the "Author" if there is one is the editor. An exhuastively cited and sourced article is difficult to read. The narrative is easily lost, and the source content is skipped over by most readers. And you still need to spend a lot of time combing through the source matter for it to be a meaningful improvement over an unsourced article Last, journalists rely on an idea of common knowledge. They aren't going to provide sourcing on a commmonly reported facts like "stingray-like devices have been found near the whitehouse". That isn't as true in academia where citations probably would be used for that type of fact. Overall, I'm not unsimpathetic to what you and OP are saying, I think with the internet news media could link articles and sources together better for easier validation. However, the idea that this type of stuff can eliminate the need for a high level of engagement with the news, critical thinking skills, I don't agree with.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 7y ago
  There are many Wikipedia pages on current, ongoing events. The editors even label them as such. So apparently it is intended for that purpose.

mistermann 7y ago

> Unlike science, where at least in theory, everything is built from the ground up using first principles or built upon raw data collected, the "raw data" of journalism is just various types of conversations with people the journalist then has to verify, and gauge the reliability of. Agreed. > I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work. Part of this process is reading the news critically, which I enjoy doing. From this article (emphasis mine): > “The reaction ... WAS very different than it WOULD HAVE BEEN in the last administration,” this person said. “With the current administration, there ARE a different set of calculations in regard to addressing THIS.” > The former senior intelligence official criticized how the administration handled the matter, remarking on the striking difference from past administrations, which LIKELY would have at a very minimum issued a démarche, or formal diplomatic reprimand, to the foreign government (INCLUDING ISRAEL) condemning its actions. Citations aren't the answer in this case, but rather epistemology. Stating speculation as fact is an incredibly effective means of distorting the public's perception of reality, especially when the same distortion is presented repeatedly in different forms by various agencies. It seems to have become so common that even smart people don't pick up on it any more. If you start looking for it though, you'll see it everywhere. Whether this deceit was intentional or accidental is unknown, but the end result remains the same: the public's perception of the details of this story consists of certainty about specific details, based purely on speculation. https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2017/06/07/fake-news-the-epistemology-of-media https://spiritofcontradiction.eu/rowan-duffy/2017/06/07/fake... https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884 https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-kn...

habnds 7y ago
I see what you're saying but I don't agree that they were presenting the officials opinion as fact. The reason we could criticize it in the first place is that it's clearly the opinion of an official who Politico judged as a credible expert on the matter of how these issues are commonly handled.
- 7y ago

t34543 7y ago

Onus should be on journalists. Bring back the fairness doctrine and have people smarter than me take down the sinclair group.

lallysingh 7y ago

I think the reporter is the key here. Something analogous to an H-Index for reporters' quality over time could work. How many times has their reporting been refuted? How many times cited? Etc. That could actually be something really big for news. Actual quantifiable credibility.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Keep in mind that reporting is very often inherently political or otherwise sensitive. Often complaints are signs of a reporter doing their job well, lack of complaints a sign of a hack.

dahfizz 7y ago

I think the issue is less about literal citations and more about having any sort of hard fact to back up big claims. It would be very easy for media companies to 100% fabricate many of the stories we see. I'm not saying that they are, but I have no real reason to believe otherwise. The only supporting evidence provided anymore is 'anonymous sources'. We have to just trust that what the media says is the truth, because there is no way for us to verify the stories we hear. Whether you do trust these corporations or not, having to rely on that blind faith is a bad system.