13 ms·

In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which con

In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of information, only that the addendum is representative of the research done) * A hash of a archive file containing all collected information (including interview transcripts/notes, etc) with a responsibility to keep this archive for X years and to provide it to regulators on request; info can be anonymized/redacted as deemed necessary Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify information with a reasonable effort, and it could do a lot of good for the world of news. Of course all regulation comes with pitfalls, and there are many with this idea, especially with the fine aspect. Probably enough to make it undesirable. But it is the only one I have to improve things. Edit: Since this has been mentioned: it's possible to allow anonymous sources, but eg with the rule that anonymization has to be justified and may not be abused. But this feeds into the biggest problem with the whole idea: a fine can give regulators too much power to punish publications arbitrarily.

scarejunba 7y ago
Fascinating. So that’s how well-intentioned people kill the free press.
- nickpp 7y ago
  Regulations. How well-intentioned people kill every free thing.
mar77i 7y ago
Only because there doesn't seem any way to fuck this up right now, doesn't mean there, in fact, isn't. The ongoing pattern is that "at the time it seemed like the right thing to publish", when in fact it's just about spinning the spin. You can't prove how certain the publishers were about their spin at the time of publishing, not even with your suggested solution, that I guess, would only get more journalists fired, and last time I checked there's already plenty of that. Like how Snopes' fact checker seemed like a good idea, before they started getting things wrong too now and then. I mean, of course, it's not likely there's a holy grail solution and we're stuck in having to evaluate every day anew, which sources we trust and which we don't. Regarding the part where spinning the spin is at least followed up by corrections and apologies - which few people read, anyway, after the damage is done, but there's NewsGuard, which does fairly technical editorial rating, which i find a very good idea.
- datashow 7y ago
  > The ongoing pattern is that "at the time it seemed like the right thing to publish", when in fact it's just about spinning the spin. This reminds me something I read recently: The Court concluded that "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
feb 7y ago
All that sounds well, but it also has some nasty side effects. Anonymous sources and whistle blowers would not be possible anymore while very much needed.
arianestrasse 7y ago
As you already mentioned, there are many pitfalls. I think the biggest one is that the journalism source protection would not work if sources have to be public and all the information available to regulators on demand.
danso 7y ago
> list of sources of information and original research conducted This is something that is ostensibly already in a typical article. Or are you suggesting that the reporter list everything that was researched, and every one who was talked to, regardless if it made it into the published version of the article?
- simion314 7y ago
  I think providing only the used sources is enough and the journalist should do all what is reasonable possible to find the original source of a news, so avoid speaking about something they read/heard from X and X said he read/seen from Y and Y from Z , the journalist should try to find the original source(if possible). For things that should remain anonymous they should describe how credible is the source and content.
- the_duke 7y ago
  > This is something that is ostensibly already in a typical article. It really isn't though. Most sources are not mentioned in a typical article. Prominent interviewees are mentioned by name, but more often then not information comes from a quick Google search, someone not established enough to be mentioned (eg you would mention a professor, but not a young research assistant/secretary), or even Reddit. Not to mention that a large amount of articles contains no original research at all. Often it's a press release, a rewrite of a press agency release, or just a copy/paste and rewrite of some other website.
  - danso 7y ago
    > but more often then not information comes from a quick Google search Sure, and this info should be attributed to the reporter, who gets full blame when it's wrong. Though I do agree it'd be nice (in a world where the First Amendment didn't exist) if there were a rule banning such weasel phrasing such as "Some say that" and "according to several experts [who are never named or specifically referred to]" As for articles being a rewrite of press releases or other articles; yes, that's obviously an issue, and one that many journalists get irate about. But even in most of those cases, the sourcing is clear: "[Regurgitated rewrite of news lede], as first reported by the New York Times [link to original article]". But for the archetypical article containing original reporting, here's an example of how a source involved in an article might not get listed: Original article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-br... Behind-the-scenes writeup that acknowledges an expert who isn't named in the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/reader-center/breathalyzer-drunk-driving-reporting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/reader-center/breathalyze... The reason why the expert wasn't named, even though he was very helpful throughout the reporting process, was because the article's ultimately relied on the content of original documents. The expert helped lead the reporters to those documents, but his expert opinion was not needed and thus not cited for the article's authoritative conclusions. It's true that reporters often won't credit where they first got a tip or where they saw something. But if they do their own parallel reconstruction – e.g. they first read an anecdote from a viral tweet/Reddit thread, but then they track down the original source themselves – as a reader, I ultimately care who the reporter and their editor explicitly say they vetted/vouch for, when it comes to the published version of the info.
smt88 7y ago
Well-respected publications have internal checks and balances that do all these things for investigative stories already. You seem not to know enough about how the journalism industry has solved these issues to make a proposal. The system does work fairly well. Screw-ups of investigations and scoops are big news because they're rare among serious journalistic outfits. No individual journalist wants to be known for getting a story wrong, so incentives are pretty strong to begin with.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  > No individual journalist wants to be known for getting a story wrong, so incentives are pretty strong to begin with. I think in a lot of places this isn't nearly as true as maybe it once was. The top selling newspapers in the UK pretty much habitually print anything that drives sales / their agenda and when they get a slap on the wrist they just print a minimal viable retraction. When that occasionally lands them in court they treat it basically as a cost of doing business.
  - conistonwater 7y ago
    The top selling newspapers in the UK are tabloids though, rather than well-respected publications. I don't think that contradicts smt88's point.
    - tristor 7y ago
      Well, at this point the NY Times is basically a tabloid too, so...
    - pathseeker 7y ago
      smt88's point was that the industry has solved this problem, which is clearly wrong. He/she didn't say anything about "well-respected publications", whatever that even means these days.
    - freeflight 7y ago
      > I don't think that contradicts smt88's point. Imho it perfectly contradicts the point, because the UK isn't alone with that issue, BILD is also a tabloid, the most circulated one in Germany. Of course, a lot of that hinges with the definition of "tabloid" [0] and how different Overton windows for these societies. For example, both UK and German tabloids heavily relied on "Page X" girls for their popularity. While the same in the US was it's very own niche with the Playboy, as selling sexuality that openly in the mainstream was always more controversial in the US compared to Europe. But US outlets also ain't above sensationalized headlines and leaving out a bit of context to justify them, some would argue that's something the US actually championeered with the marketing industry. It's the same with the public shaming and privacy of people; In Europe, that's considered a very tabloid thing to do, meanwhile, in the US it's often standard to show uncensored pictures of people with their full names. Does that really help to surface the truth? Or is it merely just another manifestation of the flaws of the "free market" at work? If the market only wants what sells best, and not what's actually true, what's the most likely outcome? [0] https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top-media-outlets/top-15-daily-american-newspapers/ https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top-media-outlets/top-15...
indymike 7y ago
This assumes the goal of news is to be accurate. It is not. News exists to sell advertising and media advertising is presented in (i.e. TV, Newspaper, Website subscriptions). Funny thing is the news industry gets it right a lot more than state-controlled news agencies. The incentive is there - selling more - to take some huge risks to find big stories and report on the powerful, rich and elites bad behavior. If you inject personal liability to journalism, the news industry is dead in six months.
- lexs 7y ago
  Any source on the claim that private news is more accurate than state-controlled ones? Seems like a bold claim if I'm looking at the yellow papers in most countries.
ComodoHacker 7y ago
So another problem market can't solve?
- humanrebar 7y ago
  This opinion presumes anything can adequately solve the problem without significant downsides.
dependenttypes 7y ago
Why regulate it? Why not let the people judge for themselves?
- throwiay789 7y ago
  Because a lot of people(Grand majority, i include myself) are easily susceptible
ken 7y ago
I was once told (and I've long since forgotten where I heard this) that the three most important aspects to include in any news story are (1) what do we know, (2) how do we know it, and (3) what do we not know. I'm not sure I've ever read any news story that has hit all of these.
kevinmchugh 7y ago
Seems like this would further accelerate the trend of news outlets being vanity or ideological projects for the most wealthy. Fewer outlets, less local news coverage, less competition in markets. It's not like they're raking in cash as is.
ajsnigrutin 7y ago
I'd be happy just if they were forbidden to change articles after publishing, and not say that. Because currently, they post some bullshit news and create some random outrage. Then someone points at some bullshit claim in their article, and they just quietly change the article (remove the claim, add "allegedly", etc.), and act as nothing was wrong. Or in worst case scenario, they quietly remove the whole article.
- lbenes 7y ago
  I've seen this accusation thrown out there on social media a few times now. When I've asked for examples, no one been able to provide a list showing that this is actually a systemic problem. With resources like the Internet Archive it should be trivial to prove that this really a problem. Can you back up your claims? Journalists are people and make mistakes. But overall, respected institutions like NYT, WSJ, WaPo, and Bloomberg show good journalistic integrity and print retractions in both print and online. If you really are seeing this problem regularly, i suggest you find better sources for your news. Above all avoid getting it from social media. The actual fake news that is rampant there is a much, much bigger threat to our society than the few bad apples or mistakes behind the problem you are describing.
  - fredophile 7y ago
    Check out this twitter account for some examples. https://mobile.twitter.com/nyt_diff?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/nyt_diff?lang=en
    - lbenes 7y ago
      LOL > fixtures on the Republican party --> "fixtures of" clutches pearls Did you even click on your own link? That twitter account does NOT show "a systemic problem". If you had, you see it focuses on one of the "bad apples", the Bronx Girl story with some minor headline tweaks. Sorry but fixing the Headlines to improve the grammar or accuracy is not a mark of bad journalism. Whoever runs that account clearly has an axe to grind against the NYT, and beyond the Bronx girl story their examples don't prove anything.
auiya 7y ago
You don't need all that, you only need legal repercussions for inaccuracy. I understand there are European and Asian countries with laws like this? Is anyone familiar with how often such incursions are prosecuted?
- erk__ 7y ago
  In denmark we have something called Pressenævnet (Danish Press Council), they can not fine companies but they can force them to have a have an article that says that there were an error in their article, they can also send them on to other institutions if they think that it was criminal negliance. They also post all the cases publicly after they are done. What they can do is defined in the "The Media Liability Act", and what they see as pad jounlalism is defined in the "The Press Ethical Rules" both are linked below if you are interested. Example of case [english]: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/case-example/ https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/case-example/ The Media Liability Act: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/media-liability-act/ https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/media-liability-act/ The Press Ethical Rules: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-rules/ https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-rules/
skinkestek 7y ago
You are onto something. I very much respect journalists and some of them are really brave, on par with ambulance crews, firefighters and police officers who put their lives on the line to rescue others. Sadly, like how a very few police officers abuse their positions to punish random teenagers etc certain journalists are extremely harmful. I've seen cases were journalists have done untold damage to individuals and communities because they couldn't be bothered to verify their sources before going out, guns blazing, to tell that someone is an abuser/fraud/racist etc. This can go on for weeks and months but when the evidence finally piles up they publish one small retraction notice :-/
- iagovar 7y ago
  I'm not sure. While it's true that some reporters/journalists do a respectable job, I feel that the the field is overall lacking in respect for their job, care, etc. The amount of directly false or misleading information that piles up every day is staggering, and by very well known newspapers an TV channels. If your job, or something you have direct experience of have been affected by the news cycle then you know how much BS reach eyeballs. But not only that. Try to read the twitter profile of the journalist you found writing a poor piece. This exercise didn't help me appreciate the field, quite the contrary. Such experience made me laugh when spanish media panicked about fake news and social media a while ago. They are the primary source. And I guess such behavior can be translated to other languages. I can see the pattern in the US newscycle for example.
- markstos 7y ago
  So name some names with specific examples.
SN76477 7y ago
Freedom of press is a great thing. Unfortunately we do not see enough journalists earning authentic trust. It has indeed become a race to the bottom.
jacquesm 7y ago
I'd love to see this for politicians. Lie and you're automatically removed from office and fined/jailed. Also, I never understood why a vote is a one way street, why can't I recall my vote if the politicians that gained my vote with their programs and promises then end up breaking those promises and not implementing their programs.
- dmos62 7y ago
  I sympathize, but the ability to recall your vote, i.e. unelect, at any time would make your attitude towards your initial vote less serious and elections/unelections would cycle too fast to govern. Sometimes a bad government can be better than no government. Burden of citizenship.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > the ability to recall your vote, i.e. unelect, at any time would make your attitude towards your initial vote less serious How do you know that about me? > elections/unelections would cycle too fast to govern Ok, that may be so, but without trying it we'll never know. You could implement this at the municipal level first, see how it works, iron out the kinks if any are found and then scale it up bit by bit. The whole idea that a politician can say anything and only be held accountable many years later is a pretty big flaw, possibly bigger than the flaw of having multiple election cycles until we find people that do keep their word.
    - pc86 7y ago
      > Ok, that may be so, but without trying it we'll never know Of course we can. Take the US dominant two-party system, and look at the approval rating for politicians. Look at how many times it crosses the 50% line. Some would only be in office for a few weeks before being replaced, but then who would replace them? What if the previous candidate has a better job already? Does The Party now get to pick someone? How about when approval ratings move back and forth between 48% and 52% over the course of just a few weeks, multiple times?
londons_explore 7y ago
I wonder why journalists don't voluntarily to this? It seems obvious to me that high quality journalism should cite sources and methods, if only to protect themselves from future criticism if their news reporting turns out to be wrong. At least then they can point at the fault publicly, explain how it happened, and what they are changing to make sure it doesn't happen again. In some cases, they might deliberately not want to give certain sources, but in that case I'd like them to explain their reasons as a footnote of each article.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  I suspect citing sources and methods in detail might be considered 'boring' for the average reader if done within the prose of the article. Perhaps what is needed is a new normal that articles online will have footnotes which are only shown to those who want to see them - that way the body of the article can be short and succinct, with the 'borig' citations in the footnotes.
  - enobrev 7y ago
    If they're footnotes, they're already at the bottom of the article. No need to hide them further.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
thrower123 7y ago
It would be really nice if there was a commit history on all news articles that are published. So many stories these days get silently updated or even rewritten with no acknowledgement.
willyt 7y ago
And make journalism a registered profession like doctors, dentists, structural engineers, architects etc with a legally enforced professional code of conduct. Every article should be cryptographically signed by the journalist in a way that links to their professional registration. If a story is found to be inaccurate then this gets noted on the journalists professional reputation page at the 'institute of journalists' or whatever you call it, a whole bunch of stories with major inaccuracies would lead to them being struck off, to be judged by a jury consisting of other journalists, lay representatives and representatives of the legal profession[0]. If you want to use the word 'News' anywhere to describe your newspaper or website, then you must use a registered journalists and their reputation badges would need to be displayed by every article. [0]This is how it works for Architects, I don't see why journalists should be any different given that they can influence the direction of whole democracies.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  Because some bully will decide that his opponents are all liars, revoke their credentials, and ban their speech. This happens all the time around the world.
- lordlimecat 7y ago
  >And make journalism a registered profession like doctors, dentists, structural engineers, architects etc with a legally enforced professional code of conduct Here I'm thinking, "If i were a dictator, this would be a really fantastic way to control the narrative".
rogerkirkness 7y ago
If you don't trust it, don't consume it. Eventually trust either wins, or you don't care about it very much. The government, fines and aggressive rules won't fix it. Media is a product, not some kind of right.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  I would like the ability of pointing out journalistic bias in other media so customers stop listening to them, and this requires source materials to compare to the way the article is written. Our problem is not how we consume media, but how others do; Enabling a sane discussion to highlight that the article misinterpreted the source is part of the discussion. As long as we live in the same voting space, I want entry points to criticize their articles.
- vectorEQ 7y ago
  you are correct. if people don't consume bullshit, no one will sell it. easier said than done though.
- zepto 7y ago
  Try that logic with tap water in flint Michigan.
  - rogerkirkness 7y ago
    Are you saying that water service is a right as opposed to a product? Water being a right != water service.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Thanks for the clarifying question. I’m not saying anything about rights at all - I think that’s a false dichotomy. My comment is focussed on the rest of the logic. People who trust the product end up with children with brain damage.
crispyambulance 7y ago
> Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify information with a reasonable effort... Ain't gonna work, ever. Who is going to impose and collect "the fine"? Who will judge what is a "reasonable" effort? How? The only mechanism we have that is even close is libel lawsuits, and that's only when actual damage is done and demonstrable (sort-of, depending on if you can afford to retain an entire wing of lawyers, like Peter Thiel).
panarky 7y ago
Would your rules only apply to traditional news orgs like Reuters and Bloomberg, or would it also apply to Infowars and influential YouTube channels, Twitter feeds and Facebook groups? Would it apply to comedians who report the news?
markus_zhang 7y ago
Journalism in a large part is just propaganda tool of different factions. Regulation is applied by humans and humans are biased by their investment in different interests. Citizens should realize that every piece of news that they read are biased and need to do their own home work carefully. If they cannot or are not willing to do proper homework the next best idea is to trust no oneone and only care about local issues.

scarejunba 7y ago

Fascinating. So that’s how well-intentioned people kill the free press.

nickpp 7y ago
Regulations. How well-intentioned people kill every free thing.

mar77i 7y ago

Only because there doesn't seem any way to fuck this up right now, doesn't mean there, in fact, isn't. The ongoing pattern is that "at the time it seemed like the right thing to publish", when in fact it's just about spinning the spin. You can't prove how certain the publishers were about their spin at the time of publishing, not even with your suggested solution, that I guess, would only get more journalists fired, and last time I checked there's already plenty of that. Like how Snopes' fact checker seemed like a good idea, before they started getting things wrong too now and then. I mean, of course, it's not likely there's a holy grail solution and we're stuck in having to evaluate every day anew, which sources we trust and which we don't. Regarding the part where spinning the spin is at least followed up by corrections and apologies - which few people read, anyway, after the damage is done, but there's NewsGuard, which does fairly technical editorial rating, which i find a very good idea.

datashow 7y ago
> The ongoing pattern is that "at the time it seemed like the right thing to publish", when in fact it's just about spinning the spin. This reminds me something I read recently: The Court concluded that "because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators' suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

feb 7y ago

All that sounds well, but it also has some nasty side effects. Anonymous sources and whistle blowers would not be possible anymore while very much needed.

arianestrasse 7y ago

As you already mentioned, there are many pitfalls. I think the biggest one is that the journalism source protection would not work if sources have to be public and all the information available to regulators on demand.

danso 7y ago

> list of sources of information and original research conducted This is something that is ostensibly already in a typical article. Or are you suggesting that the reporter list everything that was researched, and every one who was talked to, regardless if it made it into the published version of the article?

simion314 7y ago
I think providing only the used sources is enough and the journalist should do all what is reasonable possible to find the original source of a news, so avoid speaking about something they read/heard from X and X said he read/seen from Y and Y from Z , the journalist should try to find the original source(if possible). For things that should remain anonymous they should describe how credible is the source and content.
the_duke 7y ago
> This is something that is ostensibly already in a typical article. It really isn't though. Most sources are not mentioned in a typical article. Prominent interviewees are mentioned by name, but more often then not information comes from a quick Google search, someone not established enough to be mentioned (eg you would mention a professor, but not a young research assistant/secretary), or even Reddit. Not to mention that a large amount of articles contains no original research at all. Often it's a press release, a rewrite of a press agency release, or just a copy/paste and rewrite of some other website.
- danso 7y ago
  > but more often then not information comes from a quick Google search Sure, and this info should be attributed to the reporter, who gets full blame when it's wrong. Though I do agree it'd be nice (in a world where the First Amendment didn't exist) if there were a rule banning such weasel phrasing such as "Some say that" and "according to several experts [who are never named or specifically referred to]" As for articles being a rewrite of press releases or other articles; yes, that's obviously an issue, and one that many journalists get irate about. But even in most of those cases, the sourcing is clear: "[Regurgitated rewrite of news lede], as first reported by the New York Times [link to original article]". But for the archetypical article containing original reporting, here's an example of how a source involved in an article might not get listed: Original article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-br... Behind-the-scenes writeup that acknowledges an expert who isn't named in the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/reader-center/breathalyzer-drunk-driving-reporting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/reader-center/breathalyze... The reason why the expert wasn't named, even though he was very helpful throughout the reporting process, was because the article's ultimately relied on the content of original documents. The expert helped lead the reporters to those documents, but his expert opinion was not needed and thus not cited for the article's authoritative conclusions. It's true that reporters often won't credit where they first got a tip or where they saw something. But if they do their own parallel reconstruction – e.g. they first read an anecdote from a viral tweet/Reddit thread, but then they track down the original source themselves – as a reader, I ultimately care who the reporter and their editor explicitly say they vetted/vouch for, when it comes to the published version of the info.

smt88 7y ago

Well-respected publications have internal checks and balances that do all these things for investigative stories already. You seem not to know enough about how the journalism industry has solved these issues to make a proposal. The system does work fairly well. Screw-ups of investigations and scoops are big news because they're rare among serious journalistic outfits. No individual journalist wants to be known for getting a story wrong, so incentives are pretty strong to begin with.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
> No individual journalist wants to be known for getting a story wrong, so incentives are pretty strong to begin with. I think in a lot of places this isn't nearly as true as maybe it once was. The top selling newspapers in the UK pretty much habitually print anything that drives sales / their agenda and when they get a slap on the wrist they just print a minimal viable retraction. When that occasionally lands them in court they treat it basically as a cost of doing business.
- conistonwater 7y ago
  The top selling newspapers in the UK are tabloids though, rather than well-respected publications. I don't think that contradicts smt88's point.
  - tristor 7y ago
    Well, at this point the NY Times is basically a tabloid too, so...
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    smt88's point was that the industry has solved this problem, which is clearly wrong. He/she didn't say anything about "well-respected publications", whatever that even means these days.
  - freeflight 7y ago
    > I don't think that contradicts smt88's point. Imho it perfectly contradicts the point, because the UK isn't alone with that issue, BILD is also a tabloid, the most circulated one in Germany. Of course, a lot of that hinges with the definition of "tabloid" [0] and how different Overton windows for these societies. For example, both UK and German tabloids heavily relied on "Page X" girls for their popularity. While the same in the US was it's very own niche with the Playboy, as selling sexuality that openly in the mainstream was always more controversial in the US compared to Europe. But US outlets also ain't above sensationalized headlines and leaving out a bit of context to justify them, some would argue that's something the US actually championeered with the marketing industry. It's the same with the public shaming and privacy of people; In Europe, that's considered a very tabloid thing to do, meanwhile, in the US it's often standard to show uncensored pictures of people with their full names. Does that really help to surface the truth? Or is it merely just another manifestation of the flaws of the "free market" at work? If the market only wants what sells best, and not what's actually true, what's the most likely outcome? [0] https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top-media-outlets/top-15-daily-american-newspapers/ https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top-media-outlets/top-15...

indymike 7y ago

This assumes the goal of news is to be accurate. It is not. News exists to sell advertising and media advertising is presented in (i.e. TV, Newspaper, Website subscriptions). Funny thing is the news industry gets it right a lot more than state-controlled news agencies. The incentive is there - selling more - to take some huge risks to find big stories and report on the powerful, rich and elites bad behavior. If you inject personal liability to journalism, the news industry is dead in six months.

lexs 7y ago
Any source on the claim that private news is more accurate than state-controlled ones? Seems like a bold claim if I'm looking at the yellow papers in most countries.

ComodoHacker 7y ago

So another problem market can't solve?

humanrebar 7y ago
This opinion presumes anything can adequately solve the problem without significant downsides.

dependenttypes 7y ago

Why regulate it? Why not let the people judge for themselves?

throwiay789 7y ago
Because a lot of people(Grand majority, i include myself) are easily susceptible

ken 7y ago

I was once told (and I've long since forgotten where I heard this) that the three most important aspects to include in any news story are (1) what do we know, (2) how do we know it, and (3) what do we not know. I'm not sure I've ever read any news story that has hit all of these.

kevinmchugh 7y ago

Seems like this would further accelerate the trend of news outlets being vanity or ideological projects for the most wealthy. Fewer outlets, less local news coverage, less competition in markets. It's not like they're raking in cash as is.

ajsnigrutin 7y ago

I'd be happy just if they were forbidden to change articles after publishing, and not say that. Because currently, they post some bullshit news and create some random outrage. Then someone points at some bullshit claim in their article, and they just quietly change the article (remove the claim, add "allegedly", etc.), and act as nothing was wrong. Or in worst case scenario, they quietly remove the whole article.

lbenes 7y ago
I've seen this accusation thrown out there on social media a few times now. When I've asked for examples, no one been able to provide a list showing that this is actually a systemic problem. With resources like the Internet Archive it should be trivial to prove that this really a problem. Can you back up your claims? Journalists are people and make mistakes. But overall, respected institutions like NYT, WSJ, WaPo, and Bloomberg show good journalistic integrity and print retractions in both print and online. If you really are seeing this problem regularly, i suggest you find better sources for your news. Above all avoid getting it from social media. The actual fake news that is rampant there is a much, much bigger threat to our society than the few bad apples or mistakes behind the problem you are describing.
- fredophile 7y ago
  Check out this twitter account for some examples. https://mobile.twitter.com/nyt_diff?lang=en https://mobile.twitter.com/nyt_diff?lang=en
  - lbenes 7y ago
    LOL > fixtures on the Republican party --> "fixtures of" clutches pearls Did you even click on your own link? That twitter account does NOT show "a systemic problem". If you had, you see it focuses on one of the "bad apples", the Bronx Girl story with some minor headline tweaks. Sorry but fixing the Headlines to improve the grammar or accuracy is not a mark of bad journalism. Whoever runs that account clearly has an axe to grind against the NYT, and beyond the Bronx girl story their examples don't prove anything.

auiya 7y ago

You don't need all that, you only need legal repercussions for inaccuracy. I understand there are European and Asian countries with laws like this? Is anyone familiar with how often such incursions are prosecuted?

erk__ 7y ago
In denmark we have something called Pressenævnet (Danish Press Council), they can not fine companies but they can force them to have a have an article that says that there were an error in their article, they can also send them on to other institutions if they think that it was criminal negliance. They also post all the cases publicly after they are done. What they can do is defined in the "The Media Liability Act", and what they see as pad jounlalism is defined in the "The Press Ethical Rules" both are linked below if you are interested. Example of case [english]: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/case-example/ https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/case-example/ The Media Liability Act: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/media-liability-act/ https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/media-liability-act/ The Press Ethical Rules: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-rules/ https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-rules/

skinkestek 7y ago

You are onto something. I very much respect journalists and some of them are really brave, on par with ambulance crews, firefighters and police officers who put their lives on the line to rescue others. Sadly, like how a very few police officers abuse their positions to punish random teenagers etc certain journalists are extremely harmful. I've seen cases were journalists have done untold damage to individuals and communities because they couldn't be bothered to verify their sources before going out, guns blazing, to tell that someone is an abuser/fraud/racist etc. This can go on for weeks and months but when the evidence finally piles up they publish one small retraction notice :-/

iagovar 7y ago
I'm not sure. While it's true that some reporters/journalists do a respectable job, I feel that the the field is overall lacking in respect for their job, care, etc. The amount of directly false or misleading information that piles up every day is staggering, and by very well known newspapers an TV channels. If your job, or something you have direct experience of have been affected by the news cycle then you know how much BS reach eyeballs. But not only that. Try to read the twitter profile of the journalist you found writing a poor piece. This exercise didn't help me appreciate the field, quite the contrary. Such experience made me laugh when spanish media panicked about fake news and social media a while ago. They are the primary source. And I guess such behavior can be translated to other languages. I can see the pattern in the US newscycle for example.
markstos 7y ago
So name some names with specific examples.

SN76477 7y ago

Freedom of press is a great thing. Unfortunately we do not see enough journalists earning authentic trust. It has indeed become a race to the bottom.

jacquesm 7y ago

I'd love to see this for politicians. Lie and you're automatically removed from office and fined/jailed. Also, I never understood why a vote is a one way street, why can't I recall my vote if the politicians that gained my vote with their programs and promises then end up breaking those promises and not implementing their programs.

dmos62 7y ago
I sympathize, but the ability to recall your vote, i.e. unelect, at any time would make your attitude towards your initial vote less serious and elections/unelections would cycle too fast to govern. Sometimes a bad government can be better than no government. Burden of citizenship.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > the ability to recall your vote, i.e. unelect, at any time would make your attitude towards your initial vote less serious How do you know that about me? > elections/unelections would cycle too fast to govern Ok, that may be so, but without trying it we'll never know. You could implement this at the municipal level first, see how it works, iron out the kinks if any are found and then scale it up bit by bit. The whole idea that a politician can say anything and only be held accountable many years later is a pretty big flaw, possibly bigger than the flaw of having multiple election cycles until we find people that do keep their word.
  - pc86 7y ago
    > Ok, that may be so, but without trying it we'll never know Of course we can. Take the US dominant two-party system, and look at the approval rating for politicians. Look at how many times it crosses the 50% line. Some would only be in office for a few weeks before being replaced, but then who would replace them? What if the previous candidate has a better job already? Does The Party now get to pick someone? How about when approval ratings move back and forth between 48% and 52% over the course of just a few weeks, multiple times?

londons_explore 7y ago

I wonder why journalists don't voluntarily to this? It seems obvious to me that high quality journalism should cite sources and methods, if only to protect themselves from future criticism if their news reporting turns out to be wrong. At least then they can point at the fault publicly, explain how it happened, and what they are changing to make sure it doesn't happen again. In some cases, they might deliberately not want to give certain sources, but in that case I'd like them to explain their reasons as a footnote of each article.

londons_explore 7y ago
I suspect citing sources and methods in detail might be considered 'boring' for the average reader if done within the prose of the article. Perhaps what is needed is a new normal that articles online will have footnotes which are only shown to those who want to see them - that way the body of the article can be short and succinct, with the 'borig' citations in the footnotes.
- enobrev 7y ago
  If they're footnotes, they're already at the bottom of the article. No need to hide them further.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

thrower123 7y ago

It would be really nice if there was a commit history on all news articles that are published. So many stories these days get silently updated or even rewritten with no acknowledgement.

willyt 7y ago

And make journalism a registered profession like doctors, dentists, structural engineers, architects etc with a legally enforced professional code of conduct. Every article should be cryptographically signed by the journalist in a way that links to their professional registration. If a story is found to be inaccurate then this gets noted on the journalists professional reputation page at the 'institute of journalists' or whatever you call it, a whole bunch of stories with major inaccuracies would lead to them being struck off, to be judged by a jury consisting of other journalists, lay representatives and representatives of the legal profession[0]. If you want to use the word 'News' anywhere to describe your newspaper or website, then you must use a registered journalists and their reputation badges would need to be displayed by every article. [0]This is how it works for Architects, I don't see why journalists should be any different given that they can influence the direction of whole democracies.

humanrebar 7y ago
Because some bully will decide that his opponents are all liars, revoke their credentials, and ban their speech. This happens all the time around the world.
lordlimecat 7y ago
>And make journalism a registered profession like doctors, dentists, structural engineers, architects etc with a legally enforced professional code of conduct Here I'm thinking, "If i were a dictator, this would be a really fantastic way to control the narrative".

rogerkirkness 7y ago

If you don't trust it, don't consume it. Eventually trust either wins, or you don't care about it very much. The government, fines and aggressive rules won't fix it. Media is a product, not some kind of right.

alexis_fr 7y ago
I would like the ability of pointing out journalistic bias in other media so customers stop listening to them, and this requires source materials to compare to the way the article is written. Our problem is not how we consume media, but how others do; Enabling a sane discussion to highlight that the article misinterpreted the source is part of the discussion. As long as we live in the same voting space, I want entry points to criticize their articles.
vectorEQ 7y ago
you are correct. if people don't consume bullshit, no one will sell it. easier said than done though.
zepto 7y ago
Try that logic with tap water in flint Michigan.
- rogerkirkness 7y ago
  Are you saying that water service is a right as opposed to a product? Water being a right != water service.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Thanks for the clarifying question. I’m not saying anything about rights at all - I think that’s a false dichotomy. My comment is focussed on the rest of the logic. People who trust the product end up with children with brain damage.

crispyambulance 7y ago

> Combine this with a fine for the publication if they failed to verify information with a reasonable effort... Ain't gonna work, ever. Who is going to impose and collect "the fine"? Who will judge what is a "reasonable" effort? How? The only mechanism we have that is even close is libel lawsuits, and that's only when actual damage is done and demonstrable (sort-of, depending on if you can afford to retain an entire wing of lawyers, like Peter Thiel).

panarky 7y ago

Would your rules only apply to traditional news orgs like Reuters and Bloomberg, or would it also apply to Infowars and influential YouTube channels, Twitter feeds and Facebook groups? Would it apply to comedians who report the news?

markus_zhang 7y ago

Journalism in a large part is just propaganda tool of different factions. Regulation is applied by humans and humans are biased by their investment in different interests. Citizens should realize that every piece of news that they read are biased and need to do their own home work carefully. If they cannot or are not willing to do proper homework the next best idea is to trust no oneone and only care about local issues.