5 ms·
The first headline on The Factual right now is “How conservative media stoked baseless election-fraud claims that motivated D.C. rioters”. That is certainly not
by lacker 6y ago
The first headline on The Factual right now is “How conservative media stoked baseless election-fraud claims that motivated D.C. rioters”. That is certainly not what the “fairness doctrine” type centrist media sounded like. The whole feed doesn’t seem like it is considering both sides of the issues, it seems like it is providing the same generic left viewpoint that the New York Times would provide.
- MartinCron 6y agoImagine for a moment that you agreed, as a matter of objective reality, the conservative media did stoke baseless election-fraud claims and that those claims motivated D.C. rioters. Would that headline still seem outside the bounds of centrist, fact-based reporting? Sometimes there is not a clear both sides.
- amoorthy 6y agoThe article you mention is from USA Today and has a 69% credibliity rating. Normally we recommend >75% for a credible article. If you click on the rating you'll see details on the four factors we rate for each article: site reputation (historical score), author's topical expertise, diversity of sources, neutrality of tone. Collectively these produce a probability of being credible. So we don't fact check individual statements (very difficult to do via an algorithm) but rather we assess the likelihood of an article being credible in aggregate.
- thebigman433 6y agoHow would you make that headline even more centerist? "Conservative" media sources did stoke baseless claims about fraud, which motivated the rioters (I wouldve gone for terrorist here).
- sli 6y agoI'm with you, here. I'm not convinced that downplaying facts just to make a headline read more friendly to a group that quite literally threatened to kill politicians is what I would call journalistic integrity. Sometimes the headlines are alarmist because something alarming happened and we saw it coming on the internet from months away.
- thebigman433 6y agoThis is exactly it in my opinion. There is not a "but both sides" to every issue, you can call a spade a spade.
- refurb 6y agoYou do that by stating facts. Not opinions as facts. “Conservative media outlets accused of stoking baseless election fraud claims” Then the article should lay out what they did. Not “here is how they stoked baseless claims”, but exactly what they did. “Conservative websites repeated a claim of fraud that had already been proven false by election officials.” And it should include comments from those websites on their response to the accusation. Then let the reader make up their own mind. I’m an adult. I don’t need a reporter who barely knows more than I do about a subject to tell me how to interpret the world. Save that for opinion pieces. Not too hard is it?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- PoignardAzur 6y agoI'm kind of pissed the above is being grayed out. This. This is how it's done. You go into technical details, not just "fact-checkers proved this was false", but "here's a link to a fact-checker proving this was false". If reality is one-sided, then you expose the facts of reality. Adding a "Reality is obviously one-sided and anyone who disagrees is a manipulating liar" headline is both superfluous and self-destructive.
- arp242 6y agoComing up next: "Timothy McVeigh vs. Clinton, where we consider both sides or the issue". Would be ridiculous and offensive, no? It's really not all that different...