4 ms·

I wholeheartedly agree. Publishing a news article about sciencey stuff without providing the bloody citation should be a crime.

gjs278 5y ago
thank you dan g and the other worthless mods for auto collapsing this thread. god forbid I decide what to read myself, your hints are once again useless
sokoloff 5y ago
I know you’re being hyperbolic there, but if I take it at face value, I’m left wondering if that would pass First Amendment protections. I suspect most such policies would be in violation of 1A.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  I see a pretty obvious argument that this would be a content neutral regulation that serves the public good.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Yes, I see that argument as well. 1A doesn’t say “Congress may pass laws abridging the freedom of the press only when they serve the public good” but has rather stricter/broader prohibitions.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      If you study the history of US case law you will see "content neutral" [0] regulation that "serves a public good" is often used as part of the standard to decide when the US government is allowed to restrict speech. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/937/content-neutral https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/937/content-neutral The "content neutral" part is really important because it is what allows a huge range of government regulations that ideally are equally applied to everyone regardless of how popular a message is. The "public good" part is a portion of showing that a speech limiting regulation is narrowly tailored enough to achieve that public good without unnecessarily hampering speech. Regardless of what you think about the validity of these court decisions, there is reasonable precedent to think that such a law would survive a 1A challenge.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Very interesting and relevant citation. Thanks! Those cases do seem slightly different in character from “if you, as a news organization, literally say X, you are compelled to also say Y; violations are a crime rather than a civil violation”, but I agree it’s not open and shut.
- Dudeman112 5y ago
  I'm not American - what's the first amendment and why should I care if the place I reside in follows it (intentionally or not)?
andy_ppp 5y ago
I’d go even further, publishing out of context quotes without linking to the video or transcript is also disgusting and massively common!
- aalam 5y ago
  It's common because it would be too resource-intensive to provide transcripts for every quote. Articles from high-circulation newspapers often have five or more interviewees per article. Quality newspapers are averse to publishing quotes without fact-checking them if possible (e.g. if a politician makes a false claim, you don't want to publish it without indicating it's false). To maintain the same principle, newspapers would need to fact-check the entire transcript, versus just the quoted part, for accuracy. But if you want only a partial transcript, then you're essentially at the current state of affiars where you only quote the part you need, and paraphrase the rest. Journalistic ethical guidelines already require quotes to be in context for fairness. Reputable publications have an incentive to publish quotes in context (the interviewees, journalist watchdogs, and many readers would criticize that publication if they don't). So I don't see anything wrong with reading quotes and assuming they are published in good faith. To mitigate ethical lapses, you can also read the same coverage from different sources (e.g. Wall Street Journal and New York Times) to get broader context about particularly important articles, and also subscribe to newsletters on reporting (e.g. the American Press Insitute newsletter, the Columbia Journalism Review).
  - andy_ppp 5y ago
    I think if I’m on record I’m recording the conversation and the reporter should do the same. The highest standard would be to provide all on the record statements in recorded audio so we can confirm the reporter didn’t misremember to make the story juicier…
    - aalam 5y ago
      That's fair game to record the conversation too as an interviewee (most reporters wouldn't object). Most reporters by default also record the conversation directly (better for fact-checking and makes the job easier). Misremembering isn't typically a problem in practice; there are legitimate consequences for journalists, at least at respected publications, who misreport quotes (issued correction notice in the article, and the publication can get bad press from other outlets). The main downside with providing all the on the record statements in recorded audio, is that some statements by an interviewee can be false. If a scientist misstates a figure and corrects it later, listeners can latch on to the incorrect figure. Keeping it to print allows the reporting of the correct figure, or the printing of the quote with a note that it's a misstatement. You could also try to contextualize such statements in the transcript itself, but it then becomes more resource-intensive than the current system (publications are obligated to verify the entire transcript, versus selected parts).
illwrks 5y ago
"Publishing news should be a crime" - Dudeman12
- Dudeman112 5y ago
  Found the journalist, ever so fond of providing partial context so they can twist other people's word into meaning what they want. You know what's best than providing some context and analysis? Providing a pointer to the whole context. If it's science, there is a DOI or citation that lets anyone get to the source. There is no valid reason at all to not provide the source. Also, figurative language is a lie made up by the establishment I guess.
  - illwrks 5y ago
    Apologies, I was agreeing with your point. Reading over my short comment it can be read as criticism! I wholeheartedly believe sources need to be provided for everything online, it's web a lies and deception without.

gjs278 5y ago

thank you dan g and the other worthless mods for auto collapsing this thread. god forbid I decide what to read myself, your hints are once again useless

sokoloff 5y ago

I know you’re being hyperbolic there, but if I take it at face value, I’m left wondering if that would pass First Amendment protections. I suspect most such policies would be in violation of 1A.

shkkmo 5y ago
I see a pretty obvious argument that this would be a content neutral regulation that serves the public good.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Yes, I see that argument as well. 1A doesn’t say “Congress may pass laws abridging the freedom of the press only when they serve the public good” but has rather stricter/broader prohibitions.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    If you study the history of US case law you will see "content neutral" [0] regulation that "serves a public good" is often used as part of the standard to decide when the US government is allowed to restrict speech. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/937/content-neutral https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/937/content-neutral The "content neutral" part is really important because it is what allows a huge range of government regulations that ideally are equally applied to everyone regardless of how popular a message is. The "public good" part is a portion of showing that a speech limiting regulation is narrowly tailored enough to achieve that public good without unnecessarily hampering speech. Regardless of what you think about the validity of these court decisions, there is reasonable precedent to think that such a law would survive a 1A challenge.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Very interesting and relevant citation. Thanks! Those cases do seem slightly different in character from “if you, as a news organization, literally say X, you are compelled to also say Y; violations are a crime rather than a civil violation”, but I agree it’s not open and shut.
Dudeman112 5y ago
I'm not American - what's the first amendment and why should I care if the place I reside in follows it (intentionally or not)?

andy_ppp 5y ago

I’d go even further, publishing out of context quotes without linking to the video or transcript is also disgusting and massively common!

aalam 5y ago
It's common because it would be too resource-intensive to provide transcripts for every quote. Articles from high-circulation newspapers often have five or more interviewees per article. Quality newspapers are averse to publishing quotes without fact-checking them if possible (e.g. if a politician makes a false claim, you don't want to publish it without indicating it's false). To maintain the same principle, newspapers would need to fact-check the entire transcript, versus just the quoted part, for accuracy. But if you want only a partial transcript, then you're essentially at the current state of affiars where you only quote the part you need, and paraphrase the rest. Journalistic ethical guidelines already require quotes to be in context for fairness. Reputable publications have an incentive to publish quotes in context (the interviewees, journalist watchdogs, and many readers would criticize that publication if they don't). So I don't see anything wrong with reading quotes and assuming they are published in good faith. To mitigate ethical lapses, you can also read the same coverage from different sources (e.g. Wall Street Journal and New York Times) to get broader context about particularly important articles, and also subscribe to newsletters on reporting (e.g. the American Press Insitute newsletter, the Columbia Journalism Review).
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  I think if I’m on record I’m recording the conversation and the reporter should do the same. The highest standard would be to provide all on the record statements in recorded audio so we can confirm the reporter didn’t misremember to make the story juicier…
  - aalam 5y ago
    That's fair game to record the conversation too as an interviewee (most reporters wouldn't object). Most reporters by default also record the conversation directly (better for fact-checking and makes the job easier). Misremembering isn't typically a problem in practice; there are legitimate consequences for journalists, at least at respected publications, who misreport quotes (issued correction notice in the article, and the publication can get bad press from other outlets). The main downside with providing all the on the record statements in recorded audio, is that some statements by an interviewee can be false. If a scientist misstates a figure and corrects it later, listeners can latch on to the incorrect figure. Keeping it to print allows the reporting of the correct figure, or the printing of the quote with a note that it's a misstatement. You could also try to contextualize such statements in the transcript itself, but it then becomes more resource-intensive than the current system (publications are obligated to verify the entire transcript, versus selected parts).

illwrks 5y ago

"Publishing news should be a crime" - Dudeman12

Dudeman112 5y ago
Found the journalist, ever so fond of providing partial context so they can twist other people's word into meaning what they want. You know what's best than providing some context and analysis? Providing a pointer to the whole context. If it's science, there is a DOI or citation that lets anyone get to the source. There is no valid reason at all to not provide the source. Also, figurative language is a lie made up by the establishment I guess.
- illwrks 5y ago
  Apologies, I was agreeing with your point. Reading over my short comment it can be read as criticism! I wholeheartedly believe sources need to be provided for everything online, it's web a lies and deception without.