4 ms·

There's no such thing as neutral and you shouldn't treat any journalists as such. I don't know if their viewpoint is relevant here though; the question is about

There's no such thing as neutral and you shouldn't treat any journalists as such. I don't know if their viewpoint is relevant here though; the question is about their ability to verify a factual assertion.

mc32 3y ago
One may count and add things correctly, but one may count things that are not connected or double count items. That's the kind of thing people fudge when trying to convince people one way or another. They usually don't outright make things up.
- darthoctopus 3y ago
  it is for precisely not resorting to these dirty tactics that ProPublica is considered the gold standard.
  - mc32 3y ago
    They have their issues from time to time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5158216/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5158216/ And they also tend to go with investigations that go their way and those that don’t line up get dropped.
readams 3y ago
The secret here is they only investigate the things that support their narrative. In this article they actually explicitly stated they're looking to cover a specific list of negative things associated with the industry. They would not, for example, publish an article about how much lower our standard of living would be without the industry. Or to attempt to weigh the positives adjust the negatives of the industry. So you can always publish "gold standard" journalism and yet still present a distorted version of the truth.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  Your criticism seems to suggest a standard for journalism that no outlets would possibly reach.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    It’s a variant of the “both sides” fallacy.
    - operatingthetan 3y ago
      Good call, my minor in philosophy fails me once the fallacy falls outside of the usual suspects.
- viraptor 3y ago
  So you can get information from multiple well researched sources. This is one of them. Don't expect anyone to do all the work. "You're not publishing full investigative journalism articles on absolutely everything." is not a valid criticism of your article, or a reasonable criticism of the publisher.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      I mean that's just plain false. Think of how much time any one meaty investigative report takes; nobody has the time or resources to then turn around and carefully make sure they do some sort of counterbalancing expose that's somehow pro-industry (and what's the point of an expose? They employ many PR people for that purpose anyway).
      - peter422 3y ago
        You don't need to take their comment seriously... After all they didn't make the counterargument and therefore it's a overly biased point and thus not useful in any way.
EGreg 3y ago
That's why you should be reading outlets for opposing sides, to get the best arguments for each side. But if one side doesn't bother to mount a defense or do their own individual research, and resorts only to dismissing the other side based on the fact that it's "the other side", they aren't doing themselves any favors.
- arealaccount 3y ago
  Two wrongs dont make a right. Or at least what my mother said growing up
  - EGreg 3y ago
    That’s different. It is when two wrongs compound, not balance each other out.
- RetroHippyNimby 3y ago
  Reading both sides is itself a bit of a fallacy. Most problems don't fit neatly into two 'sides'. For example, take gun control -- typically associated with the liberal wing of the democratic party, and opposed by most of the republican party. The leftist wing of American politics, however, is often opposed to gun control. Organizations like the Socialist Rifle Association and John Brown Gun Club and Pink Pistols. In the case of environmental review, there's also a multitude of different perspectives with different objectives. From indigenous groups whose land was (typically) stolen, to anti-oil activists, to pro-business democrats (like Biden/Clinton) who want to keep profits rolling at the expense of pristine wildlands, to the various concerns of the right. I know plenty of republican folks who are religiously compelled to take care of the earth and oppose oil drilling. I know plenty of republicans who believe that anthropogenic climate change is "impossible". Quite frankly, it's not wrong to read a few viewpoints, or read only the viewpoints you agree with and just acknowledge there are other viewpoints. Just don't get lost in believing your viewpoint is the only reasoned one.
unmole 3y ago
> the question is about their ability to verify a factual assertion. No, the question is about their inclination to critically examine a claim made by their side.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

mc32 3y ago

One may count and add things correctly, but one may count things that are not connected or double count items. That's the kind of thing people fudge when trying to convince people one way or another. They usually don't outright make things up.

darthoctopus 3y ago
it is for precisely not resorting to these dirty tactics that ProPublica is considered the gold standard.
- mc32 3y ago
  They have their issues from time to time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5158216/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5158216/ And they also tend to go with investigations that go their way and those that don’t line up get dropped.

readams 3y ago

The secret here is they only investigate the things that support their narrative. In this article they actually explicitly stated they're looking to cover a specific list of negative things associated with the industry. They would not, for example, publish an article about how much lower our standard of living would be without the industry. Or to attempt to weigh the positives adjust the negatives of the industry. So you can always publish "gold standard" journalism and yet still present a distorted version of the truth.

operatingthetan 3y ago
Your criticism seems to suggest a standard for journalism that no outlets would possibly reach.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  It’s a variant of the “both sides” fallacy.
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    Good call, my minor in philosophy fails me once the fallacy falls outside of the usual suspects.
viraptor 3y ago
So you can get information from multiple well researched sources. This is one of them. Don't expect anyone to do all the work. "You're not publishing full investigative journalism articles on absolutely everything." is not a valid criticism of your article, or a reasonable criticism of the publisher.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I mean that's just plain false. Think of how much time any one meaty investigative report takes; nobody has the time or resources to then turn around and carefully make sure they do some sort of counterbalancing expose that's somehow pro-industry (and what's the point of an expose? They employ many PR people for that purpose anyway).
    - peter422 3y ago
      You don't need to take their comment seriously... After all they didn't make the counterargument and therefore it's a overly biased point and thus not useful in any way.

EGreg 3y ago

That's why you should be reading outlets for opposing sides, to get the best arguments for each side. But if one side doesn't bother to mount a defense or do their own individual research, and resorts only to dismissing the other side based on the fact that it's "the other side", they aren't doing themselves any favors.

arealaccount 3y ago
Two wrongs dont make a right. Or at least what my mother said growing up
- EGreg 3y ago
  That’s different. It is when two wrongs compound, not balance each other out.
RetroHippyNimby 3y ago
Reading both sides is itself a bit of a fallacy. Most problems don't fit neatly into two 'sides'. For example, take gun control -- typically associated with the liberal wing of the democratic party, and opposed by most of the republican party. The leftist wing of American politics, however, is often opposed to gun control. Organizations like the Socialist Rifle Association and John Brown Gun Club and Pink Pistols. In the case of environmental review, there's also a multitude of different perspectives with different objectives. From indigenous groups whose land was (typically) stolen, to anti-oil activists, to pro-business democrats (like Biden/Clinton) who want to keep profits rolling at the expense of pristine wildlands, to the various concerns of the right. I know plenty of republican folks who are religiously compelled to take care of the earth and oppose oil drilling. I know plenty of republicans who believe that anthropogenic climate change is "impossible". Quite frankly, it's not wrong to read a few viewpoints, or read only the viewpoints you agree with and just acknowledge there are other viewpoints. Just don't get lost in believing your viewpoint is the only reasoned one.

unmole 3y ago

> the question is about their ability to verify a factual assertion. No, the question is about their inclination to critically examine a claim made by their side.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]