3 ms·

Professional journalists have the responsibility to be epistemologically correct—to accurately say "X told us Y", "our reporter observed Z", etc. You can't jump

Professional journalists have the responsibility to be epistemologically correct—to accurately say "X told us Y", "our reporter observed Z", etc. You can't jump the gun and launder speculation into truth. That's what Silver's complaining about in the OP: not that the NYT got it wrong, but how in particular they got it wrong, making claims of confidence and certainty that weren't supported by what they had.

jameshart 3y ago
The article in question about Israel identified the sources in the headline. What more do you want them to do?
DoughnutHole 3y ago
It's a more subtle mistake than that - they did say "X told us Y": > Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say The problem isn't that they presented an unverified claim as fact - they told us that this was a claim by an official. The problem is one of framing and headline crafting. All people took away from the headline was the "fact", because the headline did not adequately stress the providence of the information or the fact that the claim was unverified. If you want people to come away with "X claims Y" rather than "X happened", you need to in some way stress the fact that it's an unverified claim. I'd honestly chalk this up less to malice or journalistic malpractice in the hunt for clicks, but to simple bad writing. I'm amazed it got past the editors.
- jameshart 3y ago
  The headline is not the story. The headline is never the whole story. If the headline was the whole story you wouldn’t need the story. People who claim ‘they write the headline to get you to click’ are onto something. You’re meant to click on the headline and read the story. A heck of a lot of news reports take this form, and all it takes to read them accurately is basic media literacy: CLAIM, PARTY SAYS Claim was made today by party. More detail about claim, and how newspaper came to be aware of claim. But counterclaim, according to other party. Opinion on trustworthiness of parties, according to expert, with credentials.

jameshart 3y ago

The article in question about Israel identified the sources in the headline. What more do you want them to do?

DoughnutHole 3y ago

It's a more subtle mistake than that - they did say "X told us Y": > Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinian Officials Say The problem isn't that they presented an unverified claim as fact - they told us that this was a claim by an official. The problem is one of framing and headline crafting. All people took away from the headline was the "fact", because the headline did not adequately stress the providence of the information or the fact that the claim was unverified. If you want people to come away with "X claims Y" rather than "X happened", you need to in some way stress the fact that it's an unverified claim. I'd honestly chalk this up less to malice or journalistic malpractice in the hunt for clicks, but to simple bad writing. I'm amazed it got past the editors.

jameshart 3y ago
The headline is not the story. The headline is never the whole story. If the headline was the whole story you wouldn’t need the story. People who claim ‘they write the headline to get you to click’ are onto something. You’re meant to click on the headline and read the story. A heck of a lot of news reports take this form, and all it takes to read them accurately is basic media literacy: CLAIM, PARTY SAYS Claim was made today by party. More detail about claim, and how newspaper came to be aware of claim. But counterclaim, according to other party. Opinion on trustworthiness of parties, according to expert, with credentials.