3 ms·
That's the same argument the Trump family & corps are making in their losing civil fraud case - "we put in a disclaimer so it's on the reader to figure it out".
by toss1 3y ago
That's the same argument the Trump family & corps are making in their losing civil fraud case - "we put in a disclaimer so it's on the reader to figure it out".
When the context, format, presentation, etc. all signal it's a factual report or document , a disclaimer doesn't cut it. (kind of signals that you are even more of an asshat)
- nyc_data_geek1 3y ago"Big if true"
- mediumsmart 3y agoReally big, and might take some time to sink in here
- cyanydeez 3y agooften the police are reported in the press with euphemisms that hide their connection to an incident. so it's kinda ironic to throw shade on proper transparency.
- toss1 3y agoI'm not throwing shade at proper transparency, I'm calling for more of it! Putting out a story, report, assertion, etc, that carries most or all the trappings of veracity, but has some disclaimer that isn't right up front-and-center-obvious, is NOT proper transparency. Proper news stories are supposed to be structured with the most important information up front, in the headline & first paragraph — the 5 Ws — Who, What, When, Where, Why. Then go into successively less important detail. The concept is to deliver news, and also allow the editors to cut it off wherever necessary to fit. If the story is not factual, your disclaimer needs to be in that first paragraph (with an exception for April Fools jokes). Just because most "news" is now formless clickbait trash, does not make it legit to put a "this uses some [unspecified amount of] AI input and may not be fully factual" at the end where nobody will read it. That's playing cute "gotcha" games with your readers, and is the opposite of transparency.