2 ms·

Instigative journalism is a full time job, requiring skills and credentials. What do you mean by "do my own research"? Who are you interviewing? What war zones

Instigative journalism is a full time job, requiring skills and credentials. What do you mean by "do my own research"? Who are you interviewing? What war zones are you traveling to to become an eyewitness? Which stacks of public records are you trawling though? I agree that there's a lot of junk reporting out there, but there are also reporters providing an essential service.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mc32 2y ago
Problem is while you’re right war-zone reporters do cover certain angles of war and can put one side in good light or bad light at their whim really.
- foobarbecue 2y ago
  Absolutely. That's why you need lots of them, and many news organizations with different perspectives, each trying to build and maintain trust. You need redundant info, like error-correcting codes.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Lutger 2y ago
Nah, probably just watch a youtube video recommended on his youtube timeline by...AI. Maybe fact check with some tweets on X or instagram posts if he's feeling very serious. I may sound sarcastic, but I assure you the vast majority of people do this kind of 'research' and truly think they know medical conditions better than their GP, understand world events better than the 'biased' mainstream journalists and even think they outperform 99% of scientists, climate or whatever. It is not limited to truly stupid people too. Just try and listen to, lets say Jordan Peterson talk on climate science, and you know he gets his (mis)information on facebook. You would fail a high schooler on any test displaying this level of misunderstanding physics. A bit of a rant, but this is the world we are in. I don't think we can fix it with old fashioned journalism. Too boring. So we need to, somehow, fix social media and 'AI' itself.
hnthrowaway0328 2y ago
It's easy, don't feel strong about things you cannot verify. As an entertainment or a gateway at best, but trusting anyone else and make serious judgment based on "credible" sources? No.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mc32 2y ago

Problem is while you’re right war-zone reporters do cover certain angles of war and can put one side in good light or bad light at their whim really.

foobarbecue 2y ago
Absolutely. That's why you need lots of them, and many news organizations with different perspectives, each trying to build and maintain trust. You need redundant info, like error-correcting codes.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Lutger 2y ago

Nah, probably just watch a youtube video recommended on his youtube timeline by...AI. Maybe fact check with some tweets on X or instagram posts if he's feeling very serious. I may sound sarcastic, but I assure you the vast majority of people do this kind of 'research' and truly think they know medical conditions better than their GP, understand world events better than the 'biased' mainstream journalists and even think they outperform 99% of scientists, climate or whatever. It is not limited to truly stupid people too. Just try and listen to, lets say Jordan Peterson talk on climate science, and you know he gets his (mis)information on facebook. You would fail a high schooler on any test displaying this level of misunderstanding physics. A bit of a rant, but this is the world we are in. I don't think we can fix it with old fashioned journalism. Too boring. So we need to, somehow, fix social media and 'AI' itself.

hnthrowaway0328 2y ago

It's easy, don't feel strong about things you cannot verify. As an entertainment or a gateway at best, but trusting anyone else and make serious judgment based on "credible" sources? No.