5 ms·

I just wish there was some type of identifiable credit / penalty system for writing accurately as a news source. And this would include quotes / retweets. Nev

I just wish there was some type of identifiable credit / penalty system for writing accurately as a news source. And this would include quotes / retweets. Never been a better time to be wrong about everything.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> wish there was some type of identifiable credit / penalty system for writing accurately as a news source Good starting point is if the news is free. A shocking fraction of people get their news from solely free sources.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  And why would someone put in effort for free?
  - cgriswald 2y ago
    This is a misunderstanding of the problem. Effort is made in both cases. In one case effort is made to find verifiable truth as a service. In the other effort is made to provide eyeballs to advertisers.
- kspacewalk2 2y ago
  What's "solely free"? Does the ad-driven model count as free? Why do you think an outlet that works for you will necessarily deliver better quality news that the one that works for advertisers? There are obvious bias downsides to both.
  - sxg 2y ago
    The ad-driven model does count as free, and it's far less likely to deliver better quality news than a subscription service users pay for. The core metric for ad-driven news sites is maximizing views—it doesn't matter how you get views as long as you get them. This means free sites are heavily incentivized to be the first to break a news story even if the details are wrong or sparse. Sure, they'll issue corrections and updates later, but only a small percentage of the initial viewers will ever see these, and there's essentially zero cost for having made the mistake. The core metric for subscription news sites is minimizing churn. A mistake will cost a subscription site subscribers who have a massive lifetime value. These sites are heavily incentivized to report high quality, accurate news even if they're not the first to break the story.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > What's "solely free"? Does the ad-driven model count as free? Yes, in this context. > Why do you think an outlet that works for you will necessarily deliver better quality news that the one that works for advertisers? I can’t explain the mechanics precisely. But it’s pretty clear when I compare my subscription and non-subscription sources where the quality lies.
- torginus 2y ago
  Yet paying for news is a very weak guarantee of not being fed propaganda/inaccurate reporting. If we held food safety to the same standards as paid news sources are held, people would get salmonella once a week.
Analemma_ 2y ago
Your cure is worse than the disease. The second such a system existed, it would be gamed to hell and back, and nobody would believe it anyway since they'd all angrily insist that "you shouldn't have counted X" or "you should've counted Y more" and it would just turn into a war over who got to control the system and use it to deplatform their enemies.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  It doesn't have to, and indeed shouldn't, be a single system. We'd rather have a handful of independent news checker orgs, maybe some topic-specific ones. Funding remains an exercise for the reader.
treflop 2y ago
There just isn’t. You just have to read enough of one source to determine your own opinion. Just like with anyone you meet: you are the judge if they are trustworthy, nice, mean, funny, etc. That said, I think tech journalism is the bottom of the barrel. I just feel like they focus more on tech than journalism.
- shombaboor 2y ago
  the cost of producing bs is too low, back in the day it would at least require time and money to print / distribute.
mardifoufs 2y ago
Community notes on twitter is the closest thing to what you're describing I've seen yet. It's been very helpful too imo

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> wish there was some type of identifiable credit / penalty system for writing accurately as a news source Good starting point is if the news is free. A shocking fraction of people get their news from solely free sources.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
And why would someone put in effort for free?
- cgriswald 2y ago
  This is a misunderstanding of the problem. Effort is made in both cases. In one case effort is made to find verifiable truth as a service. In the other effort is made to provide eyeballs to advertisers.
kspacewalk2 2y ago
What's "solely free"? Does the ad-driven model count as free? Why do you think an outlet that works for you will necessarily deliver better quality news that the one that works for advertisers? There are obvious bias downsides to both.
- sxg 2y ago
  The ad-driven model does count as free, and it's far less likely to deliver better quality news than a subscription service users pay for. The core metric for ad-driven news sites is maximizing views—it doesn't matter how you get views as long as you get them. This means free sites are heavily incentivized to be the first to break a news story even if the details are wrong or sparse. Sure, they'll issue corrections and updates later, but only a small percentage of the initial viewers will ever see these, and there's essentially zero cost for having made the mistake. The core metric for subscription news sites is minimizing churn. A mistake will cost a subscription site subscribers who have a massive lifetime value. These sites are heavily incentivized to report high quality, accurate news even if they're not the first to break the story.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > What's "solely free"? Does the ad-driven model count as free? Yes, in this context. > Why do you think an outlet that works for you will necessarily deliver better quality news that the one that works for advertisers? I can’t explain the mechanics precisely. But it’s pretty clear when I compare my subscription and non-subscription sources where the quality lies.
torginus 2y ago
Yet paying for news is a very weak guarantee of not being fed propaganda/inaccurate reporting. If we held food safety to the same standards as paid news sources are held, people would get salmonella once a week.

Analemma_ 2y ago

Your cure is worse than the disease. The second such a system existed, it would be gamed to hell and back, and nobody would believe it anyway since they'd all angrily insist that "you shouldn't have counted X" or "you should've counted Y more" and it would just turn into a war over who got to control the system and use it to deplatform their enemies.

andrewflnr 2y ago
It doesn't have to, and indeed shouldn't, be a single system. We'd rather have a handful of independent news checker orgs, maybe some topic-specific ones. Funding remains an exercise for the reader.

treflop 2y ago

There just isn’t. You just have to read enough of one source to determine your own opinion. Just like with anyone you meet: you are the judge if they are trustworthy, nice, mean, funny, etc. That said, I think tech journalism is the bottom of the barrel. I just feel like they focus more on tech than journalism.

shombaboor 2y ago
the cost of producing bs is too low, back in the day it would at least require time and money to print / distribute.

mardifoufs 2y ago

Community notes on twitter is the closest thing to what you're describing I've seen yet. It's been very helpful too imo