3 ms·
A great example of why people don't trust journalists anymore. They don't even perform a basic amount of fact checking before publishing.
by thereddaikon 2y ago
A great example of why people don't trust journalists anymore. They don't even perform a basic amount of fact checking before publishing.
- Bud 2y agoIt's unfair to pretend that all journalists have the same level of professionalism (or lack thereof) with regard to sourcing. They don't.
- colechristensen 2y agoArticles from the likes of Tech Radar or Toms Hardware I would trust to a higher standard than a random tweet, but really I wouldn't label them as "real journalists" I question the ethics and standards of the New York Times at least a little at this point so it's not like great journalism is common.
- jxy 2y agoI don't trust any kind of generalization like this, which only serves further disinformation and misinformation. There are bad journalists (if they can be called journalists at all) and good journalists. At this point in history, our only hope lies with diligent reporters from reputable publishers.
- Dalewyn 2y ago[flagged]
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoWhen's the last time you paid for a newspaper or a subscription to a newspaper?
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoPeople don't pay for news anymore so we get what we pay for.
- shiroiushi 2y agoPeople never paid for news really. If you're thinking of the days when you had to pay 25 cents for a newspaper at the convenience store, that didn't come even close to the cost of running a newspaper in those days. Your quarter only covered (maybe) the cost of the paper and printing it. These days, we don't need paper, and running a web service is probably cheaper per-reader than physical paper. Newspapers got the bulk of their funding from advertising back then, just as they do now.
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoThe important thing is you were able to justify not paying for stuff.
- torginus 2y agoAlso, there is the effect of a lie oft repeated becoming the truth - the times I've seen small outlets writing nonsense, and having it picked up by progressively bigger papers citing the smaller ones as credible sources is too much to count. Generally there is a chain of trust in news publishing that goes nowhere and there's nothing we can do about it, as more often than not, someone credible repeats the hearsay nonsense down the line, at which point they count as a primary source. So much of news publishing I would describe as not even wrong.