5 ms·

The fake audio in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT-2p832IMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT-2p832IMk This was distributed by news sites. Of cour

by NavinF 2y ago

The fake audio in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT-2p832IMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT-2p832IMk This was distributed by news sites. Of course they didn't bother contacting anyone involved to check if it was real.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
Assume they did and the principal claimed it was fake. What do you do? I'm asking for real here. I don't know the right answer. Do you not publish anything that someone involves calls a fake or do you publish it anyway?
- samatman 2y ago
  The real answer to this question is quite fundamental to journalistic ethics: you reach out to the source for comment, and include it in the reporting. In this case that would have been "I never said that, or anything like it, and I think it's an AI deepfake". Or words to that effect.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  That depends, do you assume people are innocent until proven guilty or do you enjoy lynchings?
  - mcphage 2y ago
    Proven guilty by whom, and of what? Had the clip been real, it would have been shitty, but not a crime.
    - Brimaldo 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - mcphage 2y ago
        Yet we keep electing them…
- hyrix 2y ago
  Journalists don't just publish whatever comes into their mailbox--at least, good journalists understand the potential that they are being manipulated. We should be wondering to what extent these journalists vetted the source of the clip. It's not that journalists need to publish an identity, but they ought to serve as a filter as much as they do as a megaphone. Without a credible story about how the sender got ahold of the clip and its provenance, why would they even believe that it's real? With so little context, how could a responsible journalist publish this kind of character assassination without any more research than one phone call to the purported speaker? Perhaps if there were a pattern of behavior behind the clip, supported by other testimony from the speaker's colleagues or previous incidents--not that it's the responsibility of journalists to conduct a trial in the court of public opinion, presenting the strongest arguments from each side--but, lacking any actual effort at all to establish the credibility of the source, this is just lazy, click-counting, ragebait--not journalism. Partly, it's also on the laziness and gullibility of the general public--but these are well-established features of the audience that should be no surprise to a trained journalist. To publish such clips without any real work to validate them is basic negligence.
nar001 2y ago
It took the police investigating to get to the truth, it's the first time something like this happened and the clip even knowing it's AI sounds legit, I don't blame journalists for believing it.
- beej71 2y ago
  And I just will never trust these particular "journalists" again.
  - Brimaldo 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - mcphage 2y ago
    Which particular ones do you mean?
defrost 2y ago
> Of course they didn't bother contacting anyone involved to check if it was real. When the clip landed on the desk of Kristen Griffith, an education reporter at the Baltimore Banner, she thought it was going be a relatively straightforward story of a teacher being exposed for making offensive remarks. But as is best-practice in journalism, Ms Griffith wanted to give the principal the chance to comment and tell his side of the story. So, she reached out to his union representative, who said not only did Mr Eiswert condemn the comments, but he didn’t make them. “He said right away, oh, we think this is fake… We believe it's AI,” she told the BBC. “I hadn't heard that angle” before. But when she published that explanation, her readers were not convinced. Far from raising questions about the clip’s veracity, it just fuelled backlash from people who thought the allegation of fakery was just an excuse or an attempt to evade accountability.
- NavinF 2y ago
  That's the exception that proves the rule and happened long after other news sites published the video I linked.
  - defrost 2y ago
    That's the ground zero prime source for all other news feeds. It proves a completely different rule that's more common: "News sites" (aka Fox et al.) are usually well aware that the spin they put on stories is patently false, based on isolated reports, on X-twitter posts, on small town actual news papers, etc. They know full well that that immigrants are working in Ohio, that it's a housing crisis, and that no one is eating the cats, dogs, or ducks .. They knowingly propagate sensationalist and pandering takes on breadcrumb sized stories hoping they'll blow up and attract eyeballs in their target demographics. It's not that they don't bother to check veracity - they wilfully ignore anything in sources that might downplay the drama of stories. I wouldn't call these "News sites", they're pretty obviously infotainment industries.

by NavinF 2y ago

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

Assume they did and the principal claimed it was fake. What do you do? I'm asking for real here. I don't know the right answer. Do you not publish anything that someone involves calls a fake or do you publish it anyway?

samatman 2y ago
The real answer to this question is quite fundamental to journalistic ethics: you reach out to the source for comment, and include it in the reporting. In this case that would have been "I never said that, or anything like it, and I think it's an AI deepfake". Or words to that effect.
llm_trw 2y ago
That depends, do you assume people are innocent until proven guilty or do you enjoy lynchings?
- mcphage 2y ago
  Proven guilty by whom, and of what? Had the clip been real, it would have been shitty, but not a crime.
  - Brimaldo 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - mcphage 2y ago
      Yet we keep electing them…
hyrix 2y ago
Journalists don't just publish whatever comes into their mailbox--at least, good journalists understand the potential that they are being manipulated. We should be wondering to what extent these journalists vetted the source of the clip. It's not that journalists need to publish an identity, but they ought to serve as a filter as much as they do as a megaphone. Without a credible story about how the sender got ahold of the clip and its provenance, why would they even believe that it's real? With so little context, how could a responsible journalist publish this kind of character assassination without any more research than one phone call to the purported speaker? Perhaps if there were a pattern of behavior behind the clip, supported by other testimony from the speaker's colleagues or previous incidents--not that it's the responsibility of journalists to conduct a trial in the court of public opinion, presenting the strongest arguments from each side--but, lacking any actual effort at all to establish the credibility of the source, this is just lazy, click-counting, ragebait--not journalism. Partly, it's also on the laziness and gullibility of the general public--but these are well-established features of the audience that should be no surprise to a trained journalist. To publish such clips without any real work to validate them is basic negligence.

nar001 2y ago

It took the police investigating to get to the truth, it's the first time something like this happened and the clip even knowing it's AI sounds legit, I don't blame journalists for believing it.

beej71 2y ago
And I just will never trust these particular "journalists" again.
- Brimaldo 2y ago
  [flagged]
- mcphage 2y ago
  Which particular ones do you mean?

defrost 2y ago

> Of course they didn't bother contacting anyone involved to check if it was real. When the clip landed on the desk of Kristen Griffith, an education reporter at the Baltimore Banner, she thought it was going be a relatively straightforward story of a teacher being exposed for making offensive remarks. But as is best-practice in journalism, Ms Griffith wanted to give the principal the chance to comment and tell his side of the story. So, she reached out to his union representative, who said not only did Mr Eiswert condemn the comments, but he didn’t make them. “He said right away, oh, we think this is fake… We believe it's AI,” she told the BBC. “I hadn't heard that angle” before. But when she published that explanation, her readers were not convinced. Far from raising questions about the clip’s veracity, it just fuelled backlash from people who thought the allegation of fakery was just an excuse or an attempt to evade accountability.

NavinF 2y ago
That's the exception that proves the rule and happened long after other news sites published the video I linked.
- defrost 2y ago
  That's the ground zero prime source for all other news feeds. It proves a completely different rule that's more common: "News sites" (aka Fox et al.) are usually well aware that the spin they put on stories is patently false, based on isolated reports, on X-twitter posts, on small town actual news papers, etc. They know full well that that immigrants are working in Ohio, that it's a housing crisis, and that no one is eating the cats, dogs, or ducks .. They knowingly propagate sensationalist and pandering takes on breadcrumb sized stories hoping they'll blow up and attract eyeballs in their target demographics. It's not that they don't bother to check veracity - they wilfully ignore anything in sources that might downplay the drama of stories. I wouldn't call these "News sites", they're pretty obviously infotainment industries.