5 ms·

> Charlie Beckett, the leader of the journalism and AI project at the London School of Economics, said: “This is about long-running pressures on journalists to

> Charlie Beckett, the leader of the journalism and AI project at the London School of Economics, said: “This is about long-running pressures on journalists to be quicker. This is not the AI itself that’s at fault here. This is unscrupulous people, it seems. It is a wake-up call to all of us, frankly.” Agreed Charlie, but not the way you meant it. The unscrupulous bunch here is lazy journos using UberEats for quotes rather than actually finding and speaking to an expert. I wouldn't be surprised to find them using third parties to write their articles or find subject ideas too.

WaitWaitWha 1y ago
Hear,hear. It is quite amusing to observe how certain media outlets, which often adopt a self-righteous stance, are now expressing indignation after being exposed for their inaccuracies. They seem to have convinced themselves that they possess the ability to discern genuine expertise, leading them to believe that such experts do not require thorough vetting.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > now expressing indignation Who is expressing indignation? > They seem to have convinced themselves that they possess the ability to discern genuine expertise, leading them to believe that such experts do not require thorough vetting. Speaking of careful reporting, can you back that up? Their ability to evaluate seems pretty good, as we rarely see stories like this one.
  - WaitWaitWha 1y ago
    My deepest apologies for insufficiently distilling my thoughts for you. > Who is expressing indignation? The media is irate and resentful for having been flummoxed by some no-good knave. (third paragraph of the article notes several of them - Vogue, Metro, Cosmopolitan, the i newspaper, the Express, Hello!, the Telegraph, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail, the Sun, and the BBC) > Speaking of careful reporting, can you back that up? > Their ability to evaluate seems pretty good, as we rarely see stories like this one. I beg to differ, and since i am very bored, I had the 3 minutes to find these. In 2019, Metro published a story about a "haunted" doll, later criticized for lack of verification; the article was quietly removed from their website after public backlash. A 2015 Cosmopolitan article on beauty trends was pulled after it misrepresented cultural practices without proper research. The i newspaper in their 2021 article on Brexit was heavily criticized for unverified claims about trade disruptions. In 2018, the Express removed an article claiming a celebrity’s health scare without sufficient evidence, following legal threats. In 2017, a Hello! story about a royal family event was withdrawn online after inaccuracies about attendees were exposed. The Daily Star's article in 2016 about a UFO sighting was removed after it was revealed to be based on a hoax. In 2017, the Daily Mail retracted a story about an immigrant crime wave after data was found to be misrepresented. The Sun withdrew in 2015 a front-page story claiming a celebrity scandal after evidence was debunked. Aaaand, here I ran out of bourbon. I mean, I stopped pulling together the BBC articles that had to be withdrawn so I am just giving up the pleasure of finding them to you. > Their ability to evaluate seems pretty good, as we rarely see stories like this one. It is no great mystery why journalists so rarely turn their pens against their own. In a profession already fading into irrelevance, its influence waning, its audience drifting elsewhere, few are eager to hasten the decline by airing their own failings. Pride and self-preservation conspire to maintain a hollow façade of credibility, even as the foundations rot away. Better, it seems, to pretend the edifice still stands strong than to admit it is already half-forgotten.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > The media is irate and resentful for having been flummoxed by some no-good knave. (third paragraph of the article notes several of them - Vogue, Metro, Cosmopolitan, the i newspaper, the Express, Hello!, the Telegraph, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail, the Sun, and the BBC) The third paragraph says nothing about irate or resentful (see below), nor does any other part of the article. Did you - the great journalism critic - fabricate it? The case has been described as a wake-up call for newsrooms, as AI tools make it far easier for bad actors to invent supposed experts for their own purposes. Santini’s output has been prolific, with comments in Vogue, Metro, Cosmopolitan, the i newspaper, the Express, Hello!, the Telegraph, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail and the Sun in recent years. She was also quoted in an article for the BBC’s international site, BBC.com. > I beg to differ, and since i am very bored, I had the 3 minutes to find these. ... There are thousands of articles a day, maybe tens of thousands, in the high-quality professional media. You naming a few with errors from a ten years period doesn't amount to much. > It is no great mystery why journalists so rarely turn their pens against their own. A conspiracy! Do you have evidence? You criticize the journalists for a lack of accuracy and research - where is yours? Here's some evidence the other way: Fox constantly attacks publications that differ politically; Fox's errors are reported widely; today's NYT reports on a libel suit against itself; regarding this particular error: "Questions over Santini were first raised by the Press Gazette." How do you know about the errors? Where did you find the errors listed above?
      - WaitWaitWha 1y ago
        Ah, ye're a feisty one, ain’t ye? Lots o' questions, but few answers. I would love to dwell into this, alas as i wrote, I am out of bourbon so cannot untangle your relative privation, tu quoque, and what-aboutism.
        mmooss 1y ago
        I make clear factual claims and show the evidence. You not only don't address anything on that level, you can't even find the right cheap insults.
levocardia 1y ago
Except the bar is even lower -- instead of walking three blocks to a bodega for a sandwich, the standard here is just google her to make sure she's actually an Oxford-affiliated expert! It would take like three seconds!

WaitWaitWha 1y ago

Hear,hear. It is quite amusing to observe how certain media outlets, which often adopt a self-righteous stance, are now expressing indignation after being exposed for their inaccuracies. They seem to have convinced themselves that they possess the ability to discern genuine expertise, leading them to believe that such experts do not require thorough vetting.

mmooss 1y ago
> now expressing indignation Who is expressing indignation? > They seem to have convinced themselves that they possess the ability to discern genuine expertise, leading them to believe that such experts do not require thorough vetting. Speaking of careful reporting, can you back that up? Their ability to evaluate seems pretty good, as we rarely see stories like this one.
- WaitWaitWha 1y ago
  My deepest apologies for insufficiently distilling my thoughts for you. > Who is expressing indignation? The media is irate and resentful for having been flummoxed by some no-good knave. (third paragraph of the article notes several of them - Vogue, Metro, Cosmopolitan, the i newspaper, the Express, Hello!, the Telegraph, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail, the Sun, and the BBC) > Speaking of careful reporting, can you back that up? > Their ability to evaluate seems pretty good, as we rarely see stories like this one. I beg to differ, and since i am very bored, I had the 3 minutes to find these. In 2019, Metro published a story about a "haunted" doll, later criticized for lack of verification; the article was quietly removed from their website after public backlash. A 2015 Cosmopolitan article on beauty trends was pulled after it misrepresented cultural practices without proper research. The i newspaper in their 2021 article on Brexit was heavily criticized for unverified claims about trade disruptions. In 2018, the Express removed an article claiming a celebrity’s health scare without sufficient evidence, following legal threats. In 2017, a Hello! story about a royal family event was withdrawn online after inaccuracies about attendees were exposed. The Daily Star's article in 2016 about a UFO sighting was removed after it was revealed to be based on a hoax. In 2017, the Daily Mail retracted a story about an immigrant crime wave after data was found to be misrepresented. The Sun withdrew in 2015 a front-page story claiming a celebrity scandal after evidence was debunked. Aaaand, here I ran out of bourbon. I mean, I stopped pulling together the BBC articles that had to be withdrawn so I am just giving up the pleasure of finding them to you. > Their ability to evaluate seems pretty good, as we rarely see stories like this one. It is no great mystery why journalists so rarely turn their pens against their own. In a profession already fading into irrelevance, its influence waning, its audience drifting elsewhere, few are eager to hasten the decline by airing their own failings. Pride and self-preservation conspire to maintain a hollow façade of credibility, even as the foundations rot away. Better, it seems, to pretend the edifice still stands strong than to admit it is already half-forgotten.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > The media is irate and resentful for having been flummoxed by some no-good knave. (third paragraph of the article notes several of them - Vogue, Metro, Cosmopolitan, the i newspaper, the Express, Hello!, the Telegraph, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail, the Sun, and the BBC) The third paragraph says nothing about irate or resentful (see below), nor does any other part of the article. Did you - the great journalism critic - fabricate it? The case has been described as a wake-up call for newsrooms, as AI tools make it far easier for bad actors to invent supposed experts for their own purposes. Santini’s output has been prolific, with comments in Vogue, Metro, Cosmopolitan, the i newspaper, the Express, Hello!, the Telegraph, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail and the Sun in recent years. She was also quoted in an article for the BBC’s international site, BBC.com. > I beg to differ, and since i am very bored, I had the 3 minutes to find these. ... There are thousands of articles a day, maybe tens of thousands, in the high-quality professional media. You naming a few with errors from a ten years period doesn't amount to much. > It is no great mystery why journalists so rarely turn their pens against their own. A conspiracy! Do you have evidence? You criticize the journalists for a lack of accuracy and research - where is yours? Here's some evidence the other way: Fox constantly attacks publications that differ politically; Fox's errors are reported widely; today's NYT reports on a libel suit against itself; regarding this particular error: "Questions over Santini were first raised by the Press Gazette." How do you know about the errors? Where did you find the errors listed above?
    - WaitWaitWha 1y ago
      Ah, ye're a feisty one, ain’t ye? Lots o' questions, but few answers. I would love to dwell into this, alas as i wrote, I am out of bourbon so cannot untangle your relative privation, tu quoque, and what-aboutism.
      - mmooss 1y ago
        I make clear factual claims and show the evidence. You not only don't address anything on that level, you can't even find the right cheap insults.

levocardia 1y ago

Except the bar is even lower -- instead of walking three blocks to a bodega for a sandwich, the standard here is just google her to make sure she's actually an Oxford-affiliated expert! It would take like three seconds!