4 ms·
You can always find examples. But it's a question of frequency. I can turn on Fox and in 1 second hear a falsehood. The key is the process ... NPR, BBC, PBS alw
by jaybrendansmith 1y ago
You can always find examples. But it's a question of frequency. I can turn on Fox and in 1 second hear a falsehood. The key is the process ... NPR, BBC, PBS always have to show their sources and are required to have verification of sources. That's how news used to work, but now it doesn't in the 24-hour infotainment cycle. The fact that these public sources must have 2 sources means 99% of what they report is accurate. And when they get it wrong, they print retractions. Until we get back to these journalistic ethics, we will have a public that believes black is white. Somebody must like that.
- tekknik 1y agoHow does showing sources equate to correctness? If you use false or biased sources then the problem still exists yes?
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoEverything comes down to statistics. There are no perfect solutions. But showing multiple sources reduces the obvious errors to an error margin that ensures most people are well-informed. And they have to be real, verified sources, not facebook posts or tweets.
- tekknik 1y agoSo if those multiple sources are all biased, like news media tends to be, then really you’re masquerading as having balanced sources that prove your point yet they’re all biased. Right?
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoIt's called journalistic ethics. Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_ethics_in_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_ethics_in_media https://www.npr.org/ethics https://www.npr.org/ethics https://www.pbs.org/standards/accuracy/ https://www.pbs.org/standards/accuracy/ https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies/codeofconduct https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies/codeofcondu...
- mike_hearn 1y agoYou need to double check all your beliefs about the media before continuing this thread. There's no nice way to say this, but your posts have been a stream of totally made up "facts" that are making this discussion worse. - You claimed Fox never reported on the stock market crash, something easily disproved with a five second web search. - You claimed having two sources yields 99% accuracy, a made up number. - You claimed NPR, BBC and PBS have to show their sources, although they regularly report single-sourced or anonymously sourced stories. - You claim you can hear a falsehood within one second of turning on Fox. You're in the habit of routinely inventing numbers whilst criticizing others for perceived failures to be accurate. Given you're talking about the importance of an informed populace that's ironic and embarrassing.
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoSo you are stating flatly that Fox has the same journalistic ethics as NPR and BBC? Really? That's your argument? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears." - Orwell.