5 ms·

I've done a fair amount of data-intensive fact checking for journalism articles and have had fact checking done on my own data-intensive reporting. Couple thin

by chaps 1y ago

I've done a fair amount of data-intensive fact checking for journalism articles and have had fact checking done on my own data-intensive reporting. Couple things: 1. Fact checkers are not paid enough to do what they do. They're usually freelancers and they're usually financially struggling. The dynamics of that are difficult to say the least. 2. Editors change things last minute without informing the journalist whose name the piece is in. It's really not fun to receive threats of lawsuit from a powerful government agency because your editor added something that you never would have added. Once told an editor in-writing three times not to add something and he did it right before publishing. It sucks being a journalist. Donate to your local investigative newsroom.

ffsm8 1y ago
> It sucks being a journalist. Donate to your local investigative newsroom. That sounds like absolutely atrocious living conditions for the journalists employed by such a news room. Honestly, at that point - look for a different job! I'm not saying this to be mean, I am just picturing myself in such a working relationship of being employed by an organization working in an industry which is hemorrhaging valuation because of various developments like AI (but even before that it was going downhill). You will be happier doing something else! At that point, learn a trade or similar. You'll be better paid, have a more stable lifestyle and will feel happier long term, even if you love being a journalist now. Sorry to be such a downer, but hearing messages like that gives me flashbacks to people getting exploited - and I bet ya that the owner of that newsroom will not be suffering like the journalists. You're sacrificing your own happiness in life for another person's wealth gain - just because you thought it was "worth doing" in your 20s. Because yes, money maybe doesn't buy happiness, but it sure as hell gets you an incredible amount of stress if it's absent.
- chaps 1y ago
  I'm no longer doing journalism as my main gig and I'm much healthier these days thankfully. Use this energy to consider donating to a newsroom. :)
lynx97 1y ago
So you're saying the pay is poor, and your coworkers deliberately fuck you over for their own gains. That pretty much sounds like a job you should stay away from by any cost. Do something else, something productive that doesnt lead to a bunch of lies being sold as truths.
- chaps 1y ago
  These problems are largely economic. Donate to your local investigative newsroom.
  - lynx97 1y ago
    I once sat on a table nearby of the local investigative newsroom crew having a chat in a cafe. The vibe I got was so evil, I definitely wouldn't give them any of my money. In fact, I have given up on the concept of independent journalism, I just dont believe anymore it is happening. Knowing the onwership structure of the publishers in my country (and many others around me) also adds to the unwillingness to donate. They are all inconservative hands, and are being used to push agendas.
    - chaps 1y ago
      I think a lot of what you're seeing is people being people rather than journalists being journalists. Sometimes gallows humor is the only thing you can do for yourself while you're looking through brutal, terrifying reports of abuse for hours and hours.
      - lynx97 1y ago
        It seems like you're suggesting I am not capable of putting things I overheard in context? Please don't. I am well aware of the difference between sarcasm and deliberate manipulation. To keep things grounded, almost nobody bites the hand that feeds 'em. Whistleblowing or swimming against the stream, while being celebrated whenever it happens, is a very low minority in any profession. If your boss tells you where things are supposed to go, you might grind your teeth, and maybe bitch about it to your friends, but chances are high you will comply. Journalists are no different.
projektfu 1y ago
How much does it cost to check one fact? If you check just one, and it's wrong, it's probably not worth treating the whole as an accurate piece of reporting. If BBC had checked just one fact in the slop, they could easily decide that it's not worth republishing.
- chaps 1y ago
  Why do you focus on "one fact"? Reporting, fact checking, editing is a fluid project that changes as the piece progresses. What needs fact checking in one draft is very different from what needs fact checking in another draft. And like I said, editors make changes that the fact checkers never see. Again, these are economic problems. Donate to your local investigative newsroom.
  - projektfu 1y ago
    The OP is about a news org basically republishing a viral text its people didn't write. There is no particular need to check every most of the facts like the OP did when a quick glance tells you that it's unreliable.
    - chaps 1y ago
      Sure, but my point wasn't to refute the article in any way. More of a preemption of people saying, "this is why journalism sucks!!" without understanding the dynamics of why things are the way they are. Everything fuckin' sucks, it's not just journalism.
martin-t 1y ago
> Once told an editor in-writing three times not to add something and he did it right before publishing. This should be illegal. If people were able to propose laws and vote on them directly, it would be, be a landslide. The number of people who benefit from this is tiny compares to the number who are harmed. But it's nearly impossible to pass things like this because people vote for parties and are therefore several levers removed from influencing actual laws.
- cess11 1y ago
  How would you criminalise it? Currently journalists are free to not sell their immaterial rights under these conditions where they're transfered to a corporation that puts an editor between them and the publish button.
  - fph 1y ago
    The name at the top of the article is still the journalist's. They might be selling (through ads or a subscription) an article written by a Pulitzer winner, but in fact it is partly written by an editor, and the journalist hasn't even checked it. Isn't it like selling "beef" lasagnas that contain horse meat?
    - chaps 1y ago
      I dunno about that analogy, but the fix for this is for editors to be included in the byline, or at least at the bottom where contributors are often found. Some newsrooms have started doing this but it should absolutely be more common. But as things are, we have newsrooms whose editorial boards are completely anonymous so i don't expect anything to change in the industry anytime soon.
    - cess11 1y ago
      Usually, at least in the US, when a journalist does not want to have their name on an article any longer it is removed. Infamously this happened somewhat recently at NYT, where after doing a decent report on something israeli the editors felt that there was a risk it might make readers less genocidal so they made rather sweeping changes and hence the journalists had their names removed.
Self-Perfection 1y ago
Uhm is it possible to mitigate second point by publishing encrypted article in social network along with is sending it to the agency to assign it timestamp? Or maybe in any blockchain if one does not like social networks. Then if journalist does not like how mangled was his piece on publishing he can disclose encryption password to show everyone what he actually wrote in the article?
adolph 1y ago
Factcheckers are QA. If there is anything for them to do, then the publisher has failed by not providing the writer with tooling for establishing unit and integration tests for all information within an article.

by chaps 1y ago

ffsm8 1y ago

> It sucks being a journalist. Donate to your local investigative newsroom. That sounds like absolutely atrocious living conditions for the journalists employed by such a news room. Honestly, at that point - look for a different job! I'm not saying this to be mean, I am just picturing myself in such a working relationship of being employed by an organization working in an industry which is hemorrhaging valuation because of various developments like AI (but even before that it was going downhill). You will be happier doing something else! At that point, learn a trade or similar. You'll be better paid, have a more stable lifestyle and will feel happier long term, even if you love being a journalist now. Sorry to be such a downer, but hearing messages like that gives me flashbacks to people getting exploited - and I bet ya that the owner of that newsroom will not be suffering like the journalists. You're sacrificing your own happiness in life for another person's wealth gain - just because you thought it was "worth doing" in your 20s. Because yes, money maybe doesn't buy happiness, but it sure as hell gets you an incredible amount of stress if it's absent.

chaps 1y ago
I'm no longer doing journalism as my main gig and I'm much healthier these days thankfully. Use this energy to consider donating to a newsroom. :)

lynx97 1y ago

So you're saying the pay is poor, and your coworkers deliberately fuck you over for their own gains. That pretty much sounds like a job you should stay away from by any cost. Do something else, something productive that doesnt lead to a bunch of lies being sold as truths.

chaps 1y ago
These problems are largely economic. Donate to your local investigative newsroom.
- lynx97 1y ago
  I once sat on a table nearby of the local investigative newsroom crew having a chat in a cafe. The vibe I got was so evil, I definitely wouldn't give them any of my money. In fact, I have given up on the concept of independent journalism, I just dont believe anymore it is happening. Knowing the onwership structure of the publishers in my country (and many others around me) also adds to the unwillingness to donate. They are all inconservative hands, and are being used to push agendas.
  - chaps 1y ago
    I think a lot of what you're seeing is people being people rather than journalists being journalists. Sometimes gallows humor is the only thing you can do for yourself while you're looking through brutal, terrifying reports of abuse for hours and hours.
    - lynx97 1y ago
      It seems like you're suggesting I am not capable of putting things I overheard in context? Please don't. I am well aware of the difference between sarcasm and deliberate manipulation. To keep things grounded, almost nobody bites the hand that feeds 'em. Whistleblowing or swimming against the stream, while being celebrated whenever it happens, is a very low minority in any profession. If your boss tells you where things are supposed to go, you might grind your teeth, and maybe bitch about it to your friends, but chances are high you will comply. Journalists are no different.

projektfu 1y ago

How much does it cost to check one fact? If you check just one, and it's wrong, it's probably not worth treating the whole as an accurate piece of reporting. If BBC had checked just one fact in the slop, they could easily decide that it's not worth republishing.

chaps 1y ago
Why do you focus on "one fact"? Reporting, fact checking, editing is a fluid project that changes as the piece progresses. What needs fact checking in one draft is very different from what needs fact checking in another draft. And like I said, editors make changes that the fact checkers never see. Again, these are economic problems. Donate to your local investigative newsroom.
- projektfu 1y ago
  The OP is about a news org basically republishing a viral text its people didn't write. There is no particular need to check every most of the facts like the OP did when a quick glance tells you that it's unreliable.
  - chaps 1y ago
    Sure, but my point wasn't to refute the article in any way. More of a preemption of people saying, "this is why journalism sucks!!" without understanding the dynamics of why things are the way they are. Everything fuckin' sucks, it's not just journalism.

martin-t 1y ago

> Once told an editor in-writing three times not to add something and he did it right before publishing. This should be illegal. If people were able to propose laws and vote on them directly, it would be, be a landslide. The number of people who benefit from this is tiny compares to the number who are harmed. But it's nearly impossible to pass things like this because people vote for parties and are therefore several levers removed from influencing actual laws.

cess11 1y ago
How would you criminalise it? Currently journalists are free to not sell their immaterial rights under these conditions where they're transfered to a corporation that puts an editor between them and the publish button.
- fph 1y ago
  The name at the top of the article is still the journalist's. They might be selling (through ads or a subscription) an article written by a Pulitzer winner, but in fact it is partly written by an editor, and the journalist hasn't even checked it. Isn't it like selling "beef" lasagnas that contain horse meat?
  - chaps 1y ago
    I dunno about that analogy, but the fix for this is for editors to be included in the byline, or at least at the bottom where contributors are often found. Some newsrooms have started doing this but it should absolutely be more common. But as things are, we have newsrooms whose editorial boards are completely anonymous so i don't expect anything to change in the industry anytime soon.
  - cess11 1y ago
    Usually, at least in the US, when a journalist does not want to have their name on an article any longer it is removed. Infamously this happened somewhat recently at NYT, where after doing a decent report on something israeli the editors felt that there was a risk it might make readers less genocidal so they made rather sweeping changes and hence the journalists had their names removed.

Self-Perfection 1y ago

Uhm is it possible to mitigate second point by publishing encrypted article in social network along with is sending it to the agency to assign it timestamp? Or maybe in any blockchain if one does not like social networks. Then if journalist does not like how mangled was his piece on publishing he can disclose encryption password to show everyone what he actually wrote in the article?

adolph 1y ago

Factcheckers are QA. If there is anything for them to do, then the publisher has failed by not providing the writer with tooling for establishing unit and integration tests for all information within an article.