• OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    2 days ago

    News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet (even if they publish more “boring” stories that aren’t as “up to date”): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

    I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. Wikipedia does, but it happens on discussion pages and it relies on human editors who know where those discussions happened to string it together

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. […]

      While that’s good data to have, I think that any claims should be immediately verifiable. I think it’s a disservice to the truth and public discourse to rely on appeals to authority for trust in one’s published news. Imo, an argument is either sound or unsound — an atomic claim is either accurate or inaccurate.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      […] I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. […]

      It’s not immediately clear to me what you mean. Are you referring to increased transparency when a news outlet makes a mistake? Are you referring to legal action? Are you referring to something else?

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Hard to believe that when I’ve seen many of the “historically reputable” sources on that list flagrantly lying and spreading pro genocide props over the past 13 months

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Being pro genocide is an opinion technically. If you have a “flagrant lie”, however, please post it. There was another wanker in the thread who claimed equal grand claims of lies but failed to come up with a link showing an actual lie

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              24 hours ago

              Well good. Luck with that, but my experience trying to get changes through on Wikipedia is that it just takes one person with an agenda to stubbornly go “nuh-uh” and there nothing you can do about it

              • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                24 hours ago

                I used to edit Wikipedia for a long time, so I know what you’re saying - but if you’re actually correct, you’ll generally win (may require pinging some other people who know you to come in to mediate)

          • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            24 hours ago

            So I read through this, and unfortunately there’s nothing concrete. Every error has been corrected, and the errors that remain are opinion pieces which can’t be listed as a source on Wikipedia. Due to WP:RECENT, this means no place where Wikipedia refers to the New York Times as a source will be asserting incorrect information.

            This probably isn’t the response you want, but that’s the truth about their reporting.

            Edit: If you still want to try and bring it up, this is what I had written in my draft:

            The following article has been brought to my attention: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2024.2394292#abstract
            
            While the issues raised in this paper tend to focus on bias, and factual errors were later corrected in many cases (which should be suffice due to WP:RECENT), the section of "Misquoting Israeli leaders" refers to multiple errors in reporting from the New York Times that remain uncorrected.
            
            ~~~~
            

            (This is before I noticed the uncorrected parts are Opinion pieces, so I stopped)

            You can post it here, but you will probably be shut down for the same reasons I mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

    • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      That is a good recipe for sneaking lies into the newspaper. Journalists should just be doing their job.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Was about to post this list, it’s a very good overall quick reference. It correctly identifies most of the tabloids posing as “real” newspapers, too.

    • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s a balance to hit in article sharing communities too.
      Too much leniency, and you just end up with people posting DMG articles, and tiny un-sourced blogs with snazzy titles.
      Too tough, and you end up spending your entire life justifying why various borderline sources are not suitable.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 hours ago

        […] Too much leniency, and you just end up with people posting […] tiny un-sourced blogs with snazzy titles. […]

        Imo, in a perfect world, if everyone cited their sources, there would be a perfect chain of sources that leads directly to the original. If one collectively cited source was found to be inaccurate, then, logically, all connected references would be nullified.

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      LoL. I guess manufacturing consent for wars does absolutely nothing to harm their credibility. This list is dogshit.

      The New York Times has been a full-throated government mouthpiece since at least 9/11. At this point, Teen Vogue has more credibility.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            This person thinks that Ukraine invaded Russia, FYI.

            […] that doesn’t make them wrong […]

            Nice catch of their strawman 😉

        • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          NAFO bot has arrived to defend the military industrial complex with lies. Right on schedule.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I don’t even know what a NAFO is but sure. Everyone but you is a robot. Is reality even real? Do the snozberries taste like snozberries? Are we really breathing or is the air forcing us to live?

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you have evidence of them lying, you’re more than welcome to submit that on the discussion pages. I don’t know which articles you’re referring to, but given my historical knowledge of wars in the Middle-East, they likely sourced US mouthpieces or analysts, rather than making the claims themself

        • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          LoL. Are people unaware of the NYT’s culpability?

          Acting as a stenographer for the state isn’t “journalism.”

            • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              2 days ago

              If I tell him the sky is blue, and he asked for a source, am I obligated to provide that as well?

              I’m not going to play along with bad faith questioning of common knowledge.

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                22 hours ago

                If I tell him the sky is blue, and he asked for a source, am I obligated to provide that as well? […]

                Imo, while not exactly proper science, a quick source for such a claim could be a simple color photo of the sky.

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                24 hours ago

                […] I’m not going to play along with bad faith questioning of common knowledge.

                Leaving aside the “bad faith questioning” component, how would you handle requests for proof of what you are calling “common knowledge” in general?

              • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                You’ll find “common knowledge” is surprisingly hard to prove when you’re wrong. Wikipedia is a big place, if you can find concrete evidence of NYT lying, you can do a lot of reputational damage to them (even as so far as getting them removed as an acceptable source)

                • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Seeing a lot of bots defend Wikipedia the past couple months. Is that because it’s so easily manipulated by y’all?

                  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    24 hours ago

                    Seeing a lot of bots defend Wikipedia the past couple months. […]

                    How are you determining that they are bots? Would you, by chance, have any examples?