565 karma · joined October 16, 2018
When truth is communicated it is the product of the system that produces it. In our system, that truth serves a specific set of individuals, insitutions, and social relations. This isn't an explicit process it is inherent in human relations.
There is no way to "fix" the production of news and truth. What we can improve is how people consume the news
On this specific issue, the original question wasn't "is this speculation" it was "are they presenting this statement as fact". They are not presenting it as fact, it is clearly identified as a quote from a government official.
However, someone with poor reading skills might interpret it as such, which gets back to the original point that the focus should be on improving how people consume the news, not in trying to fix a problem that (imo) cannot be solved.
edit: can't reply to your latest comment. It sounds like your position is now that no one should be allowed to voice opinions about hypothetical situations because that is not a fact. Is expert opinion not a legitimate part of a news story? Or are you saying that the way they presented their opinion made it seem like a fact? I don't agree with either intrepretation.
People are misinterpreting the news. It seems like your position is to blame the news, and you seem to think this is a new issue.
My position is that this is an inherent factor in production and consumption of the news. Books like Manufacturing Consent, and The Condition of Postmodernity are important to understanding this view and the social processes that support it. A classic example is the reporting on the sinking of the Maine more than 100 years ago.
I don't think that forcing news agencies or social media companies to change is a real solution. The solution lies in improving people's ability to read news critically across all mediums and to understand the context of media and social conversation and how it subtly serves those in power.
Lastly, I don't agree with your characterization of very standard reporting practices as "presenting speculation as fact" and I've clearly explained why above.
This will be my last comment in the thread. Thanks for engaging.
I wouldn't describe an expert's opinion as "speculation". Maybe it's becuase you don't agree with their opinion that you see it that way?
Where I disagree is that I think it's the job of each of us as consumers of news to do the work of critically assessing what we read.
I don't think its about fixing the news, because I don't think thats possible. I think we need to focus on improving people's relationship with the news.
You may have an issue with that source's opinion, but that's different from having an issue with Politico.
Your attitude seems very close to a position that we can never truly know anything.
which led me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests
Its sources are the very articles that are being criticized in this thread.
Wikipedia isn't a news gathering organization. It aggregates information collected by others.
The reason we could criticize it in the first place is that it's clearly the opinion of an official who Politico judged as a credible expert on the matter of how these issues are commonly handled.
Is it reasonable to compare this article to a wikipedia article? The publishing time frame and the number of people involved are way different. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source for current events. It isn't journalism.
Maybe more importantly, is Wikpedia really an objective or fair look at an issue? For sandals sure, but look up a controversial event page and I bet things start to seem more questionable. That's a point where the reputation of a newspaper is an advantage over Wikpedia because at wikipedia, each page, each sentence can have a different author with a different viewpoint or agenda.
Is the author as important as the publication itself? The editors are the ones making final decisions on things. For example, The Economist doesn't even use bylines. Journalists see themselves as researchers more than authors. The role of the "Author" if there is one is the editor.
An exhuastively cited and sourced article is difficult to read. The narrative is easily lost, and the source content is skipped over by most readers. And you still need to spend a lot of time combing through the source matter for it to be a meaningful improvement over an unsourced article
Last, journalists rely on an idea of common knowledge. They aren't going to provide sourcing on a commmonly reported facts like "stingray-like devices have been found near the whitehouse". That isn't as true in academia where citations probably would be used for that type of fact.
Overall, I'm not unsimpathetic to what you and OP are saying, I think with the internet news media could link articles and sources together better for easier validation.
However, the idea that this type of stuff can eliminate the need for a high level of engagement with the news, critical thinking skills, I don't agree with.
Citations, (IMHO) aren't a solution to this because human judgement is inherent in explaining human behavior and events.
I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work.
I agree that it's a lot of work, but I don't see an alternative to critically engaging with reporting on human events.
Delillo and Cormac McCarthy are two current authors I would expect to be read 100 years from now.
ID in the us is a huge pita. There no reason to require it for voting anyway, fraud isn't a real problem. it's just a good way to prevent poor people from voting.