Thank-you for the very enjoyable read, but I can't quite make out the main points. Definitely listing ingredients and their amounts on products we consume and use is incredibly important, and one reason I stay away from the "Big Natural" health industry. But fact-checkers in journalism are essential, no? In spite of Substack etc, I still…
Thank-you for the very enjoyable read, but I can't quite make out the main points. Definitely listing ingredients and their amounts on products we consume and use is incredibly important, and one reason I stay away from the "Big Natural" health industry. But fact-checkers in journalism are essential, no? In spite of Substack etc, I still enjoy reading several journo's from the main-stream media, and would trust their news stories over what I hear on social media any day. I'm sorry but not surprised that Meta and the rest are abandoning a hopeless task, but also hope fact-checking is not given up everywhere, tiresome Trump-hating lie-counters regardless.
It's a bit buried in there, but there's a distinction between fact-checking as a core tenet of journalism — either as a part of, or in addition to, reporting — and "the fact check" we've popularized over the past 10 years or so. (i.e. the baloney meter.) The former is indispensible. The latter, I think, we should dispense with.
Back to academia's methods (eye-rolls circle the room), there are publications that go on and on about the virtues of St. John's Warts or whatever, but the Lancet never cites those journals.
Journalists seem unable to cast-out anyone who even claims to be one, as engineers and doctors absolutely do.
We all get that casting-out individuals from a designation of "registered journalist" is not going to happen, but that strikes me as quite do-able as a voluntary association that the publication can join if it meets standards, like the Better Business Bureau.
I really think that news sites should form such an association. Fox and National Post would both get in, because they have some thin line between their fact and opinion, do walk-back errors.
But the Hydroxychloroquine vendors and 9/11 truthers would at least be designated as "not even trying to be accurate".
Thank-you for the very enjoyable read, but I can't quite make out the main points. Definitely listing ingredients and their amounts on products we consume and use is incredibly important, and one reason I stay away from the "Big Natural" health industry. But fact-checkers in journalism are essential, no? In spite of Substack etc, I still enjoy reading several journo's from the main-stream media, and would trust their news stories over what I hear on social media any day. I'm sorry but not surprised that Meta and the rest are abandoning a hopeless task, but also hope fact-checking is not given up everywhere, tiresome Trump-hating lie-counters regardless.
It's a bit buried in there, but there's a distinction between fact-checking as a core tenet of journalism — either as a part of, or in addition to, reporting — and "the fact check" we've popularized over the past 10 years or so. (i.e. the baloney meter.) The former is indispensible. The latter, I think, we should dispense with.
Back to academia's methods (eye-rolls circle the room), there are publications that go on and on about the virtues of St. John's Warts or whatever, but the Lancet never cites those journals.
Journalists seem unable to cast-out anyone who even claims to be one, as engineers and doctors absolutely do.
We all get that casting-out individuals from a designation of "registered journalist" is not going to happen, but that strikes me as quite do-able as a voluntary association that the publication can join if it meets standards, like the Better Business Bureau.
I really think that news sites should form such an association. Fox and National Post would both get in, because they have some thin line between their fact and opinion, do walk-back errors.
But the Hydroxychloroquine vendors and 9/11 truthers would at least be designated as "not even trying to be accurate".
Ah, I understand.
If I wasn't a mature, sober adult I *might* say something like ... But, but, Trump started it! It's all his fault! Haha...