Re Anatomy of a false news story (NYT)

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () gmail com>
> Date: November 23, 2016 at 12:39:31 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () listbox com>
> Cc: Roger Bohn <Rbohn () ucsd edu>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Anatomy of a false news story (NYT)
>
> > On 11/22/2016 10:53 AM, Dave Farber wrote:
> > Mr. Tucker, who had taken photos of a large group of buses he saw
> > near downtown Austin earlier in the day because he thought it was
> > unusual, saw reports of protests against Mr. Trump in the city and
> > decided the two were connected.
>
> Strictly speaking, this was not 'false news', in that the author thought
> he was propagating legitimate information and even thought that he was
> in a unique position to formulate it.  This seemed to justify
> propagating it.
>
> However, of course, it was problematic in the same way that
> /intentionally/ false news would be.  And the article notes this point.
>
> Hence the interesting question is one that isn't even raised by the
> article -- since it is explicitly focused on the how and not the why -- which concerns the uptake, not the sequence 
> of generations, of incompetent news.
>
>
> > “I did think in the back of my mind there could be other
> > explanations, but it just didn’t seem plausible,” he said in an
> > interview
> ...
> > He added, “I’m also a very busy businessman and I don’t have time to
> > fact-check everything that I put out there,
>
> Herein lies the essence of the generation problem:  a lack of rigorous journalistic practice -- also often missing 
> from professional journalists, these days.  Alas.
>
>
> > “You’re the second journalist to actually call me to see what was
> > going on, no bloggers or anything, and we’re easily accessible on our
> > website,” Mr. Hughes said.
> >
> > He added, “I just kind of wish people looked into facts before they
> > go ahead and do something like that, because it could be easily
> > debunked based on a quick phone call or two, or a couple emails.”
>
> There have always been sources of crappy 'information'.  The problem now is that it is so easy to disseminate it and 
> readers are not critical consumers.
>
> It probably is not possible to make most readers consume more carefully.
>
> But perhaps it is possible to help those who want to, by formulating a means of registering formal journalism sites, 
> assessing their conformance to a set of professional practices, and marking their postings distinctively.
>
> That last point assumes that readers will note the marking, but human factors usability experience with 
> anti-spam-related markings for email are not encouraging in that regard.
>
> However, there does not seem to be a good alternative, other than outright censorship.  I'll hope that no one would 
> take that choice seriously.
>
> d/
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20161123184928:76C6F4FC-B1D7-11E6-9089-EF22E268705D
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com