• 43 Posts
  • 195 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle





  • There are different standards in different fields of knowledge. Medical science is different than journalism, which is different from history, which is different from public safety.

    In general, a given field has sources that publish information with the highest standard of credibility. In many fields, these are peer-reviewed journals. They may be published by large universities (Harvard Law Review, Oxford Review of Economic Policy), by government bodies (e.g. Smithsonian Magazine, NIHR), by professional organizations (eg. JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine), or operate independently (e.g. The Lancet, Nature).





  • It does appear to be the case. This article is peppered excessively with antisemitic dog whistles. One or two could be a coincidence but this is something else entirely.

    • “Cabal”
    • “billionaire class”
    • “Santa Claus” (depicting a literal war on Christmas)
    • “imaginary surge in “campus antisemitism.””

    The entire premise of the article is that evil Zionists sabotaged the American left and manipulated the election, which is itself an antisemitic trope.

    The whole point of using dog whistles is to create a sort of plausible deniability. I’m sorry, but in this case it seems like they slipped one by you.






























  • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.worldCommunity Feedback
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The point of using credible news sources is that they are expected to do that work to a high journalistic standard before publication. I trust the worst New York Times Reporter a thousand times more than anon111lulz@lemm.wtf, no matter what evidence they might bring to prove or disprove a New York Times article. Making determination of facts and evidence the responsibility of the users, myself included, doesn’t seem like a recipe for anything good. I am not a trained journalist and you shouldn’t expect me as a user to be able to operate to journalistic standards. If we can’t trust journalism, then why are we following a news sharing sub?

    The wisdom of the crowd is not the same as mob rule.


  • MBFC seems like a good minimum standard. I find it usually comes into play as a rule when someone is posting propaganda or sensationalism from fringe websites.

    If a story is not being reported in any better quality source then maybe it’s just not factual and newsworthy?

    I would prefer a whitelist rather than a blacklist because there are so many low quality “news” blogs out there. But it still begs the question of who will choose and how they will make the decision. It risks placing a big burden on the mods, a lot of unnecessary bans for arguing with mods about decisions that they maybe shouldn’t be in the position to make.

    Why pit the users and mods against each other unnecessarily and risk creating an echo chamber rather than a news aggregator. I trust people here to find and elevate interesting stories that I wouldn’t get from just, say, an RSS feed. I would guess that’s a big reason a lot of people follow.