Read on Twitter
Whew, right now is hard.
Thought it might be useful to show my work - how I judge credibility of a news story (esp. when horrific). Art not science & I learned it all from my heroes. I do this in my head, but for clarity I’ll use Hogwarts House Points.
Thought it might be useful to show my work - how I judge credibility of a news story (esp. when horrific). Art not science & I learned it all from my heroes. I do this in my head, but for clarity I’ll use Hogwarts House Points.
And yes we all get tricked.
We want a thing to be true/not true. there is an ocean of misinformation online, so waiting to see how a story ladders up = smart. But some day, you may have to make a fast decision on a first read. So here we go.
Add tips if u got em!
We want a thing to be true/not true. there is an ocean of misinformation online, so waiting to see how a story ladders up = smart. But some day, you may have to make a fast decision on a first read. So here we go. Add tips if u got em!
SOURCES:
An official whistleblower comes forward at great personal risk:
+50 for Gryffindor
(See, Vindman, Wooten, others)
They may lose their job, dirt about their life will be published & their personal safety may be at risk. They are *not* doing this for giggles.
An official whistleblower comes forward at great personal risk:
+50 for Gryffindor
(See, Vindman, Wooten, others)
They may lose their job, dirt about their life will be published & their personal safety may be at risk. They are *not* doing this for giggles.
Source leaks classified info, goes to jail (Winner, Manning). The “why” is matters-do they work for another country (spy) radicalized by a state/non-state actor or just their own kind of idealist. If 3, then +25 points from me. +5 if they got burned by a careless media outlet.
A named source: +20 baseline points. They’re saying something out loud w their name attached = good, but sources come in all shapes & credibilities.
(We’ll get to anonymous sources in a bit)
(We’ll get to anonymous sources in a bit)
Additional questions to ask about named sources:
Do they work in the direct subject area or study it? +5
What do they gain/lose by being quoted?
Are they a spokesperson? if so, cool, now u know their position. +5 for true statements.
Do they work in the direct subject area or study it? +5
What do they gain/lose by being quoted?
Are they a spokesperson? if so, cool, now u know their position. +5 for true statements.
PUBLICATIONS, OLD.
Established print, broadcast: +15 points (this # used to be higher)
Eg: NYT, WaPo, CBS, NPR, WSJ
These orgs still have $$ for editors, fact checkers, beat reporting, lawyers, robust internal debate.
Caveats include:
Established print, broadcast: +15 points (this # used to be higher)
Eg: NYT, WaPo, CBS, NPR, WSJ
These orgs still have $$ for editors, fact checkers, beat reporting, lawyers, robust internal debate.
Caveats include:
TV / Radio: Has a government entity threatened their broadcast license and they still broadcast their report? +5
Did they cave bc of corporate pressure? -5
In fact, take away .5 for every layer of corporate ownership.
Do they have an independent public editor? +10
Did they cave bc of corporate pressure? -5
In fact, take away .5 for every layer of corporate ownership.
Do they have an independent public editor? +10
Print:
Do they treat other regions, countries like odd curiosities for New Yorkers to talk about at brunch? -1000 points. You lost the House Cup.
If a sole owner, who, what’s their record on employment issues, & do they meddle a lot w publication? (If all bad -10)
Do they treat other regions, countries like odd curiosities for New Yorkers to talk about at brunch? -1000 points. You lost the House Cup.
If a sole owner, who, what’s their record on employment issues, & do they meddle a lot w publication? (If all bad -10)
Other q’s: How often have they fumbled a story so bad that it became a story & got added to like, journalism textbooks? -10 if more than 1 per decade.
Do you know their POV on objective reporting? Do you know yours? What’s the difference between objective and accurate?
Do you know their POV on objective reporting? Do you know yours? What’s the difference between objective and accurate?
How does objectivity erase people of color and other communities? Have you read @LewisPants books on this subject? Here is a handy link. https://www.lewispants.com/
Someone please jump in w the British papers. I can not.
DIGITAL PUBLICATIONS: Now we get to it.
There are digital first publications doing great fookin’ work right now. They come in all shapes, sizes and yes, credibilities. They are often younger entities, younger reporters, but that does not make them less responsible!
There are digital first publications doing great fookin’ work right now. They come in all shapes, sizes and yes, credibilities. They are often younger entities, younger reporters, but that does not make them less responsible!
It’s also super easy to make a fake publication look legit (especially on social)
So...all the above questions apply + Can u easily figure out who owns the site? What’s their journo background? A great example would be law & crime dot com which sounds kinda fake but is not
So...all the above questions apply + Can u easily figure out who owns the site? What’s their journo background? A great example would be law & crime dot com which sounds kinda fake but is not
In fact law and crime dot com is owned by someone w a long history of reporting on the topic.
https://lawandcrime.com/
It’s hard when lesser known digital sites break news or are in the early pack w/o those traditional journo orgs as cover. Here’s how I decided
2 days ago. https://twitter.com/jenniej23/status/1305665624987676672
https://lawandcrime.com/
It’s hard when lesser known digital sites break news or are in the early pack w/o those traditional journo orgs as cover. Here’s how I decided
2 days ago. https://twitter.com/jenniej23/status/1305665624987676672
If you feel unsure about a publication, reporter or named source my best bet is so a duck duck go search for “X name, problematic”. Works almost every time.
I gotta go make dinner now but feel free to jump in especially if you work/worked in journalism.
I gotta go make dinner now but feel free to jump in especially if you work/worked in journalism.
Ok I made (ordered) dinner.
Let’s talk about reporters. I love them all (unless they’re grabbers, liars, plagiarists or psychopaths). Why do they even do this journalism shit? It’s so hard!
Baseline 50 points.
A few tips on credibility.
Let’s talk about reporters. I love them all (unless they’re grabbers, liars, plagiarists or psychopaths). Why do they even do this journalism shit? It’s so hard!
Baseline 50 points.
A few tips on credibility.
Are they beat reporters? +10
Do they live for the scoop? +10
So much so that they get out ahead of their skis & take a credibility tumble? If so do they quickly / humbly retract? - 5 per.
Do they do this a lot? -10 per. (All this is searchable.)
Do they live for the scoop? +10
So much so that they get out ahead of their skis & take a credibility tumble? If so do they quickly / humbly retract? - 5 per.
Do they do this a lot? -10 per. (All this is searchable.)
Do they publicly throw their colleagues under the bus, when they were actually the ones making bad decisions for bad reasons in war zones?
RUN.
RUN.
Ok, here’s a little bit about how explosive scoops do / do not ladder up & what that means about reliability of info.
A scoop can comes from the big outlets w $$ for the beat reporters editors lawyers etc. If they nailed it, everyone else scrambles to catch up.
A scoop can comes from the big outlets w $$ for the beat reporters editors lawyers etc. If they nailed it, everyone else scrambles to catch up.
Official Denials are weak or non existent. More stories start to come about related to the scoop. People resign, go to jail. Books are written. Movie rights are sold. Oscars are won. Catchphrases are born. La la la.
IF an explosive scoop comes from an unknown or lesser known outlet with less resources?
It can get complicated.
The greater the horror, the lesser know the source? The more skepticism. So how do you judge? Beyond all of the above?
It can get complicated.
The greater the horror, the lesser know the source? The more skepticism. So how do you judge? Beyond all of the above?
You see if the story ladders up.
+5 for the first RT by a reporter, however cautious.
+10 for notable silence from officials. (Believe me they will paper your home w specific & detailed denials if you biffed it)
+10 if the ACLU or other big legal advocacy amplifies.
+5 for the first RT by a reporter, however cautious.
+10 for notable silence from officials. (Believe me they will paper your home w specific & detailed denials if you biffed it)
+10 if the ACLU or other big legal advocacy amplifies.
+20 for the first Congressperson who RT’s it. +5 for every subsequent different committee chair. +20 for leadership. +30 if a member of the “other” party call for hearings.
Are there a whole bunch of lawyers out there already representing a bunch of affected parties? +15
Are there a whole bunch of lawyers out there already representing a bunch of affected parties? +15
Does a presidential or VP candidate tweet about it? However cautiously? That means they or their staff have been briefed enough that they feel confident enough about the information. +25
And yes, stories also ladder down.
The great silence after you publish. When no one picks up your big story?
Their reliable sources told them to stay away.
That silence is scary.
And it is often broken by an avalanche of specific denials.
-10 for each day of silence.
The great silence after you publish. When no one picks up your big story?
Their reliable sources told them to stay away.
That silence is scary.
And it is often broken by an avalanche of specific denials.
-10 for each day of silence.
