this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
625 points (97.9% liked)

Showerthoughts

30029 readers
713 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
625
If I have to fact-check the uncited claims made in news articles, doesn't that make me the journalist? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
224 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hard to believe that when I've seen many of the "historically reputable" sources on that list flagrantly lying and spreading pro genocide props over the past 13 months

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Being pro genocide is an opinion technically. If you have a "flagrant lie", however, please post it. There was another wanker in the thread who claimed equal grand claims of lies but failed to come up with a link showing an actual lie

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I see your sources. I will check Wikipedia to see if there has been discussion on it, if not, I will bring it up and get back to you.

(On phone right now so I can't)

EDIT: Will not be posting this on Wikipedia, see response in https://lemmy.ml/post/23416718/15472127

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well good. Luck with that, but my experience trying to get changes through on Wikipedia is that it just takes one person with an agenda to stubbornly go "nuh-uh" and there nothing you can do about it

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

I used to edit Wikipedia for a long time, so I know what you're saying - but if you're actually correct, you'll generally win (may require pinging some other people who know you to come in to mediate)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So I read through this, and unfortunately there's nothing concrete. Every error has been corrected, and the errors that remain are opinion pieces which can't be listed as a source on Wikipedia. Due to WP:RECENT, this means no place where Wikipedia refers to the New York Times as a source will be asserting incorrect information.

This probably isn't the response you want, but that's the truth about their reporting.

Edit: If you still want to try and bring it up, this is what I had written in my draft:

The following article has been brought to my attention: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2024.2394292#abstract

While the issues raised in this paper tend to focus on bias, and factual errors were later corrected in many cases (which should be suffice due to WP:RECENT), the section of "Misquoting Israeli leaders" refers to multiple errors in reporting from the New York Times that remain uncorrected.

~~~~

(This is before I noticed the uncorrected parts are Opinion pieces, so I stopped)

You can post it here, but you will probably be shut down for the same reasons I mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard