No, in other words the author had 8 real individuals speak to them directly.
An editor (and usually a separate on-staff fact-checker) would have confirmed they were real, credible, and in a position to make these claims. Had the sources fallen short the editor would have pushed the author to substantiate any claims though other means, otherwise they would not make it into the final article.
Yes, mistakes happen in any process. There is also a correction and a retraction procedure at such news services.
The people who cry 'fake news' typically do not know how journalism process work. To be fair, I don't think most people do and that in itself is an issue.
It does not help that a great many people calling themselves "journalists" don't know that, either. The term "journalism" has become badly watered down over the last couple of decades.
That's not to let the readership off the hook for their failure to recognize it, especially since it often involves embracing really obvious falsehoods. But at this point, there is a vicious circle, where the "news" producers produce poor quality news because the "news" consumers want it, which encourages them to want more of it.
Something closer to genuine journalism does still exist -- with the standards and failings you outline. But it's becoming increasingly irrelevant.
>The people who cry 'fake news' typically do not know how journalism process work. To be fair, I don't think most people do and that in itself is an issue.
You can appeal to authority all you want. It doesn't change the fact that NOTHING stops them from fabricating 'sources'
So called journalists are routinely caught fabricating stories and narratives that help further their careers or agendas.
Journalism is dead. Nowadays, the people who go into "journalism", with few exceptions, are dead inside and are only interested in forwarding agendas that align with their world view.
9 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 33.4 ms ] threadAn editor (and usually a separate on-staff fact-checker) would have confirmed they were real, credible, and in a position to make these claims. Had the sources fallen short the editor would have pushed the author to substantiate any claims though other means, otherwise they would not make it into the final article.
Yes, mistakes happen in any process. There is also a correction and a retraction procedure at such news services.
The people who cry 'fake news' typically do not know how journalism process work. To be fair, I don't think most people do and that in itself is an issue.
That's not to let the readership off the hook for their failure to recognize it, especially since it often involves embracing really obvious falsehoods. But at this point, there is a vicious circle, where the "news" producers produce poor quality news because the "news" consumers want it, which encourages them to want more of it.
Something closer to genuine journalism does still exist -- with the standards and failings you outline. But it's becoming increasingly irrelevant.
>The people who cry 'fake news' typically do not know how journalism process work. To be fair, I don't think most people do and that in itself is an issue.
You can appeal to authority all you want. It doesn't change the fact that NOTHING stops them from fabricating 'sources'
So called journalists are routinely caught fabricating stories and narratives that help further their careers or agendas.
Journalism is dead. Nowadays, the people who go into "journalism", with few exceptions, are dead inside and are only interested in forwarding agendas that align with their world view.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the article is incorrect about these resignations?