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

Showerthoughts

30032 readers
487 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source.

When reading opinion I definitely do a bit more digging, keeping an eye out for half truths. I wouldn't consider this to be journalism

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When reading hard news from an outlet that actually hires journalists I consider that to be the source. […]

For clarity, do you mean that you don't care if they cite their claims?

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hell, it doesn't even need to be lies. You can paint whatever story you want with the truth.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Would you mind stating your point more explicitly?

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Wording, the part of the truth you tell, what other truths you tell before and after.

You watch or read any big event by two papers with different views, both will probably tell the same facts but the tone, the implications, and the interpretation of the facts will be completely different.

Example:

"A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company" *And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.

"A men struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people". *And now we cut about news about serial killers.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Far more eloquent than I ever could have put it beautiful job, thank you.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I'll look at each of your examples independently (note that all that follows is my own opinion, and should be interpreted as conjecture):

“A young boy takes justice to a CEO after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company” *And now we cut to other news about people denied healthcare.

  • "young boy": This is opinion — what one person calls young may differ from another. Proper reporting, imo, would specify the exact age only, and cite where they know that age from. The emotionally charged language like "young", and "boy" should be omitted.
  • "justice": This is opinion — what one person calls justice may differ from another. It may even be considered verifiably false depending on one's definition of justice.
  • "after he and his family were denied medical care by their insurance company": If the reporting is only on an event that happened, this information that follows is irrelevant and only serves to emotionally charge one's interpretation — it is not good faith journalism.

A men [sic] struggling with mental illness after severe medical issues assassinated a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people”.

  • "A [man]": Whether someone is a "man" is a matter of opinion. I'm not aware of a hard definition. It's especially not used with an exact definition in colloquial speech. It should be omitted and replaced with the age of the individual with a source citing how that age is known.
  • "struggling with mental illness": If the reporting is only on the event that happened (ie the killing of the CEO), this information is unnecessary and only serves to emotionally charge the reporting.
  • "severe medical issues": Severity is a matter of opinion. This is emotionally charged. It can be removed for the same reason as "struggling with mental illness".
  • "assassinated": This is pure conjecture and relies on a source ­— it may not be known to be an actual assassination (assuming that assassination is interpreted as a hired hit on someone).
  • "a fathers [sic] and loving husband who worked providing healthcare to American people": Emotionally charged and can be removed if the reporting is specifically only on the event.

Both are, by definition ^[1]^, not journalism (regardless of the position they are taking), as they are mixing opinions with facts, and are attempting to interpret them, as was shown above.

References

  1. "journalism". Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2024-12-12T01:34Z. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism.
    • §2.b.

      writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I'm not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. Opinion commentators can say whatever they want because it's their opinion. Big difference.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They are the citation. They are the one reporting it as fact. I’m not saying to believe everything you read but they are the ones putting their reputation on the line. […]

I agree that it would make it statistically likely that their claims are accurate, but their reputation isn't proof of their claim's veracity ^[1]^.

References

  1. "Argument from authority". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-10-22T14:01. Accessed: 2024-12-12T06:52Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority.
    • ¶1-¶2.

      An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.

      The argument from authority is a logical fallacy, and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible.