News outlets are generally graded by their historical reputabilitiy. If you find yourself continuously fact checking it, maybe consider following a better news outlet (even if they publish more "boring" stories that aren't as "up to date"): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

I would also love to see a better place for keeping news outlets accountable for their bad publishing actions. Wikipedia does, but it happens on discussion pages and it relies on human editors who know where those discussions happened to string it together

I mean, yeah.

Also probably extremely unqualified to be one.

We really should get way more research methodology stuff into school curriculums from much earlier.

So I just got out of a conference talk from a guy that ran newsrooms for about 20 years and has moved on to other things. The last few years have been basically "get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows". These people working in these rooms have been cut back 90%+ but are still expected to get the same volumes of articles published as were when there were 10X the staff.

He said it's completely impossible to do any verification with what they have to work with, and chances are the stories are written before the people involved are interviewed. That's why he got out.

yeah sorta. journalism was supposed to be more about fact checking back in that day rather than first to post. The rumor mill filled that niche. Does seem like news nowadays is more like the rumor mill.

Well I'm something of a ~~scientist~~ Journalist myself

News stopped being news when the 24 hour news cycle started. Now it’s just entertainment.

Yes. An unpaid one.

ITT: the justification for civics education.

Legitimate news outlets do pretty thorough fact-checking, if only to avoid litigation

most towns used to have more than one newspaper and they used to display their political bias happily on the front page.

all the sides were represented by five or six different people discussing an issue with maybe each person bringing a different side from a different paper to the discussion.

tv and cable and internet tore apart that public dialectic.

and it forced fewer papers to try to portray more sides "equally".

now a city is lucky if it has one newspaper. and they can't possibly cover every angle any longer because if you have been in a newsroom in the past 15 years for most small to medium town they are like four people now when 30 was required for reporting, photography, editing, and classified section. And the big towns now might have two that both bend towards the middle from the left and right with a stripped down, skinny and pissed workers.

So sorry conversation amongst a varied and well read public is required for that to work.

and no one reads anymore we all just write and move on.

It makes you a rational human.

There have been journalists publishing accidentally and maliciously false articles since the dawn of the press.

It's healthy to engage in appropriate scepticism of all that you read, particularly that of the press. Fact check everything that doesn't feel right (or anything that feels too reductive or simplified), over time you get a feel for who the serial liars are and who are generally reporting faithfully