Does old media really factcheck?

Elmo wrote: »

I don't believe so but I've not work in trad media.

2 examples

1. RTÉ bans Connor McGregor ad

None of the news outlets pointed out that The BAI regulate ads on TV and their code prohibits alcoholic ads by celebrities, AFAIK the ad would be ban in the U.S. Because the FCC don't allow celebrities to suggest they use a a product they don't use.

I looked at bai.ie can't find that
many of them I read did mention the ASAI Heroes of the Young issue http://www.asai.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ASAI-Guidance-Note-7.6c-April-2014.pdf, SBP had the story first http://www.businesspost.ie/rte-refuses-to-show-mcgregor-hero-beer-commercial/

but lets keep this discussion more general, I askiing about proper articles that appear in print not quick rubbish on their websites that they may have copied from elsewhere.

Lux23 wrote: »

Back in the day, now journalists are expected to be able to spell, write coherently and lay out their own pieces or pages.

I'm asking about facts not typos, use of the Oxford comma.

Lux23 wrote: »

Sub-editors today are probably more concerned with over all look of a newspaper page and the headlines maybe.

but this is what an editor or sub-editor should do, scrutinise a piece as I said in the OP take each segment of story and independently check if its true.

do newspaper have kind of statement of practice/standards beyond this http://www.irishtimes.com/about-us/the-irish-times-trust

In pursuance of the foregoing and to enable readers of The Irish Times to reach informed and independent judgements and to contribute more effectively to the life of the community, the following principles govern the publication of The Irish Times: news shall be as accurate and as comprehensive as is practicable and be presented fairly; comment and opinion shall be informed and responsible, and shall be identifiable from fact; and special consideration shall be given to the reasonable representation of minority interests and divergent views.

or some description of what Irish newspaper do now (not what they used to do) in terms of factchecking the stories they "print" each day

Above all else, we commit ourselves to accuracy; the most essential test of our profession. We recognise, of course, that journalism operates in a deadline-driven environment in which mistakes can, and will, happen. When we get it wrong, we say so. Readers can make contact with their representative in the Editor's Office to act on their behalf - seeking corrections or clarifications or explaining why none is warranted, as appropriate

what I want to know about is that first sentence, before we get to the second or third sentence.

Lux23 wrote: »

It is what they should do but really a sub-editor is a graphic designer these days, I don't think a sub-editor really does any fact checking and journalists will only do so much. But it really depends on the type of story, a business journalist writing about a billion euro company will cover their bum, an entertainment journalist will probably write their article using vague terms like, "it was claimed" or "alleged".

ok how does the first journalist cover their bum?

Lux23 wrote: »

Well it depends on how the story land on their desk.

If it's a press release from say ComReg who are saying they are bringing a telecoms company to court for overcharging, they will talk first to the original source if they need something clarified. Then they may put in a call to the company for a comment or "right to reply" as some call it. Then they may look at older stories for some context, background and then maybe they could talk to a commentator on telecoms for some colour.

Hey presto, there is your story.

But a lot of business journalists find things out while they are off at events/tooling around town so in this case they need to do a bit more digging to make sure the sources are trustworthy. This might mean talking to other experts, putting a media query into the company in question.

But if they are writing an opinion piece they can pretty much say what they want as long as they couch it in the right terms. It is unusual for a newspaper to be sued for their opinions, supposedly we all have right to express them.

but at the point of the story being finished wouldn't the best way for someone to cover their bum is get somebody else to read it and fact check it.

opinions columns should have basic fact checks, for the things the opinion columnists assert as fact.

Lux23 wrote: »

What do you think a factchecker will do?

well I've read that really deep stories that a factcheker or editor/ producer would ring back every single person and reporter talked to and ask them the same questions, but that might not be necessary on daily weekly stories perhaps I would expect them to read the reporters notes, just to see if the misinterpreted something, and to take every segment of story and check whether its true or not, no matter how obvious it might seem.

Elmo wrote: »

The journalist should report what a politician says, but follow up on that, by asking another politician to comment on the statement

he said, she said really? from 2 politicians? Is that really good enough?

Elmo wrote: »

or by researching if a fact.

ok you rescued yourself there.

Elmo wrote: »

It is up to the editor to back up the journalist and to question the article before publishing.

the issue we were discussing was a factual situation, the editor just became defensive because journalists imho put other journalists before the truth, neither he nor the journalist were even interested in checking it out even after I queried it and got a rebuttal from the subject. Im not 100% sure its false because the politician won't respond to my queries or the rebuttal in order to justfy the original statement, but I thought a professional political correspondent might be able and interested in getting a response having published the quote without clarification.

Elmo wrote: »

What is the article we are talking about.

He said she said is not good enough but the other person may question the so-called fact.

but I'd still expect the paper to research it independently even if they sought a response from another poltician.

Politics isn’t working Justine McCarthy November 13 2016, 12:01am, The Sunday Times
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/politics-isnt-working-8hsmdblls
where she included the quote without clarification


background Michael Martin claimed the extra long Dail recess turned out to be unnecessary, is that true?

expectationlost wrote: »

mutiple news orgs repeat James Lawless claim that Independent Ministers haven't appeared in SCU ads, but did Shane Ross not do so in Rugby World Cup bid video? https://www.facebook.com/FineGael/videos/10155605244888211/ fb video

IT
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-f%C3%A1il-proposes-new-law-to-regulate-political-advertising-1.3324526#.Wi_puBVuzvg.twitter



Irihs Examiner http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fianna-fail-td-james-lawless-wants-legislation-to-crack-down-on-fake-twitter-bots-464326.html


which was from the SCU https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-11-14a.152&s=rugby+world+cup+video+and+strategic+communications+unit#g154.r


If I bumped on this why didn't the reporters who were probably paying more attention to this Rugby world cup business then I was.


A Sunday Times Editor said of the orignal story I was querying above.


but readers often can't judge something unitl its cleared up, James Lawless did respond to one query I had on his bill but won't reply to a further question.





but thats what we depend on newspaper to do, they don't always get an answer but they have more leverage to do so then readers. (again its ok to report what a politician says on the day if you follow it up soon after.)

here we go, I reread the story becuase I knew I find something else wrong


Fianna F TD James Lawless wants legislation to crack down on fake Twitter bots Elaine Loughlin Irish Examiner December 13, 2017

“If the same thing was done on radio it would actually be illegal under Section 38 of the Broadcasting Acts”

Which section 38 of Which Broadcating Act? Section 38 of the 2009 and consolidated Broadcasting Acts don't seem relevant.

James Lawless TD told me he was refferring to Section 41(3) of the Broadcasting Act, 2009 not section 38. so did the TD mistate the section number, did she mishear? Either way why didn't she check it? and if anyone else had read her article before it was published surely they would have looked up section 38 and asked what section 38 is relevant to this story? this must be wrong and the reporter should have checked with the TD or changed the line if she misheard.
I emailed the reporters and paper not resposne from either, no correction in the newspaper.

How is fair on readers for newspapers not to double check things.

Update: now stealth corrected now what about his other claim about no Independent Ministers being featured?

Elmo wrote: »

On another note of not fact checking

Lynda McQuaid left TV3 in 2016 following just 8 or so months at the channel, her wage at her new post as a ministerial adviser was based on her wage at TV3 yet she seems to have only taken up the job in mid-2017. Journalist who wrote the story about her appointment seemed to miss this fact entirely!

Im not sure the reporter mistated any facts, it was her former job even if it wasn't her immediate former job. It would certainly add to the story to point that out, we could do with seeing the FOI'd docs to see how they phrased it.

She was running McQuaid Productions in between that time https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynda-mcquaid/ one might be able to find out what she was paying herself.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/junior-minister-lands-13k-salary-hike-for-her-new-press-adviser-36457397.html

Sunday Business Post example: SBP reported that Ceann Comharile has asked a former secretary general of Department of Agriculture Michael Dowling to review legislation system. Dail Calls Kerry Group Chair to Break Logjam May 2017. https://www.businesspost.ie/politics/dail-calls-kerry-group-chair-break-law-logjam-3877822 I emailed the Ceann Comahairle offices they said they never heard of him. I told that to the reporter and the article was just deleted not corrected or clarified.

Now the author did DM me and say his sources told him something and he reported it, so he stands over that, which is fine, so why was it deleted? why not just clarify it or do a follow up story?

After spotting another mistake in a newspaper ( which they corrected) I got into a discussion about factchecking with the editor asking them to explain the process used to prevent mistakes. He said there were 5 people in the process, but generally it seems only one person is really expected to factcheck and thats the journalist, which is fine but people are human and even if they double check themselves, they still might miss something.

So journalists are supposed to note that something has been "CQ'd" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadit_quaestio meaning that is checked out enough to be in no doubt, so the sub-editors and editors generally accept that? I don't know if there are further subsidiary notes added to that, eg checked org website, spoke to person? [which they apparently did and got a quote but somehow the article stated they were in a party they had just left and they were Councillor when they had been only a local area rep]. So either the sub presumed that having spoken to the person their facts must be correct or somebody up the line added in the incorrect information about the party position without checking back with the reporter?

Is what lacking here a triple check of calling the party?

Surely you need a second pairs of eyes, a second brain on something to be really certain.

Yes this is blog post of mine but I posting because I would like an answer to the question.


Why did multiple newspapers write that Denis O'Brien is a "majority shareholder" of INM?

I first noticed an issue in the Broadsheet post Mistake in Look Hack in Anger. [Broadsheet don't factcheck their posts so its no surprise that they might get something wrong.]

July 19, 2014:- Mr Rae, in his role as group editor of INM, orders the presses to be stopped to amend a column written by Sunday Independent editor Anne Harris which features references to Denis O’Brien.

Copies of the original article did however appear, allowing comparisons between the two. Harris originally wrote: “Denis O’Brien is the majority shareholder in INM. In theory, with 29% of the shares, he does not control it. In practice, he does.” The last sentence was deleted.

29% isn't a majority... and I've been told that publically listed companies cannot have majority shareholders, and that Denis O'Brien keeps his shareholdings at 29.9% so it can't be said he controls the company and doesn't have to make a bid for it all?

I searched Wikipedia article on Denis O'Brien and noticed that same sentence.

The Wikipedia articles cited the Guardian article Mistake in Irish newspaper editor's column was changed after going to press by Roy Greenslade 28 Jul 2014, It said,

Version one - Harris wrote: "Denis O'Brien is the majority shareholder in INM. In theory, with 29% of the shares, he does not control it. In practice, he does."

But copies of Harris's original column did make it on to the street and the differences between the two versions were spotted by Gavin Sheridan, who pictured them and then posted them here on thestory.ie website.

Gavin Sheridan's post Why was this Anne Harris Sunday Independent column modified? from 20th July 2014 which shows photos of two versions of the article that was changed, both versions say major shareholder not majority shareholder.

So the Guardian cited Gavin's post with the photos but misquoted them, I suspect some of the above were misled by this.

I emailed the Guardian, they asked me as the article was four years old why I was highlighted it to them now, I was surprised they didn't know, so I sent them the Irish Independents own Q&A on the allegations that the chairman of the company secretly read his journalist/employees emails and that this was paid for by a company owned by Denis O'Brien.

Guardian has not corrected their mistake.

I emailed Broadsheet and they corrected their post Mistake in Look Hack in Anger

I corrected the wikipedia articles on Denis O'Brien, Anne Harris and Stephen Rae which all said majority citing the Guardidan article which cites Gavein Sheridans blog.

On the April 2 2018 Times Ireland published an article INM journalists threaten lawsuit over data breach by Peter O’Dwyer | Lise Hand that said,

Some journalists had covered the Moriarty tribunal and had written stories critical of Denis O’Brien before he became the company’s majority shareholder.

I emailed them about it and they changed it to

Some journalists had covered the Moriarty tribunal and had written stories critical of Denis O’Brien before he became the company’s largest single shareholder.

In the Irish Times Who are the Independent News & Media 19 by Colin Gleeson it said

Denis O’Brien, the group’s majority shareholder, voted against his retention.

I emailed them and asked was this right?

An Irish Times editor replied that I was correct and he corrected the article, but there are many other instances of this in the Irish Times will they all be corrected? Another recent example.

Denis v Goliath’: O’Brien’s battle against alleged reputational damage Fri, Apr 6, 2018 Colm Keena

"At one stage, O’Brien was the majority shareholder in INM "

he was?

The Irish Times Gavin O’Reilly says INM data breach claims ‘stomach-churning’ Apr 8, 2018 by Ronan McGreevy says

Mr O’Reilly is the son of Sir Anthony O’Reilly, who was once INM’s majority shareholder.

was he?

The Journal has an article Explainer: What on earth is going on at INM?

Communicorp is almost wholly owned by Denis O’Brien, who is also the majority shareholder at INM.

By the time I checked it they had already corrected it on thejournal but not on their sister business site Fora. It has now been corrected.

" Communicorp is almost wholly owned by Denis O’Brien, who is also the largest shareholder at INM."

In the Irish Examiner there are less recent incidences of Denis O'Brien being desrcibed as a majority shareholder.

The Sunday Businness Post

Standing up in INM: The equivalent of war by Anne Harris writes

On the night of Saturday, July 19, 2014, there was a dramatic intervention, mid-publication, to remove four words from an article written by me, as editor of the Sunday Independent. “Denis O’Brien is the majority shareholder at INM. In theory with 29 per cent of the shares, he does not control it,” I wrote. “In practice, he does.” O’Brien has always denied he controls INM.
Those four little words, “In practice, he does”, were the reason the paper was held up.

Did she really write majority shareholder? Can Anne Harris herself (or the editors of her article) have misquoted her own article?

The Sunday Business Post hasn't replied or corrected the article yet.

Irish Mirror


Irish Mirror joins list of newspapers calling Denis O'Brien the majority shareholder in INM

Why has such a crucial point about the Denis O'Brien been published seemingly incorrectly by so many news media organisations? and how has it gone unnoticed for so long?

IRE60 wrote: »

Firstly, well done on the research and communicating with the various publications - regardless of the outcome.


'how has it gone unnoticed' - I don't think its gone unnoticed - just unchecked. It's slack-arse journalism that's allowed that expression to become the norm for his ownership.


Strangely I saw another example of how the term "majority' has become a term to mean (wrongly) the largest. In a wikipedia page it says 'O'Brien owns a majority of Ireland's radio stations' - which is clearly wrong.


So, clearly, theres a way to go to (re) educate journalists on the proper use of expressions.


(many moons ago I happened to be in a UK newspaper. They had very particular standards and part of that standard was a 'style guide'. A reference guide for Journalists/subs as to how the paper should 'speak'. It was really informative and would have dealt with issues like the above)

I've tried to research style guides and they don't really seem to cover factchecking...majority is not an expression,its a technical term. This is the most crucial issue in Ireland in media for decades, how much control Denis O'Brien has of media?, how can these experienced journalists get it wrong? I do wonder if they wrote it correctly and some sub-editor went and changed it ?



As I said in post 40 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/crd.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boards.ie%2Fvbulletin%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D2057576388%26goto%3Dnewpost%26zxf%3D1544837753%26utm_source%3Dnotification%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dnotification&d=OHwgn6F66CMVB46EccBJ_vRDl_7gZap5IEQ5Amns7OfNxkD5GeK3kUt2ryBBRvKA3zPO1R2_YKdzc7-9fcpCo9ZT4fh-dGjzSkKSLtqCVO31O6r3SiUk8RxMZG6FP9lFjEiZlml5sekHr0V2ZQ8zlxKa-INAPwtyFhV6EWEmzJPsOwmeg6yJlutJwfrAytSXtsrM0CeW4pwhvRzBaPrXBSpempE1EykbWJ17azAt1xQka-qv2QE0CzHRUwp0vI5eTIgQEjsFWR0hGb7Rp91yumoYg7QzTpnE36wihhAmaVr5G4vXU-PXTeVyFZV2qAR4Fn_KRjXQDMGhqG9iINuSN5js0amH_XnBRf4ADxhsbPIwsRxWonFjdkDx I asked and searched for what the process is to prevent errors, I havn't found anything really they told me that 5 people across the story, all I was told was the sub-editors would "spot errors" but spotting errors seems very loose, it sounds like they are winging it, I would prefer if they checked the story, I just can't find what in the good old days of newspapers did to prevent errors (in daily/weekly news) that these same newspapers are not doing now.


I did find this page on factchecking check lists aimed at journalist, but still a journalist can miss something so surely the newspaper they are working for should have its own process of factchecking. https://guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=618074&p=4300850

L1011 wrote: »

There is a severe lack of use of the term plurality here. Had an argument with a drunk FF canvasser once insisting they had a "majority" in the 2014 LE - on 25.5%. They had a clear plurality, but were barely halfway to a majority.

I'm not sure how valid it is to use it for non-voting circumstances really; but it certainly can apply to share ownership that entails voting rights. If we need a word for someone having a large, important but not majority position in other circumstances I think its probably the most suitable.

take one of the sentences from the above articles and use it, why is it better them major shareholder? especially when in the article you could have references to "media plurality".