expectationlost wrote: » can anyone who has worked in old media newspapers or something like RTE written content tell me how articles are factchecked,I keep hearing all this talk of newspapers being so much better then everything else because of their factchecking but from what Ive seen they don't factcheck they go on presumptions of the reporter often for basic infomation that should be easy to facthceck. for articles that appear in the newspaper, not just quick takes, would they have a separate person to the author go through every quantum of an article and check it?
IRE60 wrote: » Depends on the "fact"! If its - like Elmo pointed out Danielle Moyles getting the lads out - the fact that TV3 got complaints wouldn't warrant a fact check - who give a fcuk anyway if they did and are they, more importantly, going to be sued!
Grolschevik wrote: » Big difference in editorial standards between now and 15 or 20 years ago, too. Nowadays, there are way fewer subeditors in the production process, and a lot of journalists are expected to sub their own copy. It's a very different skill set, in my opinion.
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.
expectationlost wrote: » 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 mean I'm talking proper artciles that appear in print not quick rubbish on their websites that they may have copied from elsewhere.
Elmo wrote: » Another example is that of restaurant closures by the RSA without comment from the owners, in some cases it's a very small problem that is fix in a few days.
expectationlost wrote: » how can really sub-edit your own copy, isn't the major point of subediting to get somebody else to check your work
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.
Lux23 wrote: » Sub-editors today are probably more concerned with over all look of a newspaper page and the headlines maybe.
expectationlost wrote: » scrutinise a piece as I said in the OP take each segment of story and independently check if its true.
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.
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
expectationlost wrote: » I'm asking about facts not typos, use of the Oxford comma. 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.
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".
expectationlost wrote: » 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.
expectationlost wrote: » 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?
expectationlost wrote: » "We can't fact-check every statement politicians make - it wouldn't be feasible. Most times, we simply report what they say, and let the readers and public make their own judgment." some the editor of the Sunday Times, dismal.
IRE60 wrote: » Its not up to a publication to 'fact check' something a politician says. If they say it's a fact its to them (the politician) to live or die on their sword.
IRE60 wrote: » Its not up to a publication to 'fact check' something a politician says. If they say it's a fact its to them (the politician) to live or die on their sword. There was a great site during the US elections that took 'factual' statements from both sides and later drilled into the veracity for the factual par of them.
expectationlost wrote: » "We can't fact-check every statement politicians make - it wouldn't be feasible. Most times, we simply report what they say, and let the readers and public make their own judgment." says the editor of the Sunday Times, dismal.
Elmo wrote: » The journalist should report what a politician says, but follow up on that, by asking another politician to comment on the statement
Elmo wrote: » or by researching if a fact.
Elmo wrote: » It is up to the editor to back up the journalist and to question the article before publishing.
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.
Mr Lawless said the unit was promoting individual Ministers but not Independent Ministers.
“We have seen a lot of promotion of individual ministers, I have a question mark about why some ministers are being put forward rather than others, we haven’t yet seen any Independent ministers featuring in the adverts, which I think is interesting.
Most times, we simply report what they say, and let the readers and public make their own judgment.....
it's not practical to fact-check every utterance a politician makes, and then not report those we don't think pass muster.
