#news fact checking

[harpieisthecarpie]

Edit: keeping the og reblog for posterity but I was incorrect in my presumption and the hate crime DID happen. The Independent spun it in a way I'm critical of all the same.

Alright, I had quick pointers on red flags in posts but I wanted to do more in-depth digging to be sure I wasn't talking out of my ass. Here's what I found:

I searched up Amber Muhm as my first thread to pull, and like nevermindmorpheus nearly all the results were articles from 2023 citing her as a local activist working with trans women and trans femmes.

There were a few articles covering the same crime that was alleged in The Independent! That's if "covering the same crime" suddenly translates to "reposted the exact article on their own site", of course. That batch largely consists of automated websites like Yahoo and MSN News.

The only other source I found on my "Amber Muhm" search was by Amelia Roessler with Minnpost, a nonprofit journalism group whose primary audience is Minnesotans. That article, "Police negotiation with Red Wing gunman leads to discovery of a dead woman" was published November 18th, 2024 as part of their Glean segment, a twice daily compilation of Minnesota news from various sources.

That Minnpost article refers to what we're curious about here:

And that link leads to WCCO, also known as CBS News Minnesota, specifically the article "2 transgender women attacked in downtown Minneapolis, advocates say" by Kirsten Mitchell that was published Nov 18th, 2024 at 1:42 CST

Our Independent article in question "Crowd cheered as two transgender women were attacked at Minneapolis rail station, advocates say" by Kelly Rissman was published Nov 18th, 2024 at 19:26 GMT (7:26 PM).

That converts to 1:26 PM in CST, which means The Independent article existed for a slim 16 minutes prior to that WCCO piece. As far as I can tell, the WCCO article's main divergence from The Independent is the lack of assertions that Minneapolis Police and Amber Muhm specifically told The Independent all this info.

Basically, it seems to me like Kelly Rissman, via The Independent, was the primary (and sole) source for this supposed crime that "a crowd cheered" over. And considering the lack of updates on an highly topical event and the article's lack of corroborating evidence (like video) I feel okay giving my tips.

So what are the red flags we can see right in OP's screenshots of the article?

The title's claim ends with "advocates say" and the header similarly uses "according to a rally organizer". It signals that the article is reporting based on allegations and hearsay, especially with how vague those references are

Why do you need to rely on advocates for all the info on a very public crime? Bystanders record violence even when they aren't cheering for it.

What kind of advocates are they? Trans rights advocates? Anti-LGBTQ+ advocates?

Why is a rally organizer your main source about 2 victims of what would for sure be considered a hate crime? And not even for info on the crime itself, but about the circumstances around the women's move to Minnesota.

What does the title focus on? That similar WCCO article focuses on the actual attack, whereas The Independent's title opens with "crowds cheered". Why emphasize the bystander reaction over the act of brutal violence?

It's an article by The Independent.

This is where we are. Anti-trans pogroms have begun and the community is living in fear. Things are so bad that some of us are unable to live anymore.

Where is the left? Where are our allies?

#TDoR2024

[destielmemenews]

PolitiFact

[reasonsforhope]

Given the misinformation that's been going around and will be going around, thought this might be helpful to some people

For a lot of reasons, I'm very good at this/at searching, to the point where I have worked as a professional fact-checker for two different publishers. So, here goes:

My Article Fact-Checking Protocol

Thorough Version

Read the full article. Keep an eye out for emotionally loaded words, and all-or-nothing language

Keep an eye out or anything that sounds too good to be true, and in contrast, anything that sounds so awful it must be true

Run the website/source through the amazing Media Bias/Fact Check. They'll tell you about a publication's bias and history of accuracy

Go to the website's home page and read through the headlines. Look at what topics they cover/prioritize, sensationalist headlines, and whether they're framing anything in a way that feels odd/off to you

Do a search related to the topic. This can be keywords, a question, or even just copy-paste the article title (Recommended: use DuckDuckGo so the results don't change based on what Google thinks they can sell you)

If multiple highly credible sources that say the same thing pop up, and there's no major societal biases that might affect the coverage of the topic in those sources (e.g. anything related to the Israel-Palestine conflict/Palestinian genocide, no matter which side), then I'm done!

If there are major societal biases, or I can't get a consensus of sufficiently credible sources, then I do some combination of:

(1) search the topic again + the words "controversy" and/or "fake"

(2) search the opposite of the topic, or do some sort of other filtered search

(3) look up a sufficiently credible news outlet with the opposite point of view of my source, and see what they have to say

(4) if it's a big enough topic, start by looking up 2 of the top national papers and 1 major paper for your region (I usually do the ones in the US, because that's where I am In the US: the LA Times, the Washington Post, and the NY Times)

Adjust "news" to "relevant type of source, e.g. tech, environmental" as relevant for all of the above options

If no red flags come up, and it's a topic I understand enough to smell huge bullshit,

Then I'm usually done!

If there are red flags, or I actually need a certain amount of detail/understanding, then it gets more complicated, but that would be a whole other thing to break down and such

or

tl;dr

Quick Version

Read the full article. Keep an eye out for emotionally loaded words, and all-or-nothing language

Keep an eye out or anything that sounds too good to be true, and in contrast, anything that sounds so awful it must be true.

If I don't know the website:

Run the website/source through the amazing Media Bias/Fact Check. They'll tell you about a publication's bias and history of accuracy

If I trust the source, but something else pinged my radar:

Do a quick web search to verify anything that sounds suspicious or too good/bad to be true (Recommended: use DuckDuckGo)

[positivelypresent]

Check your facts!

[headmaster-merle-ambrose]

Hello, everyone. Setting aside the main gimmick of the blog to share some troubling news that was just released today, as far as I know.

Nigel Lambert, the voice of Merle Ambrose, has unfortunately passed away at the age of 80 last month. This man has shaped our childhoods and continued to guide us on our journeys over the past 15 years of our wonderful Wizard101, and it genuinely pains me to hear he is no longer with us. I want to take this moment to honor this man who gave his time and his voice for so many of us, and to take comfort in knowing he is at least at peace.

Rest in peace, Nigel. Thank you for everything, Headmaster.

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

HAPPY APRIL 1st, i wrote a fic about the suez canal fiasco bc it's still the funniest thing that's ever happened. synopsis is "grumpy gods from different mythologies argue over whose job it is to unstick the goddamn boat"

[theloveinc]

Just thought about … oh my god. Bakugo’s first real battle with a formidable villain after your kid is born; he’s not exactly “out of shape” (he never quit the gym, routine, etc… just changed it), but he’s thrown down hard in the first couple seconds, and he’s slower to get back into position—taking the time to steady his feet and assess the terrain, pushing out the lil tummy he gained feeding you postpartum delicacies as he cracks his back—

And the villain, god help them, decides to call out to him as they use the few seconds of vulnerability to attack again, screaming, “hey pop pop, don’t tell me parenthood has made you soft! How ‘bout I start calling you ‘daddy,’ too?”

Just as Bakugo’s turning back around with a new fire in his eyes, blood all warmed up, and shooting off to grab them by the throat to end the fight in one single move.

[reality-detective]

Project 2025 is “The wrap up smear” and has nothing to do with Donald Trump 🤔

[nalyra-dreaming]

Rolin Jones on IWTV s3 (going forward) and POVs:

"Everybody’s free to judge the rest of it. If all goes right, we’ll have six or seven more seasons to work on you coming around to that, or the redemption of that. [In season one,] the audience wants to kill Lestat along with Louis and Claudia. But we had to sit on it for a year and a half. So it’s okay for people to think that we made a supervillain out of Lestat and then to come around to a fuller portrait. In season three, [Lestat is] front and center, and Jacob takes a supporting role. And it’s not all about point of view. We got 80 to 85-percent of Lestat pretty solid. Retribution is easy, right? It’s being contrite. [There’s] the idea that forgiveness should be part of this cycle, too. That’s something I think we’re trying to sell." "So, what am I interested in? I’ll be less interested in point of view and memory as much. The challenge of the books is that there’s not a lot of forward story. I don’t think that you can probably mine the arcs of those for origin story after origin story after origin story. But that doesn’t mean you can’t take the same material and in very inventive, exciting ways move it forward."

And:

“The big difference moving forward is Lestat will be front and center telling the story, so it should feel like this show has been taken hostage by Lestat,” Jones says. “Aesthetically, it is going to feel different. It is not going to feel like two old guys in a room trying to figure out what brought them together. It is going to be over the shoulder of Lestat de Lioncourt, of whom you have probably seen about an 80%-accurate version of who he is — on fire and reckless. So it should be fun and dangerous.”

[incognitopolls]

There are a lot of consistently repeated "facts" around tumblr that fall somewhere in this gradient—some of which are only corrected by actually crunching numbers, reading scientific papers, etc. Falling for misrepresented data isn't anyone’s fault, but it does mean that some things that "everyone knows" are straight up incorrect, because the source was written by someone who didn't understand what they were reporting on, or the subject was twisted to suit a narrative (for personal reasons, monetary gain, etc).

Meanwhile, SOME claims just don't have a real source at all.

Do you check sources before you repeat a factoid or spread a post?

–

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis received plaudits from their peers for their efforts moderating the debate earlier this month between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Many journalists praised ABC’s decision to forcefully rebut a tiny fraction of Trump's false claims, which provided “a model… for real-time fact-checking of the candidates that we have not glimpsed in previous debates,” as New York Times reporter Michael M. Grynbaum put it. But CBS News has decided that moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan will not follow that model for Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate between Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance. The network said that “the onus will be on Vance and Walz to point out misstatements by the other, and that ‘the moderators will facilitate those opportunities’ during rebuttal time,” The Associated Press reported Friday. 

In other words, if a candidate offers an obvious and easily debunked falsehood, the moderators will presumably turn to their opponent and say some version of, “Your response?” This amounts to “basically off-loading one of your journalistic responsibilities onto the candidates themselves,” as a critic put it to the AP. The CBS decision to renounce moderator fact checks will leave the national debate audience all the poorer. For instance, it will turn an inevitable and easily anticipated lie from Vance that Harris allowed thousands of migrant murderers to run rampant into a he-said/he-said conflict. And the plausible explanations for why CBS is telegraphing its unwillingness to do so bode ill for the state of the news media.

[...]

Why is CBS doing this?

There are two explanations for why CBS has decided not to follow ABC’s model and have its moderators fact-check the debate, and both are dispiriting. One is that CBS simply does not believe it is the network’s job to separate truth from fiction during high-profile, heavily viewed political events. Under this interpretation, while ABC News showed that such fact-checking can be done well, and that it adds to the debate rather than subtracts from it, CBS is simply opposed to doing that. The other is that CBS has been scared off of fact-checking by the right’s furious response to ABC. Right-wing pundits melted down in real time, castigating the ABC moderators and denouncing their network. And Trump himself repeatedly lashed out at the network in the days following the debate, even threatening to use federal regulatory power to retaliate against it. By contrast, Trump praised the CNN moderators, who had adopted a far more passive style, following his June debate with President Joe Biden. Perhaps CBS brass have decided they’d rather not risk angering Trump and have him take a hammer to the network if he returns to the White House, or perhaps they simply want to avoid the hassle that comes with such complaints. Either way, it means authoritarian threats have proved effective in compelling the media to change behavior. That is a dire incentive structure for the press.

Sounds like CBS moderators are caving into the right-wing bullying campaign against fact-checking lies being told at the debate stage, particularly from JD Vance.

[cazort]

I want to share a site that I think would make the world a much better place if people used it regularly.

Do you ever see a piece of news, and it's in a source you're unfamiliar with? And you're not sure if you can trust it? Is someone close to you slipping into conspiracy theories and propaganda and you want to draw them out of it, or at least protect others from falling into it too?

This site is a great place to look up news sources:

It was founded in 2015 by Dave Van Zandt and is funded through a mix of donations, advertising, and subscriptions, but the core content of the site is freely viewable by all. The site refuses donations from corporations or other organizations, and has only received small donations ($500 or less).

You can type any news source into it's on-site search. Alternatively you can just use a general web search and add "media bias fact check" on the end and often its page will come up.

What does it have?

A spectrum for political bias (Left, Left-Center, Unbiased, Right-Center, Right, and some sites going off the extremes on either end)

A separate category for Factual Reporting

History and Ownership, including location, of each outlet

A category for press freedom rating in the country in question, i.e. how suppression of the free press could bias the outlet

A brief article of analysis, justifying or explaining the category ratings

Lists of failed fact-checks (if any)

Separate categories for Conspiracy and Pseudoscience

I have found this site to be the single most useful site for looking up the quality and bias of other sources, especially news sources. Check it especially when you see a new source you're unfamiliar with, and share it with others who are unaware of it.

A lot of bad ideas propagate in society through biased media, or propaganda through conspiracy or fake news sites. This site can be a powerful tool to combat the spread of untruths, and also to steer people towards the better publications and sources out there.

[skywerse]

would you still love me if I dropped an earth-shattering fnc fic or no?

A few excerpts under the cut :3

[reasonsforhope]

"Thousands of demonstrators converged opposite the White House on Saturday to call for an end to Israeli military action in Gaza, while children joined a pro-Palestinian march through central London as part of a global day of action against the longest and deadliest war between Israel and Palestinians in 75 years.

People in the U.S. capital held aloft signs questioning President Joe Biden’s viability as a presidential candidate because of his staunch support for Israel in the nearly 100-day war against Hamas. Some of the signs read: “No votes for Genocide Joe,” “Biden has blood on his hands” and “Let Gaza live.”

Vendors were also selling South African flags as protesters chanted slogans in support of the country whose accusations of genocide against Israel prompted the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands, to take up the case...

The plight of children in the Gaza Strip was the focus of the latest London march, symbolized by the appearance of Little Amal, a 3.5-meter (11.5-foot) puppet originally meant to highlight the suffering of Syrian refugees.

The puppet had become a human rights emblem during an 8,000-kilometer (4,970-mile) journey from the Turkish-Syrian border to Manchester in July 2001.

Nearly two-thirds of the 23,843 people killed during Israel’s campaign in Gaza have been women and children, according to the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory...

“On Saturday Amal walks for those most vulnerable and for their bravery and resilience,“ said Amir Nizar Zuabi, artistic director of The Walk Productions. “Amal is a child and a refugee and today in Gaza childhood is under attack, with an unfathomable number of children killed. Childhood itself is being targeted. That’s why we walk.”

London’s Metropolitan Police force said some 1,700 officers would be on duty for the march, including many from outside the capital...

The London march was one of several others being held in European cities including Paris, Rome, Milan and Dublin, where thousands also marched along the Irish capital’s main thoroughfare to protest Israel’s military operations in the Palestinian enclave.

Protesters waved Palestinian flags, held placards critical of the Irish, U.S. and Israeli governments and chanted, “Free, free Palestine.″

In Rome, hundreds of demonstrators descended on a boulevard near the famous Colosseum, with some carrying signs reading, “Stop Genocide.”

At one point during the protest, amid the din of sound effects mimicking exploding bombs, a number of demonstrators lied down in the street and pulled white sheets over themselves as if they were corpses, while others knelt beside them, their palms daubed in red paint.

Many hundreds of demonstrators gathered in Paris’ Republic square to set off on a march calling for an immediate cease-fire, an end to the war, a lifting of the blockade on Gaza and to impose sanctions on Israel. Marching protesters waved the Palestinian flag and held aloft placards and banners reading, “From Gaza to Paris. Resistance.”"

-via AP News, January 13, 2023

[diana-andraste]

A skeleton wearing a hat, holding newspapers and running, José Guadalupe Posada, c. 1880-1910

Skeletons in her closet? Nah. A clearly worded debunking by Melissa Goldin at AP News of the false claims against Kamala Harris and her background.

[nando161mando]