Verifying News

[Tridimity]

Quite apart from the sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle spin of media presenters, how do we know that the facts being sold to us as truth, are in fact true? The only way to know for sure would be to visit the areas in question and see for oneself - but this, of course, is not feasible. Like it or no, we are dependent on news agencies to provide us with an accurate account of current affairs. Here is some advice provided by the BBC on how to verify images that are purported to reflect major world events:

After eight people died in sectarian clashes in Pakistan a week ago, photos circulated on social media purporting to show the violence. These were soon called into question.

Violence erupted last Friday as Shia Muslims staged a procession marking the religious festival of Ashura in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad. Dozens were injured and many shops set on fire in clashes between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Images said to show the violent clashes were shared online. One shared on Facebook was captioned "This is them being oppressed". But it was an Associated Press photograph from 2009, taken in the aftermath of a suicide bombing in Karachi, and featured in a BBC News picture gallery at the time. Blogger Syed Farrukh Abbas spotted the similarity and tweeted: "Fake Image Exposed #Takfir Supporters Were Spreading This Pic to Blame Shias But this Pic is From #Karachi 2009." Journalist Taha Siddiqui tweeted about a news page on the Pakistani social network Pring sharing "brutal pics from elsewhere in world, claiming them to be from #Rawalpindi". The government has now ordered a crackdown on those seeking to "propagate sectarianism via social media or mobile phones", the Express Tribune Reports. With smartphone use widespread, images of unfolding events quickly fill social media networks. While many are genuine, it is not uncommon for a picture depicting something else entirely to be passed off as documenting a protest, a natural disaster or other event. BBC News receives photos every day from people across the world, many purporting to show unfolding events. Trushar Barot, of the BBC's user generated content team, says there are two aspects to verifying whether images are genuine - technical checks and editorial judgement. "There are several tools we use to help us assess image data, including whether an image is an original or whether it has been manipulated digitally. We'll also look for visual clues that we can cross reference, for example the weather, the location, number plates, signs, language and so on. We do reverse image searches to see if the images appear elsewhere on the web to help us track their origin. "Editorially, we'll start from a point of scepticism, posing the question 'Is this image too good to be true?' We'll analyse the context of the image and the motives behind why it might have been uploaded on the web at that time. We will also seek to cross-reference what the image purports to show against official or verified sources, such as news agencies or with our own teams on the ground."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-24956762

Edited November 24, 2013 by Tridimity

[StringJunky]

Even with the best of intentions news will always be biased in some way from any given source so it's best to have two or three sources I think and observe where they agree. I use the BBC and Reuters websites because they seem to present news in a relatively dry sort of way with the minimum of judgemental tone which is important when disseminating news. The BBC's default initial position of scepticism, mentioned above, is the right one if one wants to try to present news transparently and also good practice to help prevent being used as a vehicle to promote someone else's possibly ill-intentioned agenda.

Edited November 24, 2013 by StringJunky

[Tridimity]

Thanks StringJunky, I agree, I mostly rely on the BBC for news updates - I too like the way in which they present factual accounts and keep the subjective interpretations/moral overtones to a minimum. Sky tends to be too shouty and too much like a pantomime for my tastes - they tend to present a lot of news features and commentary as well which, although valuable, I would rather seek out at leisure than have forced upon me in the morning when I am just waking up to check if the Earth is still spinning, how the economy is doing and if we are about to be hit by an asteroid.

 

However, even when the content is kept to the dry basics, it is near impossible for any of us viewers to be able to verify the 'facts' that we are led to believe are true.

[michel123456]

From my little experience a good way to receive News is "believe nothing".

There is a kind of a hurry that pushes journalists or common people to spread news before anyone else. i guess news are for sale so its just a part of the economic system. Too bad, because the first information is the one that makes a point. Even when completely false, the wrong info will continue circulate sometimes for years.

 

What happen also is that you may NOT be informed. There are filters. the same people who decide to inform you of this or that decide also to not inform you.

Edited November 24, 2013 by michel123456

[Tridimity]

What happen also is that you may NOT be informed. There are filters. the same people who decide to inform you of this or that decide also to not inform you.

 

 

That's true. A lot of people also do not recognise the difference between 'no data have been found that support X' and 'data have been found that do not support X'. The former remains true even if the search for the necessary data has not been performed! Switch 'data' with 'sources' and the same is applicable to news reporting.

 

[Ed: Oh but Sky News has Stephen Dixon as presenter which makes it immensely watchable]

 

Edited November 24, 2013 by Tridimity

[StringJunky]

Tridimity, on 24 Nov 2013 - 6:17 PM, said:

 

That's true. A lot of people also do not recognise the difference between 'no data have been found that support X' and 'data have been found that do not support X'. The former remains true even if the search for the necessary data has not been performed! Switch 'data' with 'sources' and the same is applicable to news reporting.

 

[Ed: Oh but Sky News has Stephen Dixon as presenter which makes it immensely watchable]

 

The important thing, when absorbing information, is to filter out distractions and irrelevant data.

[Tridimity]

The important thing, when absorbing information, is to filter out distractions and irrelevant data.

 

Tell me the world is ending in a smooth enough voice and I probably won't mind

[John Cuthber]

A good place to start is; don't watch fox news.

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

[Tridimity]

The Young Turks do a pretty good job of dismantling Fox News

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlhSyB7ouJ8

[overtone]

Misinformation (including lying by omission) is seldom random, and when random is quickly either descent into muddle or in conflict with facts at hand.

 

If one is fortunate enough to have a good memory, that handles the large majority of falsehood and deception - on the one hand it's almost impossible to keep falsehood both coherent and in agreement with events over extended periods of time and attention, on the other a few common situations supply us with the bulk of the falsity in the public arena, and they follow seemingly inevitable and after a while routinely familiar, nonrandom, patterns.

[Tridimity]

If one is fortunate enough to have a good memory, that handles the large majority of falsehood and deception

 

 

This is made more difficult by the likes of the Conservative Party in the UK who have recently deleted from online archives their speeches and press releases dating from 2000-2010 - in an attempt, as some perceive it, to prevent people from checking if their pre-election promises match up with the reality of a Tory government.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185

[StringJunky]

Tridimity, on 25 Nov 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

 

This is made more difficult by the likes of the Conservative Party in the UK who have recently deleted from online archives their speeches and press releases dating from 2000-2010 - in an attempt, as some perceive it, to prevent people from checking if their pre-election promises match up with the reality of a Tory government.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185

The actions of a government that knows it's buggered and wading in the ethical mire to find a solution