
Daniel Radcliffe and the Art of the Fact-Check (2018) - Tomte
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/daniel-radcliffe-and-the-art-of-the-fact-check
======
conroy
I'm not sure why, but I really enjoyed this piece. I wouldn't have thought
that smaller articles, such as restaurant reviews, would go through a fact-
check at an outfit the size of the New Yorker.

And yet, it's a good thing it did! Wouldn't want people to think the
grasshoppers are fried or that the guac is seasoned with adobo.

~~~
reificator
Agreed, I really enjoyed it.

I only clicked for name recognition, but it could have been an actor I've
never heard of and the story would have been just as interesting.

------
dmix
This is a hard job, I respect anyone who has to do this.

I've seen so many wrong or questionable answers on Snopes where I wouldn't
trust it as a blind yes/somewhat/no answer anymore, without closely reading
the explanation. Which is very worrying considering some people have been
pushing these services as a solution to "fake news". Consumers should aways
have the option of reading the paragraphs, maybe via inline warnings instead
of silencing it by scrubbing it from the news feeds.

That said I've also noticed people in general are getting better at arguing
and positioning their points. Twitter and other social media are generating
huge amount of well-trained debaters (and expert tier complainers) who know
how to present information and facts effectively and calling other people out
for it too.

Edit: the sublinked article about the Fact-checking book which inspired the
play is also excellent: [https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-art-
of-fact-...](https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-art-of-fact-
checking)

~~~
dwd
It sounds like the New Yorker has it down to a fine art as much as possible.

\- Identify every statement that could be construed as a fact

\- Formulate a simple yes/no question for each one

\- Verify with a quick phone call asking trusted source each question in turn

And just don't skip on the process no matter how insignificant or seemingly
obvious as there is no room for error in the current environment.

------
jfengel
I bet we've all experienced the bit in a movie or TV show where they're
portraying your job and go, "It's not even slightly like that." I bet
everybody in every profession gets that. Usually the problem is at the writing
stage, or perhaps in the directing.

Sometimes the goal is to seem real to a general audience, even when the
writer/director/actor knows better. Audiences wouldn't want to see the job of
a programmer; it's deathly dull even when we're doing "exciting" things. I
prefer to handwave over such things: if it's not exciting to look at, then
just don't depict it rather than fictionalize it. If the story has to go
through a moment like that, get a better story.

I appreciate that Radcliffe is here mimicking some of the dull, prosaic work.
It's kinda neat to see an actor be excited to momentarily be somebody else.
It's a great feeling on stage to be able to convey some of that to an
audience.

------
subpixel
Interesting fact: Steve Martin married the fact-checker of his New Yorker
pieces in the late 90s.

------
Cenk
The accompaniying podcast episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour is also great:
[https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/daniel-radcliffe-gets-
his-...](https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/daniel-radcliffe-gets-his-facts-
straight)

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
I wish there was some kind of browser extension and wiki-esque community by
which I could underline checkable facts online like the editor did in this
piece. Like a "[citation needed]" tag on wikipedia, but everywhere.

------
Kecelij
Hah, cheeky bastid.

