This stuff matters when the business involves pissing people off. Don't volunteer to write for this organization unless and until they work out the liability issue.
There's no precise way to measure journalistic credibility - but it's clear they've been hit hard by the trends of technology.
I started forming this opinion on an article that re-hashed the story of Flynn being fired, but in such a poorly edited way with so much bluster that I literally couldn't understand what the actual facts were it was trying to convey. Fortunately, the article linked to the WaPo story it was based on, and I was able to understand from there.
I wish I could find that story now, but unfortunately I couldn't. But I found this one in my browser history, which I think shows the issues I have with it:
The headline is big and blustery, which is why I associate it with clickbait. Then the first paragraph explains: "it has been reported". That is, the Independent isn't doing the primary research itself; it finds other articles and amplifies them. There's a bunch of sites that do this and it frustrate me, since the original article usually is a little more nuanced. The whole game here is to pick an article and make it more juicy.
Compare the headline of the Guardian article which this one is "amplifying":
> British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia. Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015
with the Independent's take on the same story:
> 'Concrete evidence of collusion between Trump team and Russia' handed to official investigation. New evidence comes as sources reveal British spy agency GCHQ played pivotal role in uncovering interactions between US President and Russian operatives
It's the same story. The first paragraph of the Independent article uses the "has been reported" phrasing, and the second links to the Guardian article it's based on.
On top of that, the Independent article itself has boneheaded phrasing like:
> "a source allegedly told the Guardian."
The underlying Guardian article talks about "alleged conversations", but now we get to the Independent, and now on top of that we have "alleged sources"! How far away are we from what really happened here? I mean, I guess I'm glad they're not saying "a source told The Guardian" since they don't really have proof of that, but that's a weird thing to be strict about, and really just indicates how worthless this 2nd hand reporting style is anyway.
So I basically ignore the Independent now whenever I see it come up. I didn't realize they were supposed to be one of the "good" ones.
Is it just me that finds it's amusing that you came to a conclusion based off of feelings and conjecture than hard evidence? You know given the subject matter. Not disputing your points it just tickled me.
Council of Europe includes (almost) the entire Europe (with Belarus and disputed Kosovo currently being the only countries which are not a part of it).
should we expect Britain to join them soon?! Imagine one day Belarus will be more democratic than UK. It's incorrect to say that Britain doesn't have a constitution, they have one, it's non-official manual, you know the one that bears title of a year 33 years ago.
Nobody ever claimed that. In fact, that's the very exact Council that the UK had to notify about its intention to leave the EU.
EDIT: Theresa May did claim that her campaign in 2020 would focus on that. So, they're not leaving it for three years at least.
Similar name, big difference.
Even more fun: there is also the Council of the European Union.
Won't be a campaign in 2020 since she announced a snap election a few weeks ago for June 8th, next likely election is then 2021 unless she just votes her self Leader for Life or something in the interim.
So far as I am aware (I am not an attorney) none of those institutions indemnifies voluntary contributors.
Wow, that liability is enough to keep me from participating.
Where do you get "for-profit" from? They can be a non-profit but still need money. But yeah, they should be explicit about that. Also, volunteers do part of the work.
Well, if so, they have a lot of company: https://goo.gl/zfz0pp
The entire document is all over the web. If it gets off the ground I would expect it to be updated.
This might be the original: http://secureglobalpay.net/site/support-resources/sample-ter...
This seems to want to be just another news outlet, except with a weird business model.
If it was just a link aggregator, now, that could be useful IMO. I don't know of a general solution to finding the best articles (there are usually multiple versions of the same article on the same topic, but some are better than others).
*Substitute any newspaper with high journalistic standards.
Apparently the actual staff of the NY Times are under no illusions about the even-handedness of their own work. And that was written over a decade ago. I'm not sure how you'd objectively define high standards or trustworthiness except in a circular manner.
>> I'm not sure how you'd objectively define high standards or trustworthiness except in a circular manner.
Firstly, the examples of bias in that link you provided don't affect trustworthiness. Second, I'm not sure how you might define those terms, but one way to measure a trustworthy publication would be to ask people if they trust it. In other words, you would be measuring its reputation.
Influential editors burying stories that don't serve their personal political agendas and the like.
Other than the fact that WikiTribune will use actual journalists doing original reporting? Wikinews just summarizes current events.
> suddenly Wikipedia changes the rules to forbid trivia section to boot his for profit offspring
What evidence do you have for this? Conspiracy theorists love making outlandish claims they can't substantiate at all.
Not true. It has original reporting, too.
I wrote an original reporting article for Wikinews once.
Search for trivia eg on this page:
It of course not easy to point to older events with a still working link, when 1) Wikipedia deletes it's own history, 2) Wikipedia and trivia are such common words it's hard to find, 3) even news sites change so much.
> Wikipedia deletes it's own history
Only for copyright violations and offensive vandalism. It never has for anything else, but of course you won't back this claim up either and will make up more excuses.
Conspiracy theorists just dig themselves further and further into a hole, to the point where everything else is also a conspiracy against them getting their "truth" out.