Hacker News Reader

Comment by almosthere | Hacker News Reader

The larger story is everywhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDWWDyckVxk

This hit the news a few weeks ago. Nick's coverage is a specific branch that has not been covered yet.

I also asked you early on in our discussion which journalist you would trust, and you did not answer. I like Nick Shirley, and I don't think he does bad faith reporting. If that sentence makes you want to leave the conversation, then congrats, just another leftist that does not want to engage on the arguments. I answered your question, now you answer mine.

View on HN

> I like Nick Shirley, and I don't think he does bad faith reporting.

This seems to be where we're at then. Is your position that the specifics of Shirley's activities (reported by Reuters) are

   1) things that did happen or
   2) things that didn't happen?

Reuters ref: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pro-trump-influencers-fire-...

I'm not big on gotchas btw. I'm obvious with my intent because it's productive.

Disclosure that I am a recovering conservative.

> I also asked you early on in our discussion which journalist you would trust, and you did not answer.

Anyone at Techdirt. Joseph Cox and likely anyone at 404 Media. April Glaser, Marcy Wheeler, Elizabeth Nolan Brown (mostly editor now). Others (not coming to mind atm).

Thank you for both replies. I have been hit hard with work (I'm building my own house and work full time) so it's been hard to formulate a response and research. What I was going to do is try to email all of these journalists and ask for their honest opinion about the story. That's it.

A good faith journalist can put out high or low quality content, mostly depending on their wisdom and skill.

But a content creator operating in bad faith - all they can do is craft counterproductive, toxic narratives¹.

Before asking others to consume Shirley's content, fully determine that Shirley is acting in good faith. Besides being kind, it's also due diligence.

    ¹(by cherry picking unrelated facts, by disingenuously tying those facts together, by innuendo, by debunked research and by supporting all of it with other bad faith content)

I think you have interest in knowing what reporting is trustworthy and what is not. I'd like to showcase what good-faith journalism looks like.

It's an episode where This American Life got it wrong; they aired a story that wasn't truthful as delivered.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/460/retraction

This episode details what happened when factual errors were brought to their attention. It's what good-faith journalists do and I think you'll recognize that.

Going forward:

     When a story generates a strong response in you,
     I urge you to consider whether the source of that story
     can be trusted to perform good faith journalism,
     (comparable to what's done in the TAL link above).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com